City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
Results of the noise analysis show Project operational noise levels would not exceed these standards. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
The Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearest off-site receiver to evaluate the ambient operational noise level increases in the Project area. As shown in the Table below, he Project will generate daytime and nighttime operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 0.2 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations.10 Table 7
Project Operational Noise Level Increases
Receiver
Location
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level
Measurement
Location
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels
Combined
Project
and
Ambient
Project
Increase
Increase
Criteria
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 40.1 L2 63.3 63.3 0.0 3 No
R2 35.2 L1 48.0 48.2 0.2 5 No
R3 34.5 L4 60.0 60.0 0.0 3 No
R4 35.9 L3 51.3 51.4 0.1 5 No
R5 34.0 L3 51.3 51.4 0.1 5 No
As described above, for a noise level increase to be considered substantial, a project would need to increase ambient noise levels by more than 5 dBA CNEL if existing conditions are less than 60 dBA CNEL, more than 3 dBA CNEL if existing conditions are 60-65 dBA CNEL, and more than 1.5 dBA CNEL if existing conditions are greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Therefore, Project-related operational ambient noise level increases will be well below these thresholds, will not be perceptible, and Impacts are considered less than significant.
Transportation Noise
On-Site Transportation Noise
The primary source of exterior transportation noise affecting the Project site is anticipated to be from SR-62/Twentynine Palms Highway. According to the noise analysis, and per the City’s General Plan land use compatibility standards, noise levels of up to 65 dBA CNEL are “acceptable” for residential districts. Results of the noise analysis indicate that the Project building façade nearest to SR-62 is anticipated to experience an unmitigated exterior noise level of 59.9 dBA CNEL, which does not exceed the land use compatibility noise thresholds.
To evaluate interior transportation noise impacts, the noise analysis relies on the acceptable 45 dBA CNEL interior noise limit for new construction. A noise level greater than 57 CNEL at a building façade will require a windows-closed condition and would require mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). Since the Project 10 Table 10-5: Daytime Project Operational Nosie Level Increases and Table 10-6: Nighttime Project Operational Nosie Level Increase, Project Noise Study. See Appendix G of this Initial Study.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
would experience an unmitigated exterior noise level of 59.9 dBA CNEL and will be providing air conditioning on all units, offices, and meeting spaces, to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard for interior uses, standard windows with minimum STC ratings of 27 for all windows will suffice, and the interior noise level standards would be met. Therefore, no mitigation is required to assure that interior noise level impacts are below the City’s threshold, and impacts will be less than significant.
Off-Site Transportation Noise
According to the Project traffic study, the Project is anticipated to generate a maximum of 894 external vehicle trip-ends per day with 53 external AM peak vehicle hour trips and 58 external PM peak hour vehicle trips, which would represent an incremental increase to the 25,300 existing average daily traffic volume on SR-62. The noise study determined that the increase to the existing daily traffic on Lear Avenue north of Cactus Drive would not be perceptible due to the dominant traffic noise generated by SR-62. Due to the low traffic volumes generated by the Project and the dominant noise source of existing traffic on SR62, the off-site traffic noise impacts are considered less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Groundborne vibration would produce groundborne noise, which is often described as a rumbling sound. During construction of the proposed Project, ground-borne vibration and/or ground-borne noise would be generated, which could be felt by adjacent land uses. Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type.
The noise analysis used the vibration assessment methods defined by the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
The same five receiver locations described above were used to analyze vibrationrelated impacts. Based on the City’s maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.2 PPV (in/sec), the noise analysis found that typical Project construction vibration levels would not exceed the thresholds at all receiver locations, as shown in the Table below.
Table 8
Construction Vibration Levels
Receiver
Distance
to
Const.
Activity
(Feet)
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec) Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)
Thresholds
Exceeded? Small
bulldozer Jackhammer Loaded
Trucks
Large
bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 514' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.20 No
R2 652' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.20 No
R3 918' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.20 No
R4 612' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.20 No
R5 895' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.20 No
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
It is expected that ground-borne vibration from project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion due to heavy construction equipment and trucks, at levels well below the threshold. The City will require that construction activity comply with Section § 19.80.100 of the Municipal Code, which limits construction activity to hours during the less sensitive daytime hours. These requirements will assure that short-term ground-borne vibration impacts will be less than significant. Long-term operation of the project is not expected to generate ground-borne vibrations or noise. Impacts will be less than significant. c) No Impact. The Project site is located approximately 11 miles west of the Palm Twentynine Palms Airport and outside of existing and modeled future airport noise contours. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required.
Mitigation Measures: None.
Monitoring: None.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/ Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Southern California Association of Government, “Pre-Certified Local Housing Data for the City of Twentynine Palms”, (updated 2021); Southern California Association of Governments, “Current Context Demographics and Growth Forecast” (2020).
Environmental Setting
In 2023, Twentynine Palms was estimated to have a population size of approximately 28,734. 11The household size is a mix of single- and multi-family homes. 32.2% of households consist of 2 people, and 25% of households consist of one person. The City has a total of 9,681 housing units, of which 8,749 units are occupied, equating to a 9.6% vacancy rate. 12 The City’s population size is expected to increase to approximately 33,300 by 2045.13
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The construction of the Project would result in a resort in which 100 units, 25 employee housing units, and complementary amenities will be located on approximately 42 acres. The local population is expected to fulfill the Project’s employee needs. The Project will require roadway improvements along Lear Avenue and Sullivan Road, however these roadways are part of the City’s existing circulation system and planned buildout, and are not considered expansions of the existing circulation system. Therefore, no population growth will be generated as a result of the Project’s development. For this reason, less than significant impact will occur.
11 U.S. Census Bureau, Twentynine Palms City,
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/twentyninepalms/. 12 Southern California Association of Government, Pre-Certified Local Housing Data for the City of Twentynine Palms, Updated April 2021.
13 Southern California Association of Government, Current Context Demographics and Growth Forecast, Sept. 2020.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
b) No Impact. The site’s existing condition is undeveloped and vacant. There are no homes or communities located on-site which would otherwise be displaced by the Project. Since no relocation is occurring, the construction of replacement housing is not required. Overall, the Project will not displace or relocate homes. No impacts will occur.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Monitoring: None required.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/ Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
Sources: City of Twentynine Palms General Plan; Google Earth; Online Resources; Project materials.
Environmental Setting
Fire Protection
The San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCoFD) is responsible for fire protection within the City. SBCoFD operates 67 fire stations in 24 cities and covers approximately 19,278 square miles in the County. SBCoFD has a staff of about 1,017 county firefighting personnel and 654 fire suppression personnel available during each 24-hour period. The nearest fire station is Station# 44 at 6560 Adobe Road, located 5.1 miles east of the Project site.
Police Protection
The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department is responsible for law enforcement in the City. A local police station operates out of City Hall at 6135 Adobe Road. The main police station is located at 6527 White Feather Road in Joshua Tree, approximately 7.2 miles west of the Project site.
Schools
The City and the Project are located within the boundaries of the Morongo Unified School District (MUSD), which provides public school facilities to accommodate students. The MUSD currently operates eighteen schools within its district, which stretches beyond Twentynine Palms to Yucca Valley and Morongo Valley. The nearest MUSD school, Twentynine Palms High School, is located approximately 3.9 miles northeast of the Project site.
Parks
There are a total of four existing parks (i.e. Bucklin Park, Luckie Park, Knott’s Sky Park, and Veteran’s Park) in the City. Pioneer Park is planned, but not yet constructed. The City’s other major recreational facilities include Theatre 29, the Senior Community Center, Parks and Recreation Community Services Building, and Parks and Recreation Administration Building.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
Discussion of Impacts
Fire Protection
Less than Significant Impact. Although the addition of new structures has the potential to increase fire department calls, the Project is consistent with planned growth in the area, and will add single story structures similar in mass and scale to the residential development that would occur under the current Land Use and Zoning designation. In addition, the development plans for the Project will be reviewed by the Fire Department so that they meet Fire Code, and access and circulation requirements to assure that the Department can access all structures on-site. The Project will also generate transient occupancy and property taxes for the City, which will provide revenue to offset additional service costs. The proposed Project will comply with the California Fire Code and regulations of the County Fire Department to reduce fire protection impacts to less than significant levels.
Police Protection
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project could potentially increase the number of police service calls due to an increase in onsite hotel guests, employees, and visitors. Based on the type and intensity of the proposed uses, the Project would not require the construction of new or expanded police station facilities. Project site plans would be reviewed by the Police Department, and the Project will be required to meet standard safety requirements. The Project will also generate transient occupancy and property taxes for the City, which will provide revenue to offset additional service costs.
Impacts associated with police protection are expected to be less than significant.
Schools:
Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not propose any separate residential uses and therefore would not directly generate additional demand for schools. On-site employee housing and is unlikely to generate new demand for schools, since employees would have single residency access, not family access. While the Project could generate a small number of jobs, these jobs are expected to be mostly filled by existing residents of the area, and thus would not generate significant additional demand on school resources. As required by State law, the Project will be required to pay school impact fees, which are specifically designed to mitigate the impacts to schools caused by new development. Impacts would be less than significant.
Parks/Other Public Facilities
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed hotel will not induce substantial population growth. Parks, libraries and other public services are not expected to experience a significant increase in demand as a result of the Project, and no resulting physical impacts are expected to occur to these facilities, because the Project will provide hotel rooms, not permanent housing, and hotel guests are not expected to use recreational facilities due to the on-site recreation provided at the Project. The proposed development would not warrant the construction of new or expanded facilities, and environmental impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None.
Monitoring: None.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/ Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
X
Sources: Google Earth; City of Twentynine Palms General Plan.
Environmental Setting
The City of Twentynine Palms has 175 acres of recreational facilities made up of parks, special use areas and passive use areas provided by different sources including the City of Twentynine Palms and the Morongo School District. The City also enjoys access to the Joshua Tree National Park and a number of hiking trails, including the Indian Cove Boy Scout Trail and Fortynine Palms Oasis. Parks in the project area include Knox Sky Park (3.4 miles east) and Bucklin Park (4.8 miles east).
Discussion of Impacts
a, b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project will provide on-site recreational amenities to its guests, including swimming pool, outdoor movie screen, open space areas for outdoor activities, and lodges. New jobs created by the Project are expected to be filled by people already living in the area or future residents coming to the area as part of expected growth. The proposed Project does not propose to add significant new numbers of people that would require recreation facilities. Therefore, the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
Since the Project proposes on-site recreational facilities, and all potential impacts have been assessed in this ISMND and found to be less than significant with mitigation, the Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None.
Monitoring: None.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/ Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES-- Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe
X
Source: Twentynine Palms General Plan (2012); Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report – Twentynine Palms Ofland Hospitality Glamping Resort Project, prepared by CRM TECH January 24, 2024.
Environmental Setting
The Mojave Desert, including the City of Twentynine Palms have been home to the Serrano and the Chemehuevi Native Americans for centuries. Today, most Serrano descendants are affiliated with the San Manuel and the Morongo Indian Reservations, while the Chemehuevi are divided among the Chemehuevi, the Colorado River, and the Morongo Reservations.
The City and surrounding areas contain significant cultural resources to the Native American people which are considered non-renewable resources because they provide important information about the past and are of high cultural value to the tribes.
Discussion of Impacts
a, b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. On September 29, 2023, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission’s Sacred Lands File.
CRM TECH also contacted the nearby Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians by electronic mail for additional information on potential Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity and to coordinate with the Twentynine Palms Band on Native American participation in the upcoming archaeological field survey.
The NAHC responded to CRM TECH in a letter dated November 21, 2023, stating that the Sacred Lands File identified no Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity. Noting that the absence of specific information would not
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
necessarily establish the absence of such resources, however, the NAHC recommended that local Native American groups be consulted for further information and provided a referral list of 27 individuals associated with 14 local Native American groups.
The Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians offered no comments in response to CRM TECH, and tribal monitors were not available to participate in CRM TECH’s field surveys.
The City completed Tribal Consultation in conformance with AB 52 requirements.
The consultation resulted in the request for a Tribal monitor during site disturbing activities, consistent with Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, above. With implementation of these measures, impacts to Tribal cultural resources will be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures: See Section V. Cultural Resources
Monitoring: See Section V. Cultural Resources
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/ Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Sources: City of Twentynine Palms General Plan; Google Earth; Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, December 2018; Traffic Study Policy, City Council adoption February 22, 2005; San Bernardino County Transit Authority City VMT Guidance Checklist, 2021; Yonder 29 Palms Traffic Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, April 20, 2024; Yonder 29 Palms Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Evaluation, prepared by Urban Crossroads, November 7, 2023.
Environmental Setting
The primary east-west corridors in the Project vicinity is the SR-62/Twentynine Palms Highway, classified as an Expressway and located immediately north of the site’s boundary. The north-south access to the Project is Lear Avenue, classified as a Collector14, and located immediately west of the site.
The Project is located on the southeast corner of Lear Avenue and SR-62. Currently, potential access points from Lear Avenue and Sullivan Road are unpaved, dirt roads. In addition to the development of the hotel, the Project is proposing the construction and improvement of Lear Avenue, in accordance with Collector standards to functions as a connection between SR-62 and Sullivan Road. Sullivan Road will also be paved to service the site as a two-lane roadway with a Local roadway classification from Lear Avenue to the employee housing access drive.
The General Plan requires that traffic flow on new streets be maintained at level of service (LOS) C or better according to Implementation Policy CI-1.1. The City’s VMT Policy establishes that there is no standard for LOS on existing streets. Caltrans strives to maintain LOS D on State highways, including SR-62.
Urban Crossroad prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix H) and Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Evaluation (Appendix I) for the proposed Project. The analyses have been prepared in accordance with the City of Twentynine Palms Traffic Study Policy 14 Twentynine Palms General Plan “Circulation Element”, Exhibit CI-1, 2012.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
(2021), Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-07, and the adoption of SB743, Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy Guidance Staff Report. In addition, the Project’s trip-generation is derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 11th Edition.
From the report, the Project is expected to generate a total of 894 trip-ends per day. The land-use designations used to describe the site were Glamping Units and Food and Beverage. The level of service (LOS) analysis study area evaluated 5 intersections as shown in Table 9.
Table 9
Intersection Analysis Locations
ID Intersection
1 Lear Av./Twentynine Palms Hwy
2 Monte Vista Av./ Twentynine Palms Hwy
3 Lear Av./ Cactus Av.
4 Lear Av./ Sullivan Rd.
5 Lear Av./N. Project Access
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation.
On-Site Improvements
The following recommendations are provided in the Traffic Analysis and based on the minimum improvements needed to based on City standards to accommodate site access and maintain acceptable peak hour operations for the proposed Project (Mitigation Measure TRA-1).
Lear Avenue & North Project Access (#5)
• Install a stop control on the westbound approach.
• Provide a westbound shared left-right turn lane.
Lear Avenue & Sullivan Road / South Project Access (#4) • Install a stop control on the southbound approach.
• Provide a westbound shared through-right turn lane.
In addition, the Project is to construct the following site-adjacent roadways:
• Construct Lear Avenue along the site’s westerly edge to its ultimate halfsection plus 10 feet of pavement west of the centerline as a Collector between Twentynine Palms Highway (SR-62) and Sullivan Road. • Construct Sullivan Road along the site’s southerly edge to its ultimate halfsection plus 10 feet of pavement south of the centerline as a Local Street between Lear Avenue and the South Project Access.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented consistent with the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site.
Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Twentynine Palms sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.
Existing (2023) Traffic Conditions in the Project’s Vicinity The Project site is currently undeveloped and vacant. No traffic is being generated from the site. The intersections within the Project’s vicinity are operating within the City’s LOS C minimum requirement. Table 10 identifies LOS for current intersection operations, and includes future intersections proposed by the Project.
Table 10
Existing (2023) Intersection Conditions
Study Intersections Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hours PM Peak Hours
Delays2 LOS3 Delay LOS
1 Lear Av./Twentynine Palms Hwy TS 18.6 B 18.4 B
2 Monte Vista Av./ Twentynine Palms Hwy CSS 17.5 C 19.9 C 3 Lear Av./ Cactus Dr. Future Intersection
4 Lear Av./Sullivan Rd. Future Intersection
5 Lear Av./N. Project Access Future Intersection
Source: Table 3-1: Intersection Analysis for Existing (2023) Conditions, prepared by Urban Crossroads, April 2024.
TS= Traffic Signals; CSS= Cross-street Stops 2Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersection with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movement sharing a single lane) are shown
3LOS= Level of Service
Project Trip Generation
The Project proposes the development of a resort in which 100 units, 25 employee housing units, and complementary amenities including a food and beverage space, main and secondary lodges for special events and communal gathering, an outdoor movie screen, and a stargazing area will be provided within a 152-acres parcel. The Project is anticipated to generate 894 external vehicle trip-ends per day with 54 external AM peak vehicle hours trips and 62 external PM peak hours vehicle trips, based on the hotel units and assuming that the food and beverage facilities would be open to the public.
Traffic Analysis
The cumulative traffic analyses are based on the following traffic conditions:
• Existing 2023
• Ambient growth (4.04%)
• Cumulative Development Traffic
• Project traffic
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
The traffic controls assumed to be in place for Existing Plus Project conditions are shown in the Table below. There are no study area intersections that are anticipated to operate at a deficient LOS for Existing Plus Project traffic conditions.
Table 11
Existing Plus Project Intersection Conditions
Study Intersections Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hours PM Peak Hours
Delays2 LOS3 Delay LOS
1 Lear Av./Twentynine Palms Hwy TS 18.7 B 18.5 B
2 Monte Vista Av./ Twentynine Palms Hwy CSS 18.1 C 21.9 C 3 Lear Av./Cactus Dr. CSS 8.6 A 8.6 A
4 Lear Av./Sullivan Rd. CSS 8.5 A 8.5 A
5 Lear Av./ N. Project Access CSS 8.4 A 8.5 A
Source: Table 5-1: Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions, prepared by Urban Crossroads, April 2024.
TS= Traffic Signals; CSS= Cross-street Stops 2Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersection with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movement sharing a single lane) are shown
3LOS= Level of Service
The study also studied Cumulative (2025) traffic in conjunction with the addition of Project traffic. This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 4.04% plus traffic from pending and approved but not yet constructed known development projects in the area. The analysis assumes that Project roadway improvements are constructed, including a shared left/through lane at Lear Avenue and Cactus Avenue. As shown in Table 12, the study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS under Cumulative (2025) Plus Project traffic conditions.
Table 12
Cumulative (2025) Plus Project Traffic Conditions
Study Intersections Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hours PM Peak Hours
Delays2 LOS3 Delay LOS
1 Lear Av./Twentynine Palms Hwy TS 19.0 B 19.2 B
2 Monte Vista Av./ Twentynine Palms Hwy CSS 21.6 C 26.4 D 3 Lear Av./Cactus Dr. CSS 8.6 A 8.6 A
4 Lear Av./Sullivan Rd. CSS 8.5 A 8.5 A
5 Lear Av./ N. Project Access CSS 8.4 A 8.5 A
Source: Table 6-2: Intersection Analysis for Cumulative (2025) Plus Project Conditions, prepared by Urban Crossroads, April 2024.
TS= Traffic Signals; CSS= Cross-street Stops 2Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersection with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movement sharing a single lane) are shown
3LOS= Level of Service
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
The tables above indicate that with the proposed roadway improvements, Project area intersections will operate at acceptable levels. Impacts associated with maintaining consistency with applicable policies will therefore be less than significant.
To analyze the impacts of the Project GPA on the City’s street system, an analysis of conditions in 2045 (anticipated General Plan build out) was conducted. The analysis found that the GPA would result in an increase in traffic of 423 trips per day (Table 7-1 of Appendix H). The analysis first considered the 2045 conditions without the Project, and found acceptable conditions, with improvements consistent with General Plan build out standards. Specifically, the addition of southbound left and right turn lanes on Lear Avenue north of SR-62, as shown in the Table below.
Table 13
2045 Without Project Traffic Conditions
Study Intersections Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hours PM Peak Hours
Delays2 LOS3 Delay LOS
1 Lear Av./Twentynine Palms Hwy
Without Improvements
With Improvements
TS
TS
32.8 28.7
D
C
>80
37.3 F
D
2 Monte Vista Av./ Twentynine Palms Hwy CSS 33.6 C 32.7 D 3 Lear Av./Cactus Dr. CSS 8.6 A 8.7 A
4 Lear Av./Sullivan Rd. CSS 8.6 A 8.7 A
5 Lear Av./ N. Project Access CSS 8.5 A 8.5 A
Source: Table 7-2: Intersection Analysis for 2045 Without Project Conditions, prepared by Urban Crossroads, April 2024.
TS= Traffic Signals; CSS= Cross-street Stops 2Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersection with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movement sharing a single lane) are shown
3LOS= Level of Service
When the increase in traffic projected for the GPA is added to with Project conditions, and assuming the same improvements described above, LOS conditions remain acceptable at all studied intersections, as shown in Table 14.
Therefore, the GPA will have less than significant impacts on traffic policy at build out of the General Plan.
Table 14
2045 With Project Traffic Conditions
Study Intersections Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hours PM Peak Hours
Delays2 LOS3 Delay LOS
1 Lear Av./Twentynine Palms Hwy
Without Improvements
With Improvements
TS
TS
33.6 29.6
D
C
>80
37.5 F
D
2 Monte Vista Av./ Twentynine Palms Hwy CSS 33.8 C 32.7 D 3 Lear Av./Cactus Dr. CSS 8.6 A 8.6 A
4 Lear Av./Sullivan Rd. CSS 8.5 A 8.5 A
5 Lear Av./ N. Project Access CSS 8.4 A 8.5 A
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
Table 14
2045 With Project Traffic Conditions
Study Intersections Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hours PM Peak Hours
Delays2 LOS3 Delay LOS
Source: Table 7-3: Intersection Analysis for 2045 With Project Conditions, prepared by Urban Crossroads, April 2024.
TS= Traffic Signals; CSS= Cross-street Stops 2Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersection with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movement sharing a single lane) are shown
3LOS= Level of Service
Alternative Transportation Plan
The Morongo Basin Transit Agency (MBTA) provides public transit services to all of the Morongo Basin which encompasses Twentynine Palms. The MBTA operates four fixed bus routes throughout the City. The closest bus stop to the site is located on the southeast corner of Monte Vista Avenue and Twentynine Palms Hwy, approximately 0.12 miles to the west. A secondary bus stop near the site is located on the northeast corner of Indian Cove Road and Twentynine Palms Hwy, approximately 0.30 miles to the northwest.
The Project will not conflict with the City’s adopted traffic policies. Transit service is reviewed and updated by MBTA periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. Once operational, the Project is not expected to significantly degrade the accessibility to transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, or pedestrian facilities. With the recommended site and site adjacent improvements in place, the Project’s development will result in less than significant impacts. b) Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 sets forth guidelines for implementing Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) which promotes GHG emission reduction, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and diversity of land uses. Amendments to CEQA Guidelines includes the evaluation of a project’s transportation impact based on vehicle miles traveled or VMT metric.
VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel related to a project.
To comply with CEQA, the City of Twentynine Palms adopted analytical procedures, screening tools, and impact thresholds for VMT, which are documented in the City of Twentynine Palms Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-07 (August 2020).
Consistent with City Guidelines, projects should evaluate available screening criteria based on their location and project type to determine if a presumption of a less than significant transportation impact can be made. The Project Type Screening threshold, specifically local serving uses, was selected for review based on its applicability to the proposed Project. Local serving uses can include hotels and resorts that primarily serve visitors to nearby attractions. The introduction of new local-serving projects has been determined to reduce VMT by shortening trips that will occur.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
The VMT analysis prepared for the Project (Appendix I) determined the Project met the Project type screening criteria because the Project offers lodging to visitors of nearby destinations, including the Joshua Tree National Park. Also, the on-site food and beverage uses support to the Project units and provide a new local service for adjacent residents to accommodate their food and beverage needs.
The provision of on-site guest services and lodge facilities shortens nondiscretionary trips by putting those goods and services closer to complimentary land uses, resulting in conditions which do not increase overall VMT. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3. Impacts are less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project makes use of Twentynine Palms Hwy and Lear Avenue, both existing streets, to provide access to the site. The Project proposes the extension and improvement of Lear Avenue and Sullivan Road to provide the primary and secondary access points, respectively. The construction of these roadways will be in accordance with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and applicable standards imposed by the City through conditions of approval. The intersections of these roadways will be at 90 degree angles, and will not increase hazards or limit the line of sight at these locations. Similarly, the access at Sullivan Road will be designed to City standards, and will be required to preserve line of sight. Interior to the Project, the primary driveway is designed in a curvilinear fashion, and will final designs will be required to demonstrate that line of sight is preserved. Vehicle traffic will be limited to the parking lot and main lodge area, and pedestrian, bike or golf cart traffic will occur beyond that location, limiting the vehicular hazards within the Project site. Impacts associated with Project roadway hazards will be less than significant.
d) No Impact. The Project proposes two access points, including the main entrance along Lear Avenue and secondary access along Sullivan Road. All driveways can serve as emergency access routes. Prior to construction, the Fire and Police Departments will review the site plan to ensure safety measures are addressed, including emergency access and vehicle turnaround space. Construction plans will be coordinated with the City and emergency providers, as needed, to assure that emergency access is maintained throughout all stages of development. No impact will occur.
Mitigation Measures:
TRA-1: Site Adjacent and Site Access Improvements
The Project shall adhere to the site adjacent and site access recommendations set forth in the Traffic Impact Analysis.
Lear Avenue & North Project Access (#5)
• Install a stop control on the westbound approach.
• Provide a westbound shared left-right turn lane.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
Lear Avenue & Sullivan Road / South Project Access (#4) • Install a stop control on the southbound approach.
• Provide a westbound shared through-right turn lane.
In addition, the Project is to construct the following site-adjacent roadways:
• Construct Lear Avenue along the site’s westerly edge to its ultimate halfsection plus 10 feet of pavement west of the centerline as a Collector between Twentynine Palms Highway (SR-62) and Sullivan Road. • Construct Sullivan Road along the sites southerly edge to its ultimate halfsection plus 10 feet of pavement south of the centerline as a Local Street between Lear Avenue and the South Project Access.
Monitoring:
TRANS.A All improvement plans for the proposed Project shall be prepared to include the roadway and access improvements cited in Mitigation Measure TRA-1.
Responsible Parties: Project applicant, City Engineer, Planning Department.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/ Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
Source: Twentynine Palms General Plan; Twentynine Palms Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021.
Environmental Setting
Domestic Water (please also see Hydrology and Water Resources) The proposed Project is located within the Twentynine Palms Water District (TPWD) boundaries for domestic water services. The District’s water supply source is 100 percent groundwater produced from District-owned and operated wells. The District provides water service to approximately 6,800 households in their water service area15.
Wastewater Treatment
The only Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in the region is located at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC). The City, including the Project area, does not have a sanitary sewer system and currently operates with septic tanks and projectspecific sewage package plants. The Project proposes an on-site wastewater package plant.
15 Twentynine Palms Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
Flood Control/Drainages
The San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBFCD) is responsible for managing regional drainage within and in the vicinity of Twentynine Palms. The City works with SBFCD to manage local drainages in the City, which are divided between well-defined drainage courses (some have been channelized) and areas of wide sheet flow.
Development that may alter the direction of flow onsite are conditioned per standard City and County practices to maintain the existing site drainage patterns at inlets and outlets.
Solid Waste
Burrtec Waste Industries provides solid waste pick up and disposal, as well as recycling services in the City. Solid waste disposal and landfill siting is managed by the County of San Bernardino, Solid Waste Management Division. The Project will utilize commercial dumpsters for waste removal.
Other Utilities
The electrical energy to the City is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). Natural gas service is provided to the City by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas).
Telephone service is provided by a number of companies, including both land lines and cellular services.
Discussion of Impacts
a-c) Less Than Significant Impact.
Water
The Twentynine Palms Water District (TPWD) will provide water for the Project.
The Project will connect to existing water infrastructure in Lear Avenue, and loop a water line through the Project development area. According to the 2020 Twentynine Palms UWMP, the Twentynine Palms Water District’s (District) projected 2025 water demand is 2,660 AFY, and the projected 2045 water demand is 3,200 AFY (UWMP Table 2-8). The projected 2025 water production is 3,048 AFY, and the projected 2045 water production is 3,660 AFY (UWMP Table 2-9).
The proposed Project’s water demand (33.7 AFY) represents 1.3% of the projected 2025 water demand and 1.05% of the projected 2045 District water supplies. The Project’s projected water demand is well within the District’s projected water supply projections for 2025 and 2045.
Therefore, the Project will not substantially decrease local groundwater supplies.
Buildings will be equipped with water efficient fixtures in compliance with Building Code requirements to reduce water consumption. The Project includes irrigation requirements, including the use of water-efficient fixtures and drought-tolerant landscape materials, which will help reduce water demand over the long term.
Impacts will be less than significant.
Wastewater
Neither the City nor the Twentynine Palms Water District (TPWD) have a municipal sewer system. All development within the proposed Project will be connected to the package plant that will be constructed on-site. To estimate the amount of
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
wastewater generated by the Project, the City’s Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) wastewater generation rate of 175 gallons per day16 was applied to the hotel and employee housing.
An EDU for a hotel is 0.5 EDU per room, or 87.5 gallons per day per hotel room.
The employee housing units are considered 1 EDU each. Per this calculation, 100 hotel units at 87.5 gallons per day, and 25 employee housing units at 175 gallons per day would generate a total of 13,125 gallons of wastewater per day (gpd). The package plant will be designed to treat all of the sewage on-site, and maintain the plant consistent with state law. The proposed treatment plant will be required to meet or exceed RWQCB waste discharge standards, and comply with all local, regional and state regulations relating to waste discharge. As a result of existing law and standard requirements, impacts associated with wastewater will be less than significant.
Stormwater Drainage
The Preliminary Drainage Study determined that the 100-year, 24-hour peak discharge values at the most downstream point for the off-site basin is 487 cfs (cubic feet per second), and runoff would impact the Project site along the southerly boundary of the property. The proposed Project will not discharge into either regional or local drainage systems. Rather, it will manage stormwater onsite. A final hydrologic analysis will be required to demonstrate that the Project meets the City’s standards for on-site stormwater retention (please see Hydrology above). These standard requirements will assure that impacts associated with storm water retention remain less than significant.
Other Utilities
The proposed Project will require construction of on-site electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure to connect to the existing infrastructure located in the Project vicinity. The Project would not result in the construction of new electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities off-site that could cause significant environmental effects.
d,e) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operations-related solid waste from the Project will be collected and disposed by Burrtec, a regional commercial vendor that serves the City by hauling solid waste to transfer and recycling centers and landfills. Trash generated by the project will be hauled to the Twentynine Palms Transfer Station, east of the City, and then transported to Landers Landfill, a regional landfill located approximately 30 miles northwest of the City. Twentynine Palms Transfer Station has a permitted throughput of 1,200 tons per day. Landers Landfill had a remaining capacity of 13,983,500 cubic yards and is estimated to close in 2072.
16 City of Twentynine Palms Schedule of Feeds, amended by City Council June 14, 2022. Sewer Fees.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
Table 15
Estimated Solid Waste Disposal at the Project Buildout
Land Use CIWMB Disposal
Rates Proposed
Solid Waste
Disposal (pounds
per day)
Solid Waste
Disposal (tons
per year)
Residential 12.23
lbs./household/day 25 units 305.75 55.8
Hotel/Motel 2 pounds/dwelling
unit/day 100 rooms 200 36.5
TOTAL 92.3
TOTAL (with 50% diversion) 46.15
*Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates by CalRecycle,
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, Accessed December 2024.
The Project will be required to comply with state law, which requires the reduction of solid waste streams by 50% through recycling of materials. The City and Burrtec will require that the Project provide recycling facilities on-site as part of the trash maintenance system. At buildout, the proposed Project will contribute less than
0.001% of the Landers landfill’s remaining capacity. Commingled recyclable materials (e.g., paper, plastic, glass, cardboard, aluminum) will be transported to Burrtec’s material recovery facilities for recycling and reuse.
Burrtec is responsible for maintaining standards that assure that all waste is handled in a manner that meets local, state and federal standards. These requirements will assure that impacts associated with solid waste disposal remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Monitoring: None required.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/ Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very
high fire hazard severity zones, would the
project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
X
Sources: Twentynine Palms General Plan; Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP) maps, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Environmental Setting
Wildfires can occur in undeveloped areas and spread to urban areas where the landscape and structures are not designed and maintained to be ignition resistant. A wildland-urban interface is an area where urban development is located in proximity to open space or “wildland” areas. The potential for wildland fires represents a hazard where development is adjacent to open space or within close proximity to wildland fuels or designated fire severity zones.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) has mapped areas of significant fire hazards in the state through its Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). These maps place areas of the state into different Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) based on a hazard scoring system using subjective criteria for fuels, fire history, terrain influences, housing density, and occurrence of severe fire weather where urban conflagration could result in catastrophic losses. The subject property is not located in or near a state responsibility area or designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ).
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
According to the General Plan, the site is not located in a fire hazard zone (Exhibit SF-2).
The site is not located adjacent to forested areas, and the site does not support significant vegetation.
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less than Significant Impact. The subject property is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project does not propose major long-term changes to circulation in the Project area other than providing direct access to the subject property. Project construction could result in temporary lane closures or detours, particularly as new driveway and intersection improvements are completed; however, potential disruptions to emergency access would be temporary and coordinated with and approved by the City through the preparation of a traffic management plan. The Project will not alter the physical orientation of the area and would not interfere with the City’s emergency response or evacuation procedures in the event of a wildfire. The Project does not propose changes to existing emergency response facilities or personnel. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, nor is it adjacent to these zones. The foothills of the Little San Bernardino Mountains are located 0.7 miles south of the site, and occupants of the Project may be exposed to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire in the mountains.
However, the Little San Bernardino Mountains are characterized by rocky terrain and sparse vegetation, and wildfire risks have been historically very low. Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is not located within or near a state responsibility area or classified as a Very High Wildfire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of wildfire infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risks or result in adverse environmental impacts. Impacts related to infrastructure are expected to be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site has very low potential for landslide and post-fire slope instability given its generally flat terrain. The Project site is located in flood Zone X, an area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (Map No. 06071C8175H). Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to expose people or structures to significant risks such as downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Monitoring: None required.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/ Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.
Biological Resources
No special status species were detected during the field survey; however, there is the potential for five plant and six wildlife special status species including invertebrates, reptiles, mammals, and birds to occur within the Project’s area. To ensure impacts to special status species are reduced to the greatest extent, the Project will be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 through BIO-5 to protect the desert tortoise, migratory birds, burrowing owl, American badger and pallid San Diego pocket mouse. Additionally, the Project will be required to adhere to any applicable City ordinance regarding the conservation of biological resources and species. In accordance with these standards and mitigation measures, the Project’s development is not expected to pose a significant threat to the native and mitigatory species occupying the wildlife corridor. As such, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
Cultural Resources
The Project is located on a culturally sensitive site, therefore mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 are provided to require the protection of two “Environmentally Sensitive Areas” which are located outside the development boundary during construction and to require archaeological monitoring during earth-moving operations associated with the project. Mitigation measures provided in this document will ensure that impacts to cultural and/or tribal resources are less than significant.
Overall, there will be no significant environmental impacts to biological and cultural resources which cannot be mitigated. Project related impacts are considered less than significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A significant impact could occur if the proposed Project, in conjunction with related projects, would result in impacts that would be less than significant when viewed separately, but would be significant when viewed together. Here, however, the impacts of the proposed Project are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. Although the Project proposes a GPA, DCA and REZ from Single-Family Residential Estate to Tourist Commercial and Open Space Conservation, the development intensity and deep setbacks of the proposed hotel and employee housing are consistent with the scattered residential uses in the Project area, and would not substantially increase density in the area. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed Project would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures included herein, and when viewed in conjunction with other closely related past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not be significant.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not pose environmental effects that would cause direct or indirect substantial adverse effects on human beings.
The Project will be developed in accordance with applicable requirements set forth in the Twentynine Palms Municipal Code, in addition to federal, state, and regional requirements, and the mitigation measures defined in this document reduce any potential environmental impacts to less than significant levels.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: CalEEMod Outputs
APPENDIX B: Biological Resources Assessment Report
APPENDIX C: Jurisdictional Delineation
APPENDIX D: Historical/Archaeological Report
APPENDIX E: Geotechnical Report
APPENDIX F: Preliminary Drainage Report
APPENDIX G: Noise Study
APPENDIX H: Traffic Report
APPENDIX I: VMT Screening
Available on the City of Twentynine Palms Website:
www.ci.twentynine-palms.ca.us
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
A
APPENDIX A: CalEEMod Outputs
Available on the City of Twentynine Palms Website:
www.ci.twentynine-palms.ca.us
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
1 / 61
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated Page 817 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
2 / 61
3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.6. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
3.10. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
3.12. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
3 / 61
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.3.2. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.4.2. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.5.2. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
4 / 61
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
5 / 61
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
6 / 61
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
7 / 61
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores Page 823 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
8 / 61
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data Page 824 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
9 / 61
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Yonder Twentynine Palms
Construction Start Date 6/1/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.60
Precipitation (days) 12.2
Location 34.13141904498211, -116.14789541973494
County San Bernardino-Mojave Desert
City Twentynine Palms
Air District Mojave Desert AQMD
Air Basin Mojave Desert
TAZ 5143
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
10 / 61
Hotel 100 Room 151 54,210 2,000 8,000 — 100 "glamping"
units, lodges, 25
employee housing
units.
Parking Lot 132 Space 1.12 0.00 0.00 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-2* Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Construction C-9 Use Dust Suppressants
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Transportation T-34* Provide Bike Parking
Water W-5 Design Water-Efficient Landscapes
* Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.35 31.7 31.6 0.06 9.26 5.25 6,918
Mit. 7.35 31.7 31.6 0.06 9.26 5.25 6,918
% Reduced — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.81 18.4 25.3 0.04 1.35 0.86 4,711
Mit. 2.81 18.4 25.3 0.04 1.35 0.86 4,711
% Reduced — — — — — — — Page 826 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
11 / 61
Average Daily (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.09 8.47 9.64 0.02 1.43 0.80 1,935
Mit. 1.09 8.47 9.64 0.02 1.43 0.80 1,935
% Reduced — — — — — — —
Annual (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.20 1.55 1.76 < 0.005 0.26 0.15 320
Mit. 0.20 1.55 1.76 < 0.005 0.26 0.15 320
% Reduced — — — — — — —
Exceeds (Daily Max) — — — — — — —
Threshold 137 137 548 137 82.0 65.0 548,000
Unmit. No No No No No No No
Mit. No No No No No No No
Exceeds (Average
Daily)
— — — — — — —
Threshold 137 137 548 137 82.0 65.0 548,000
Unmit. No No No No No No No
Mit. No No No No No No No
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily - Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
2025 3.41 31.7 31.6 0.06 9.26 5.25 6,918
2026 7.35 11.1 16.3 0.03 0.84 0.48 3,225
Daily - Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
2025 2.81 18.4 25.3 0.04 1.35 0.86 4,711
2026 1.18 10.3 14.3 0.03 0.76 0.44 2,986
Average Daily — — — — — — — Page 827 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
12 / 61
2025 1.00 8.47 9.64 0.02 1.43 0.80 1,935
2026 1.09 3.16 4.45 0.01 0.23 0.14 914
Annual — — — — — — —
2025 0.18 1.55 1.76 < 0.005 0.26 0.15 320
2026 0.20 0.58 0.81 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 151
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily - Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
2025 3.41 31.7 31.6 0.06 9.26 5.25 6,918
2026 7.35 11.1 16.3 0.03 0.84 0.48 3,225
Daily - Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
2025 2.81 18.4 25.3 0.04 1.35 0.86 4,711
2026 1.18 10.3 14.3 0.03 0.76 0.44 2,986
Average Daily — — — — — — —
2025 1.00 8.47 9.64 0.02 1.43 0.80 1,935
2026 1.09 3.16 4.45 0.01 0.23 0.14 914
Annual — — — — — — —
2025 0.18 1.55 1.76 < 0.005 0.26 0.15 320
2026 0.20 0.58 0.81 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 151
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6.61 6.18 57.5 0.13 11.3 2.96 15,116
Mit. 6.61 6.18 57.5 0.13 11.3 2.96 15,114 Page 828 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
13 / 61
% Reduced — — — — — — < 0.5%
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.68 6.63 41.6 0.12 11.3 2.96 13,881
Mit. 5.68 6.63 41.6 0.12 11.3 2.96 13,880
% Reduced — — — — — — < 0.5%
Average Daily (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.91 6.81 46.4 0.13 11.2 2.94 14,178
Mit. 5.91 6.81 46.4 0.13 11.2 2.94 14,176
% Reduced — — — — — — < 0.5%
Annual (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.08 1.24 8.46 0.02 2.05 0.54 2,347
Mit. 1.08 1.24 8.46 0.02 2.05 0.54 2,347
% Reduced — — — — — — < 0.5%
Exceeds (Annual) — — — — — — —
Threshold 25.0 25.0 100 25.0 15.0 12.0 100,000
Unmit. No No No No No No No
Mit. No No No No No No No
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.96 5.77 54.8 0.13 11.3 2.93 13,615
Area 1.62 0.02 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.73
Energy 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 1,267
Water — — — — — — 35.8
Waste — — — — — — 103
Refrig. — — — — — — 84.7 Page 829 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
14 / 61
Total 6.61 6.18 57.5 0.13 11.3 2.96 15,116
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.42 6.23 41.3 0.12 11.3 2.93 12,391
Area 1.24 — — — — — —
Energy 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 1,267
Water — — — — — — 35.8
Waste — — — — — — 103
Refrig. — — — — — — 84.7
Total 5.68 6.63 41.6 0.12 11.3 2.96 13,881
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.46 6.40 44.9 0.12 11.2 2.91 12,682
Area 1.43 0.01 1.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.80
Energy 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 1,267
Water — — — — — — 35.8
Waste — — — — — — 103
Refrig. — — — — — — 84.7
Total 5.91 6.81 46.4 0.13 11.2 2.94 14,178
Annual — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.81 1.17 8.19 0.02 2.04 0.53 2,100
Area 0.26 < 0.005 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.79
Energy < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 210
Water — — — — — — 5.93
Waste — — — — — — 17.1
Refrig. — — — — — — 14.0
Total 1.08 1.24 8.46 0.02 2.05 0.54 2,347
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Page 830 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
15 / 61
Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.96 5.77 54.8 0.13 11.3 2.93 13,615
Area 1.62 0.02 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.73
Energy 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 1,267
Water — — — — — — 34.2
Waste — — — — — — 103
Refrig. — — — — — — 84.7
Total 6.61 6.18 57.5 0.13 11.3 2.96 15,114
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.42 6.23 41.3 0.12 11.3 2.93 12,391
Area 1.24 — — — — — —
Energy 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 1,267
Water — — — — — — 34.2
Waste — — — — — — 103
Refrig. — — — — — — 84.7
Total 5.68 6.63 41.6 0.12 11.3 2.96 13,880
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.46 6.40 44.9 0.12 11.2 2.91 12,682
Area 1.43 0.01 1.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.80
Energy 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 1,267
Water — — — — — — 34.2
Waste — — — — — — 103
Refrig. — — — — — — 84.7
Total 5.91 6.81 46.4 0.13 11.2 2.94 14,176
Annual — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.81 1.17 8.19 0.02 2.04 0.53 2,100
Area 0.26 < 0.005 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.79 Page 831 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
16 / 61
Energy < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 210
Water — — — — — — 5.66
Waste — — — — — — 17.1
Refrig. — — — — — — 14.0
Total 1.08 1.24 8.46 0.02 2.05 0.54 2,347
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 1.26 5,314
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 7.67 3.94 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.27 2.60 2.48 < 0.005 0.11 0.10 437 Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 0.63 0.32 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.05 0.47 0.45 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 72.3 Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 0.11 0.06 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — — Page 832 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
17 / 61
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.08 1.45 0.00 0.23 0.05 259
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 19.4
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.21
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 1.26 5,314
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 7.67 3.94 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.27 2.60 2.48 < 0.005 0.11 0.10 437 Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 0.63 0.32 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 833 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
18 / 61
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.05 0.47 0.45 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 72.3 Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 0.11 0.06 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.08 1.45 0.00 0.23 0.05 259
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 19.4
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.21
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 1.14 6,622
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 3.59 1.42 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 834 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
19 / 61
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.26 2.44 2.33 0.01 0.10 0.09 544
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 0.30 0.12 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.05 0.45 0.42 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 90.1 Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 0.05 0.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 1.66 0.00 0.26 0.06 296
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 22.2
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.67
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Page 835 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
20 / 61
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 1.14 6,622
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 3.59 1.42 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.26 2.44 2.33 0.01 0.10 0.09 544
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 0.30 0.12 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.05 0.45 0.42 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 90.1 Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 0.05 0.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 1.66 0.00 0.26 0.06 296
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 22.2
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.67 Page 836 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
21 / 61
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 0.40 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 0.40 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.29 2.68 3.34 0.01 0.11 0.10 617
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.05 0.49 0.61 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 102 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 1.89 0.00 0.30 0.07 337
Vendor 0.01 0.29 0.13 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 295
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.12 1.27 0.00 0.30 0.07 298
Vendor 0.01 0.30 0.13 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 295
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 837 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
22 / 61
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.02 78.7
Vendor < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 75.6
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 13.0
Vendor < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 12.5
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.6. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 0.40 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 0.40 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.29 2.68 3.34 0.01 0.11 0.10 617
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.05 0.49 0.61 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 102 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 1.89 0.00 0.30 0.07 337 Page 838 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
23 / 61
Vendor 0.01 0.29 0.13 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 295
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.12 1.27 0.00 0.30 0.07 298
Vendor 0.01 0.30 0.13 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 295
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.02 78.7
Vendor < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 75.6
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 13.0
Vendor < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 12.5
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 0.35 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 0.35 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.32 2.93 3.86 0.01 0.11 0.10 716
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 839 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
24 / 61
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.06 0.53 0.70 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 118 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 1.76 0.00 0.30 0.07 330
Vendor 0.01 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 290
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.11 1.17 0.00 0.30 0.07 292
Vendor 0.01 0.29 0.12 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 289
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.04 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.02 89.4
Vendor < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 86.0
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 14.8
Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.2
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 0.35 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 840 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
25 / 61
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 0.35 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.32 2.93 3.86 0.01 0.11 0.10 716
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.06 0.53 0.70 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 118 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 1.76 0.00 0.30 0.07 330
Vendor 0.01 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 290
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.11 1.17 0.00 0.30 0.07 292
Vendor 0.01 0.29 0.12 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 289
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.04 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.02 89.4
Vendor < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 86.0
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 14.8
Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.2
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated Page 841 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
26 / 61
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 0.32 1,517
Paving 0.71 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.07 0.61 0.82 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 125 Paving 0.06 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 20.6 Paving 0.01 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.08 0.84 0.00 0.20 0.05 196
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 16.6
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.75 Page 842 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
27 / 61
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.10. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 0.32 1,517
Paving 0.71 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.07 0.61 0.82 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 125 Paving 0.06 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 20.6 Paving 0.01 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.08 0.84 0.00 0.20 0.05 196
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 16.6 Page 843 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
28 / 61
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.75
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 134 Architectural Coatings 6.02 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.1 Architectural Coatings 0.73 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.67 Architectural Coatings 0.13 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.06 0.01 66.1
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 844 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
29 / 61
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 7.25
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.20
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.12. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 134 Architectural Coatings 6.02 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.1 Architectural Coatings 0.73 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.67 Architectural Coatings 0.13 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 845 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
30 / 61
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.06 0.01 66.1
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 7.25
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.20
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel 4.96 5.77 54.8 0.13 11.3 2.93 13,615
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 4.96 5.77 54.8 0.13 11.3 2.93 13,615
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel 4.42 6.23 41.3 0.12 11.3 2.93 12,391 Page 846 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
31 / 61
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 4.42 6.23 41.3 0.12 11.3 2.93 12,391
Annual — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.81 1.17 8.19 0.02 2.04 0.53 2,100
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.81 1.17 8.19 0.02 2.04 0.53 2,100
4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel 4.96 5.77 54.8 0.13 11.3 2.93 13,615
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 4.96 5.77 54.8 0.13 11.3 2.93 13,615
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel 4.42 6.23 41.3 0.12 11.3 2.93 12,391
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 4.42 6.23 41.3 0.12 11.3 2.93 12,391
Annual — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.81 1.17 8.19 0.02 2.04 0.53 2,100
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.81 1.17 8.19 0.02 2.04 0.53 2,100
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Page 847 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
32 / 61
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 752
Parking Lot — — — — — — 40.8
Total — — — — — — 793
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 752
Parking Lot — — — — — — 40.8
Total — — — — — — 793
Annual — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 125
Parking Lot — — — — — — 6.75
Total — — — — — — 131
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 752
Parking Lot — — — — — — 40.8
Total — — — — — — 793
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 752
Parking Lot — — — — — — 40.8
Total — — — — — — 793
Annual — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 125
Parking Lot — — — — — — 6.75
Total — — — — — — 131 Page 848 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
33 / 61
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 474
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 474
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 474
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 474
Annual — — — — — — —
Hotel < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 78.5
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 78.5
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 474
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 474
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 474
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 474
Annual — — — — — — — Page 849 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
34 / 61
Hotel < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 78.5
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 78.5
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Consumer Products 1.16 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.07 — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 0.39 0.02 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.73 Total 1.62 0.02 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.73
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Consumer Products 1.16 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.07 — — — — — —
Total 1.24 — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Consumer Products 0.21 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.01 — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 0.03 < 0.005 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.79 Total 0.26 < 0.005 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.79
4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — — Page 850 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
35 / 61
Consumer Products 1.16 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.07 — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 0.39 0.02 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.73 Total 1.62 0.02 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.73
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Consumer Products 1.16 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.07 — — — — — —
Total 1.24 — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Consumer Products 0.21 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.01 — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 0.03 < 0.005 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.79 Total 0.26 < 0.005 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.79
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 35.8
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 35.8
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 35.8
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 35.8
Annual — — — — — — — Page 851 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
36 / 61
Hotel — — — — — — 5.93
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 5.93
4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 34.2
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 34.2
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 34.2
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 34.2
Annual — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 5.66
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 5.66
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 103
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00 Page 852 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
37 / 61
Total — — — — — — 103
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 103
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 103
Annual — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 17.1
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 17.1
4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 103
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 103
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 103
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 103
Annual — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 17.1
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 17.1
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use Page 853 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
38 / 61
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 84.7
Total — — — — — — 84.7
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 84.7
Total — — — — — — 84.7
Annual — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 14.0
Total — — — — — — 14.0
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 84.7
Total — — — — — — 84.7
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 84.7
Total — — — — — — 84.7
Annual — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — 14.0
Total — — — — — — 14.0
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type Page 854 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
39 / 61
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — Page 855 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
40 / 61
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Page 856 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
41 / 61
Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — Page 857 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
42 / 61
Total — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — Page 858 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
43 / 61
— — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — Page 859 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
44 / 61
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/1/2025 7/11/2025 5.00 30.0 — Grading Grading 7/12/2025 8/22/2025 5.00 30.0 — Page 860 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
45 / 61
Building Construction Building Construction 8/23/2025 6/1/2026 5.00 201 — Paving Paving 10/1/2025 11/11/2025 5.00 30.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/1/2026 6/1/2026 5.00 44.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.2.2. Mitigated Page 861 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
46 / 61
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Page 862 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
47 / 61
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 22.8 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 8.89 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 4.55 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Page 863 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
48 / 61
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 22.8 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 8.89 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 4.55 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44% Page 864 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
49 / 61
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 81,315 27,105 2,927
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 45.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 90.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.12
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Hotel 7.00 100%
Parking Lot 1.12 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 349 0.03 < 0.005 Page 865 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
50 / 61
2026 0.00 346 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Hotel 894 894 894 326,310 15,847 15,847 15,847 5,784,138 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Hotel 894 894 894 326,310 15,847 15,847 15,847 5,784,138 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 81,315 27,105 2,927
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value Page 866 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
51 / 61
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Hotel 788,314 346 0.0330 0.0040 1,475,632
Parking Lot 42,738 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Hotel 788,314 346 0.0330 0.0040 1,475,632
Parking Lot 42,738 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Hotel 2,536,677 260,743
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 Page 867 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
52 / 61
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Hotel 2,536,677 -149,911
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Hotel 54.8 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Hotel 54.8 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Hotel Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hotel Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
53 / 61
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Hotel Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hotel Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type Page 869 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
54 / 61
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) Page 870 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
55 / 61
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 30.6 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.15 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.41 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 871 of 1452 Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
56 / 61
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 88.8 Page 872 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
57 / 61
AQ-PM 2.35
AQ-DPM 0.57
Drinking Water 69.5
Lead Risk Housing 65.0
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 5.54
Traffic 1.71
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 79.7
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 0.00
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 38.8
Cardio-vascular 99.5
Low Birth Weights 64.2
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 49.2
Housing 25.3
Linguistic 36.0
Poverty 81.9
Unemployment 79.7
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic — Page 873 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
58 / 61
Above Poverty 22.75118696
Employed 0.936738098
Median HI 7.121775953
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 31.19466188
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 1.873476197
Transportation —
Auto Access 89.83703323
Active commuting 1.039394328
Social —
2-parent households 89.07994354
Voting 77.26164507
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 85.3586552
Park access 32.83716156
Retail density 4.619530348
Supermarket access 16.15552419
Tree canopy 0.076992172
Housing —
Homeownership 60.9393045
Housing habitability 18.46528936
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 53.68920826 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 84.35775696
Uncrowded housing 69.47260362
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 68.95932247
Arthritis 0.0 Page 874 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
59 / 61
Asthma ER Admissions 52.2
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 36.6
Cognitively Disabled 20.1
Physically Disabled 0.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 5.8
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 82.3
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 75.0
Elderly 17.6
English Speaking 83.0
Foreign-born 2.4 Page 875 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
60 / 61
Outdoor Workers 77.9
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 97.8
Traffic Density 3.3
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 74.4
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 79.9
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 35.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 17.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data Page 876 of 1452
Yonder Twentynine Palms Detailed Report, 12/9/2024
61 / 61
Screen Justification
Land Use Building SF includes 38,300 SF for the 100 units (385 SF each), 4,590 SF main lodge, 1,800 SF secondary lodge, 3,575 SF back of house, and 5,945 SF of employee housing (25 units).
Landscape plans not available at the time, assume 10,000 SF of landscaping to include native, drought tolerant plants, 80% of which will use recycled water.
Construction: Construction Phases Assumes a 1-year buildout.
Construction: Off-Road Equipment —
Construction: Paving Paved areas include parking lots and internal drives.
Operations: Vehicle Data Per project Traffic Impact Analysis, total daily trips is 894.
Operations: Energy Use New construction is subject to Title 24 standards. Page 877 of 1452 City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
B
APPENDIX B: Biological Resources Assessment Report
Available on the City of Twentynine Palms Website:
www.ci.twentynine-palms.ca.us
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT
CITY OF TWENTYNINE PALMS, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for:
Terra Nova Planning and Research
42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Nicole Criste, Principal
(760) 341-4800
Prepared by:
WSP USA.
11870 Pierce Street, Suite 160
Riverside, California 92505
(949) 356-8476
18 March 2024
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Biological Resources Assessment
March 2024
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Project Location and Topography.........................................................................3
1.2 Project Description...............................................................................................3
2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK............................................................................................ 3
2.1 Federal3
2.2 State of California.................................................................................................4
3.0 METHODS....................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Literature Review and Records Search ..................................................................7
3.2 Biological Resource Assessment...........................................................................7
4.0 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Literature Review..................................................................................................7
4.2 Field Visit ...........................................................................................................16
5.0 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................16
5.1 Special Status Plants...........................................................................................16
5.2 Special Status Invertebrates................................................................................17
5.3 Special Status Reptiles........................................................................................17
5.3.1 Desert Tortoise..................................................................................................... 17
5.4 Special Status Bats .............................................................................................18
5.5 Special Status Burrowing Mammals....................................................................18
5.6 Special Status Birds ............................................................................................19
5.6.1 Loggerhead Shrike ............................................................................................... 19
5.6.2 Burrowing Owl..................................................................................................... 19
5.7 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and State Fish and Game Code.................................20
5.8 Jurisdictional Waters..........................................................................................20
5.9 Conclusion and Recommendations....................................................................20
6.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................21
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Biological Resources Assessment
March 2024
Page ii
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1 Special Status Plants & Vegetation Which Occur or Potentially Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project..................................................................................................................8 Table 2 Special Status Wildlife Which Occur or Potentially Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project.............................................................................................................................11
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Report Figures
Appendix B Site Photographs
Appendix C California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) RareFind 5 Report Appendix D USFWS IPAC Report
Appendix E Wildlife and Plant Species Observed During Surveys
3 1.0 INTRODUCTION
WSP USA (WSP) was contracted by Terra Nova Planning and Research to conduct a biological resources assessment for the proposed Yonder Glamping Resort Project (project) in Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County, California. This Biological Resources Assessment Report (BRAR) provides methods, results, and discussion of the assessment. All report figures are provided in Appendix A of this report.
1.1 Project Location and Topography
The project is situated entirely within the City of Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1, Regional Map). The project site is positioned between State Route (SR) 62 and Sullivan Road to the north and south, respectively, and is bordered by Shoshone Valley Road to the east and Monte Vista Drive to the west (Figure 2, Vicinity Map). It occupies the southeast corner of the 7.5-minute Sun Fair United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle, located in Township 1 North, Range 8 East, within Section 33 (Figure 3, USGS Map). The project is specifically located on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN):
061-412-115.
The project topography is roughly level overall, with a slight decline to the north. Elevations range from approximately 2,615 feet (796 meters) above mean sea level (AMSL) in the south, to 2,509 feet (764 meters) AMSL in the north.
1.2 Project Description
The proposed project consists of the development of a 150-acre glamping resort with a total of 130 units.
Additional amenities include food & beverage space, and a main lodge that could host special events.
Vehicular access will be provided via the one driveway connection to the extension of Lear Avenue at Cactus Drive, with a secondary access driveway connecting to the easterly extension of Sullivan Road.
2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
2.1 Federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA) – The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service are the designated federal agencies accountable for administering the ESA. The ESA defines species as “endangered” or “threatened” and provides regulatory protection at the federal level.
• Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the “take” of listed (i.e., endangered or threatened) species. The ESA definition of take is “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct.” Recognizing that take cannot always be avoided, Section 10(a) includes provisions for take that is incidental to, but not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Specifically, Section 10(a) (1) (A) permits (authorized take permits) are issued for scientific purposes. Section 10(a) (1) (B) permits (incidental take permits) are issued for the incidental take of listed species that does not jeopardize the species.
4 • Section 7 (a) (2) requires federal agencies to evaluate the proposed project with respect to listed or proposed listed, species and their respective critical habitats (if applicable). Federal agencies must employ programs for the conservation of listed species and are prohibited from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action that would jeopardize a listed species or destroy or modify its “critical habitat.”
As defined by the ESA, “individuals, organizations, states, local governments, and other non-federal entities are affected by the designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on federal lands, require a federal permit, license, or other authorization, or involve federal funding.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) – Treaties signed by the U.S., Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the republics of the former Soviet Union make it unlawful to pursue, capture, kill, and/or possess, or attempt to engage in any such conduct to any migratory bird, nest, egg or parts thereof listed in this document.
As with the ESA, the MBTA also allows the Secretary of the Interior to grant permits for the incidental take of these protected migratory bird species. Impacts include direct disturbance to/destruction of nests, eggs, and birds as well as indirect effects such as loud construction noises (e.g., drilling, operation of heavy equipment, etc. in excess of 60 dB at the nest site) and increased site activities (e.g., moving vehicles, use of guard dogs, presence of personnel) in close proximity to active nests.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – Portions of the proposed project could fall under the jurisdiction of a federal agency (i.e., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). The NEPA establishes certain criteria that must be adhered to for any project that is “financed, assisted, conducted or approved by a federal agency. The federal lead agency is required to “determine whether the proposed action will significantly affect the quality of the human environment.”
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) – This section of the CWA, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into “waters of the United States (WUS).” The USACE has created a series of nationwide permits that authorize certain activities within waters of the U.S. provided that the proposed activity does not exceed the impact threshold for each of the permits, takes steps to avoid impacts to wetlands where practicable, minimize potential impacts to wetlands, and provide compensation for any remaining, unavoidable impacts through activities to restore or create wetlands. For projects that exceed the threshold for nationwide permits, individual permits under Section 404 can be issued.
2.2 State of California
Regional Water Quality Control Board – The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates activities pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the CWA. Section 401 of the CWA specifies that certification from the State is required for any applicant requesting a federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities that may result in any discharge into navigable waters. Through the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over Waters of the State of California (WSC) which is generally the same as WUS, but may also
5 include isolated waterbodies. The Porter Cologne Act defines WSC as “surface water or ground water, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State”.
Sections 1600-1603 of the State Fish and Game Code – The California Fish and Game Code, pursuant to Sections 1600 through 1603, regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife resources. Under State code, a stream is defined as a body of water that flows at least periodically, or intermittently, through a bed or channel with hydro geomorphology distinct top-of-embankment to top-of-embankment limits, that may or may not support fish or other aquatic biota. Included in this definition are watercourses with surface or subsurface flows that support, or have supported in the past, riparian vegetation. Specifically, Section 1601 governs public projects, while Section 1603 governs private discretionary actions. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) requires that public and private interests apply for a “Streambed Alteration Agreement” for any project that may impact a streambed or wetland. The CDFW has maintained a “no net loss” policy regarding impacts to streams and waterways and requires replacement of lost habitats of at least a 1:1 ratio.
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) – This legislation is similar to the federal ESA, however it is administered by the CDFW. The CDFW is authorized to enter into “memoranda of understanding” with individuals, public agencies, and other institutions to import, export, take, or possess State-listed species for scientific, educational, or management purposes. The CESA prohibits the take of State-listed species except as otherwise provided in state law. Unlike the federal ESA, the CESA applies the take prohibitions to species currently petitioned for State-listing status (candidate species). State lead agencies are required to consult with the CDFW to ensure that actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any State-listed species or result in the destruction or degradation of occupied habitat.
Section 2081 of the State Fish and Game Code – Under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW authorizes individuals or public agencies to import, export, take, or possess State endangered, threatened, or candidate species in California through permits or memoranda of understanding. These acts, which are otherwise prohibited, may be authorized through permits or “memoranda of understanding” if (1) the take is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, (2) impacts of the take are minimized and fully mitigated, (3) the permit is consistent with regulations adopted in accordance with any recovery plan for the species in question, and (4) the applicant ensures suitable funding to implement the measures required by the CDFW. The CDFW shall make this determination based on the best scientific information available and shall include consideration of the species’ capability to survive and reproduce.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) – The basic goal of the CEQA is to retain a high-quality environment now and in the future. The specific goals are for California's public agencies to:
• Identify the significant environmental effects of their actions; and, either • Avoid those significant environmental effects, where feasible; or • Mitigate those significant environmental effects, where feasible.
6 The CEQA applies to "projects" proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by State and/or local governmental agencies. projects are activities which have the potential to have a physical impact on the environment and may include the enactment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of conditional use permits and the approval of tentative subdivision maps. Where a project requires approvals from more than one public agency, the CEQA requires one of these public agencies to serve as the "lead agency." A "lead agency" must complete the environmental review process required by the CEQA. The most basic steps of the environmental review process are:
• Determine if the activity is a "project" subject to the CEQA; • Determine if the "project" is exempt from the CEQA;
• Perform an Initial Study to identify the environmental impacts of the project and determine whether the identified impacts are "significant". Based on its findings of "significance", the lead agency prepares one of the following environmental review documents:
• Negative Declaration if it finds no "significant" impacts; • Mitigated Negative Declaration if it finds "significant" impacts but revises the project to avoid or mitigate those significant impacts;
• Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if it finds "significant" impacts.
While there is no ironclad definition of "significance", Article 5 of the CEQA Guidelines provides criteria to lead agencies in determining whether a project may have significant effects.
The purpose of an EIR is to provide State and local agencies and the public with detailed information on the potentially significant environmental effects which a proposed project is likely to have and to provide ways in which those effects may be minimized and indicate alternatives to the project.
Sections of the State Fish and Game Code pertaining to the protection of birds – Section 3503 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. Section 3505.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey, i.e.: owls, hawks, eagles, etc.) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any bird-of-prey. Section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA.
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) – The NPPA includes measures to preserve, protect, and enhance rare and endangered native plant species. Definitions for “rare and endangered” are different from those contained in the CESA. However, the list of species afforded protection in accordance with the NPPA includes those listed as rare and endangered under the CESA. The NPPA provides limitations on take as follows: “no person will import into this State, or take, possess, or sell within this state” any rare or endangered native plants, except in accordance with the provisions outlined in the act. If a landowner is notified by the CDFW, pursuant to section 1903.5 that a rare or endangered plant species is growing on their property, the landowner shall notify the CDFW at least 10 days prior to the changing of land uses to allow the CDFW to salvage the plants.
7 3.0 METHODS
3.1 Literature Review and Records Search
A literature review and record search were conducted to identify occurrences of special status biological resources in the project vicinity. The review included:
• A report from the CDFW‘s California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) including records from the following California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles within five miles of the project:
Twentynine Palms, Queen Mountain, Sunfair, and Indian Cove (CDFW 2023); • The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) including records from the following California USGS
7.5-minute topographic quadrangles within five miles of the project: Twentynine Palms, Queen Mountain, Sunfair, and Indian Cove (CNPS 2023);
• The USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) including critical habitat mapping and an Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) report (USFWS 2023). • Aerial photographs; and
• Pertinent documents from the WSP library and project files (e.g., other biological surveys from the general vicinity).
3.2 Biological Resource Assessment
On the 26th of October 2023, between 0700 and 1700 hours, WSP's senior biologist, Marshall Paymard, conducted a biological field reconnaissance survey to assess the habitat on-site and determine its suitability to support special status biological resources. Mr. Paymard walked meandering transects to systematically evaluate and document the habitat suitability for special status species, vegetation communities, dominant plant species, and wildlife on-site and within the project area. All observations were recorded in a field notebook, vegetation was delineated on 11x17 field map, and representative photographs have been included in Appendix B of this report.
4.0 RESULTS
4.1 Literature Review
The results of the literature review are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Species which are not known to occur at project elevation ranges are not included. A CNDDB RareFind 5 Report is included in Appendix C and a USFWS IPAC report is included in Appendix D, attached to this report.
8 Table 1. Special Status Plants & Vegetation Which Occur or Potentially Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status1 Habitat (for plants includes
elevational range in meters &
blooming period)
Occurrence Probability2
Federal State CRPR
Plants
Ayenia
compacta
California
ayenia None S3 2B.3
Mojavean & Sonoran desert
scrub, rocky. 150 - 1095 meters
(m). Blooms (B): March - April.
Low
Rocky substrates not found. No
observations were made during
the biological assessment for
this perennial species.
Calochortus
striatus
alkali mariposalily None S2S3 1B.2
Chaparral, chenopod scrub,
meadows and seeps, Mojavean
desert scrub, alkaline, mesic.70 –
1595 m. B: April – June.
Low
No suitable alkaline or mesic
soils detected during the
biological assessment.
Coryphantha
alversonii
Alverson's
foxtail cactus None S3 4.3
Mojavean and Sonoran desert
scrub, usually in granitic areas,
sometimes rocky or sandy. 75 –
1525 m. B: April – June
(September -October).
Low
Rocky substrates not found. No
observations were made during
the biological assessment for
this perennial species.
Eschscholzia
androuxii
Joshua tree
poppy
None S3 4.3
Joshua tree “woodland”,
Mojavean desert scrub on flats,
gravelly, rocky, sandy, slopes,
washes. 585 – 1685 m. B:
February -May (June).
Moderate
Suitable habitat is present.
Funastrum
utahense
Utah vine
milkweed None S4 4.2
Mojavean and Sonoran desert
scrub, Sometimes in gravelly or
sandy. 100 - 1435 m. B: (March)
April – June.
Moderate
Suitable habitat is present. No
observations were made during
the biological assessment for
this perennial species.
Galium
angustifolium
ssp. gracillimum
slender
bedstraw None S4 4.2
Joshua tree “woodland” and
Sonoran desert scrub in granitic
or rocky places. 130 - 1550 m. B:
April -June (July).
Absent
No suitable habitat is present.
Grusonia
parishii
Parish’s clubcholla None S2 2B2
Mojavean and Sonoran desert
scrub, Joshua tree woodland
“woodland” in sandy or rocky
locations. 300-1,524m. B: MayJuly.
Moderate
Suitable habitat is present. No
observations were made during
the biological assessment for
this perennial species.
9 Table 1. Special Status Plants & Vegetation Which Occur or Potentially Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status1 Habitat (for plants includes
elevational range in meters &
blooming period)
Occurrence Probability2
Federal State CRPR
Jaffueliobryum
raui
Rau's
jaffueliobryum
moss
None S2 2B.3
Alpine dwarf scrub, chaparral, &
Mojavean and Sonoran desert
scrub. Known from dry places,
carbonate, openings, and rock
crevices. 490 - 2100 m.
Absent
Suitable habitat parameters
such as, carbonate openings
and rock outcrops are not
present.
Jaffueliobryum
wrightii
Wright's
jaffueliobryum
moss
None S2S3 2B.3
Chaparral, Mojavean & Sonoran
desert scrub, Alpine dwarf scrub.
Openings: dry places, rock
crevices, carbonate. 160-2500 m.
Absent
Suitable habitat parameters
such as, carbonate openings
and rock outcrops are not
present.
Lasthenia
glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter's
goldfields None S2 1B.1
Marshes and swamps, playas,
vernal pools. 1 - 1220 m. B:
February - June.
Absent
No suitable marsh, swamp,
playas, or vernal pools habitat is
present.
Linanthus
maculatus ssp.
maculatus
Little San
Bernardino
Mountains
linanthus
None S2 1B.2
Desert dunes, Sonoran and
Mojavean desert scrub, Joshua
tree “woodland.” Sandy places.
Usually in light-colored quartz
sand; often in wash or bajada.
140 – 1220 m. B: March-May
Moderate
Suitable habitat is present.
Matelea
parvifolia
spear-leaf
matelea None S3 2B.3
Rocky places in Mojavean and
Sonoran desert scrub. 440 -
1095 m. B: March -May (July).
Low
No suitable rocky substrates are
present
Menodora
spinescens var.
mohavensis
Mojave
menodora None S2 1B.2
Mojavean desert scrub on
gravelly, rocky slopes. 690 -
2000 m. B: April -May.
Absent.
No rocky slopes or gravelly
substates are present.
Monardella
robisonii
Robison’s
monardella None S3 1B.3
Pinyon-juniper woodland. 610 -
1,500 m., B: (February) April –
September (October).
Absent.
No suitable habitat.
Muhlenbergia
appressa
appressed
muhly None S3 2B.2
Coastal scrub, Mojavean desert
scrub, valley and foothill
grassland in rocky places. 20 -
1600 m. B: April - May.
Absent.
No suitable rocky places are
present.
10 Table 1. Special Status Plants & Vegetation Which Occur or Potentially Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status1 Habitat (for plants includes
elevational range in meters &
blooming period)
Occurrence Probability2
Federal State CRPR
Penstemon
thurberi
Thurber's
beardtongue None S3 4.2
Chaparral, Joshua tree
"woodland", Sonoran desert
scrub, Pinyon-juniper woodland.
500 - 1220 m. B: May-July.
Absent.
No suitable habitat is present.
Saltugilia
latimeri
Latimer’s
woodland-gilia None S3 1B.2
Chaparral, Mojavean desert
scrub, pinyon-juniper woodland.
Dry rocky and sandy desert
canyons. 400-1,900m. B: MarchJune
Absent.
Suitable habitat parameters
such as, dry rocky and sandy
desert canyons are not present.
Sidalcea
neomexicana
salt spring
checkerbloom None S2 2B.2
Chaparral, coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous forest,
Mojavean desert scrub, playas.
Alkaline springs and marshes. 15
- 1530 m. B: March - June.
Absent.
Suitable habitat parameters
such as, playas, alkaline springs,
and marshes are not present.
Streptanthus
bernardinus
Laguna
Mountains
jewelflower
None S4 4.3
Chaparral, lower montane
coniferous forest. 670 - 2500 m.
B: April - May.
Absent.
No suitable habitat.
Tetracoccus
hallii
Hall's
tetracoccus
None S4 4.3
Mojavean and Sonoran desert
scrub. 30 - 1200 m. B: January -
May.
Moderate
Suitable habitat is present.
Wislizenia
refracta ssp.
refracta
jackass-clover None S1 2B.2
Desert dunes, playas, Mojavean
and Sonoran desert scrub. 600 -
800 m. B: April - November.
Low
Suitable Mojavean desert scrub
habitat is present. No desert
dunes or playas are present.
Vegetation Communities
Desert Fan
Palm Oasis
Not applicable
(N/A) N/A S3.2 N/A N/A
Absent
11 Table 2. Special Status Wildlife Which Occur or Potentially Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status1
Habitat Occurrence Probability2
Federal State Other
Invertebrates
Danaus
plexippus
monarch
butterfly FC S2 N/A
Areas that contain milkweed
(Asclepias spp.) and flowering
plants.
Low
Species may pass through the
project site; however, no host
plant (milkweed spp.) was
detected during the biological
assessment.
Rhopalolemma
robertsi
Roberts'
rhopalolemma
bee
None S1 N/A
The known range of Roberts'
rhopalolemma bee is the type
locality five miles south of the
project area. Despite at least 70
years of collecting in the area by
many active solitary bee
specialists, the species is only
known from a single specimen
from that location.
Specific habitat information was
not recorded for this species
when collected.
Unknown/Very Low
The genus is known from
creosote bush scrub and for
feeding on Phacelia, both of
which occur onsite, but no
specific natural history
information is known for this
species. Given the long period in
which nobody has successfully
detected it (since 1973), the
possibility of occurrence onsite
is expected to be very low.
Reptiles
Crotalus ruber red-diamond
rattlesnake None SC, S3 N/A
Chaparral, grassland, & desert
areas. Occurs in rocky areas and
dense vegetation. Needs rodent
burrows, cracks in rocks or
surface cover objects.
Absent
No natural rocky areas or dense
vegetation cover is present
onsite.
Gopherus
agassizii desert tortoise FT ST, S2S3 N/A
Prefers Joshua tree, desert wash
& scrub (especially creosote
bush) habitats; but in most
desert habitats. Large wildflower
blooms preferred. Burrows &
nests require friable soil.
Moderate
Suitable habitat is present. 2008
records less than 2 miles
northwest of project.
Birds
12 Table 2. Special Status Wildlife Which Occur or Potentially Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status1
Habitat Occurrence Probability2
Federal State Other
Aquila
chrysaetos golden eagle MBTA,
WL, FP,
S3 N/A
Rolling foothills, mountain areas,
sage-juniper flats, and desert.
Cliff-walled canyons provide
nesting habitat in most parts of
range; also, large trees in open
areas.
Low
May forage onsite, however no
suitable nesting habitat is
present in the project site.
Athene
cunicularia burrowing owl MBTA, BCC
SC, S3,
FGC N/A
Open, dry grasslands, deserts &
scrublands with low-growing
vegetation. Depends on
burrowing mammals.
Moderate
Suitable habitat is present. No
CNDDB occurrences within
project vicinity.
Falco
mexicanus prairie falcon MBTA, BCC
SC, S3,
FGC N/A
Breeding sites located on cliffs,
but forages far afield.
Low
No nesting habitat, may forage.
Lanius
ludovicianus
loggerhead
shrike
MBTA,
BCC
SSC, S4,
FGC N/A Found in open habitats with widely spaced vegetation.
High
Nesting and foraging habitat is
present on-site.
Toxostoma
bendirei
Bendire's
thrasher
MBTA,
BCC
SSC, S2,
FGC N/A
Migratory; local spring/summer
resident in flat areas of desert
succulent shrub/Joshua tree
habitats in Mojave Desert.
Low
No nesting habitat, may forage.
Vireo bellii
pusillus least Bell's vireo FE
SE, S3,
FGC N/A
Riparian forest, riparian scrub,
riparian woodland. Summer
resident of Southern California
in low riparian in vicinity of
water or in dry river bottoms;
below 2000 ft.
Absent
No suitable breeding or
foraging habitat on-site.
Mammals
Antrozous
pallidus pallid bat None SC, S3 WBWG: L
Deserts, grasslands, shrublands,
and forests. Most common in
open, dry habitats with rocky
areas for roosting.
Moderate
May forage onsite but is unlikely
to roost due to few or no
possible sites. CNDDB records
within 5 miles of the project site.
Chaetodipus
fallax pallidus
pallid San
Diego pocket
mouse
None SC, S3S4 N/A
In desert wash, desert scrub,
desert succulent scrub, pinyonjuniper, etc. Sandy, herbaceous areas, usually in association with
rocks or coarse gravel.
Low
Site lacks preferred soil
substrates. CNDDB records
within 5 miles of the project site.
13 Table 2. Special Status Wildlife Which Occur or Potentially Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status1
Habitat Occurrence Probability2
Federal State Other
Euderma
maculatum spotted bat None SC, S3 WBWG:M
Occupies a wide variety of
habitats from arid deserts and
grasslands through mixed
conifer forests. Feeds over water
& along washes, almost entirely
on moths. Needs rock crevices
in cliffs or caves for roosting.
Moderate
May forage onsite but is unlikely
to roost due to absence of
roosting habitat. CNDDB
records within 5 miles of project
site.
Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff
bat None SC, S4 WBWG: M
Many open, semi-arid to arid
habitats, including conifer and
deciduous woodlands, coastal
scrub, grasslands, chaparral, etc.
Moderate
May forage onsite but is unlikely
to roost due to absence of
roosting habitat
Lasiurus
cinereus hoary bat None S4 WBWG: M
Found in valley foothill riparian,
desert riparian, desert wash, and
palm oasis habitats. Roosts in
trees, usually palms. Forages
over water and among trees.
Moderate
May forage onsite but is unlikely
to roost due to absence of
roosting habitat
Lasiurus
xanthinus
western yellow
bat None SC, S4 WBWG: H
Found in valley foothill riparian,
desert riparian, desert wash, and
palm oasis habitats. Roosts in
trees, usually palms. Forages
over water and among trees.
Moderate
May forage onsite but is unlikely
to roost due to absence of
roosting habitat. CNDDB
records within 5 miles of project
site
Myotis
thysanodes fringed myotis None S3 WBWG: M
In a wide variety of habitats,
optimal habitats are pinyonjuniper, valley foothill hardwood and hardwood-conifer.
Absent
No suitable habitat onsite.
Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed freetailed bat None SC, S4 WBWG:
M
Variety of arid areas in Southern
California; pine-juniper
woodlands, desert scrub, palm
oasis, desert wash, desert
riparian, etc.
Moderate
May forage onsite but is unlikely
to roost due to absence of
roosting habitat
Nyctinomops
macrotis
big free-tailed
bat None SC, S3
WBWG:
M
Low-lying arid areas in Southern
California.
Moderate
May forage onsite but is unlikely
to roost due to absence of
roosting habitat
14 Table 2. Special Status Wildlife Which Occur or Potentially Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status1
Habitat Occurrence Probability2
Federal State Other
Ovis canadensis
nelsoni
desert bighorn
sheep None FP, S3 N/A
Open, rocky, steep areas with
water & herbaceous forage.
Absent
No suitable habitat.
Taxidea taxus American
badger None SC, S3 N/A
Most abundant in drier, open
stages of most herbaceous,
shrub, & forest habitats.
Burrows in friable soils & open,
uncultivated ground.
Low
Habitat suitable, but few if any
potential burrows detected
during survey.
15 1Status Codes:
Federal
FE = Federal Endangered
FT = Federal Threatened
FC = Federal Candidate
BCC = Bird of Conservation Concern
MBTA = Migratory Bird Treaty Act
State
SE = State Endangered
ST = State Threatened
SCT=State Candidate
FP = Fully Protected
SC = State Species of Concern
WL = Watch List
FGC = Fish & Game Code
S1 = Critically Imperiled – At very
high risk of extirpation in the state
due to very restricted range, very
few populations or occurrences, very
steep declines, severe threats, or
other factors.
S2 = Imperiled – At high risk of
extirpation in the state due to
restricted range, few populations or
occurrences, steep declines, severe
threats, or other factors.
S3 = Vulnerable – At moderate risk
of extirpation in the state due to a
fairly restricted range, relatively few
populations or occurrences, recent
and widespread declines, threats, or
other factors.
S4 = Apparently Secure – At a fairly
low risk of extirpation in the state
due to an extensive range and/or
many populations or occurrences,
but with possible cause for some
concern as a result of local recent
declines, threats, or other factors.
S5 = Secure – At very low or
no risk of extirpation in the
state due to a very extensive
range, abundant populations
or occurrences, and little to
no concern from declines or
threats.
SX = Presumed Extirpated –
Species is believed to be
extirpated from the state Not
located despite intensive
searches of historical sites
and other appropriate
habitat, and virtually no
likelihood that it will be
rediscovered
SH = Possibly Extirpated –
Known from only historical
records but still some hope
of rediscovery. There is
evidence that the species
may no longer be present in
the state, but not enough to
state this with certainty.
SNR = Unranked – State rank
not yet assessed.
California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR)
1A = Presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere
1B = Rare or Endangered in California and elsewhere
2A = Presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere
2B = Rare or Endangered in California, but more common
elsewhere
3 = Plants for which we need more information – Review list 4 = Plants of limited distribution – Watch list
Western Bat Working Group (WBWG)
The WBWG is composed of agencies, organizations, and
individuals interested in bat research, management, and conservation from 13 western states and provinces. The goals of the group are to (1) facilitate communication among interested parties and reduce risks of species decline or extinction; (2) provide a mechanism by which current information on bat ecology, distribution, and research techniques can be readily accessed; and (3) develop a forum to discuss conservation strategies, provide technical assistance, and encourage education programs. Species are ranked as High, Medium, or Low Priority in each of 10 regions in western North America.
2Occurrence Probability
Occurs = Observed on the site by WSP personnel or recorded there by other qualified biologists.
High = Observed in similar habitat in region by qualified biologists, or habitat on the site is a type often utilized by the species and the site is within the known range of the species.
Moderate = Reported sightings in surrounding region, or site is within the known range of the species and habitat on
the site is a type occasionally used by the species.
Low = Site is within the known range of the species but habitat on the site is rarely used by the species.
Absent = A focused study failed to detect the species, or no suitable habitat is present.
Unknown = Distribution and habitat use has not been clearly determined.
16 4.2 Field Visit
The biological assessment took place under weather conditions ranging from 68.5 to 75.4 degrees Fahrenheit, with 20 to 35 percent cloud cover. Wind speeds were recorded at 1-2 mph, and there was no precipitation.
The project site is located in a span of primarily undeveloped, open desert terrain. Adjacent to the site, there are single-family homes to the west, while Highway 62 runs to the north. In the south, the area opens up to more expansive lands, and a few rural homes are present just beyond the southeast boundary.
The prevailing vegetation community in the project area is creosote bush scrub, dominated by creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) (Figure 4, Biological Resources). This is accompanied by various co-dominant species, including white bur-sage (Ambrosia dumosa), white rhatany (Krameria bicolor), allscale saltbush (Atriplex polycarpa), and cheesebush (Ambrosia salsola). Disturbed habitat is present in the form of unpaved roadways that primarily intersect the project in the eastern segment and along the project periphery.
Official soil mapping data for the project site is not available as of 2023 (USDA 2023). However, the soils in the area are predominantly sandy and well-drained, as typically characteristic of desert landscapes. The nearest mapped soil, approximately one mile to the south, is classified as Morongo loamy sand, with slopes ranging from 2 to 8 percent. The Morongo series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from granitoid and/or gneissic rocks. Morongo soils are on fan aprons, inset fans, fan remnants and in drainageways (USDA 2023).
There are no blue line streams mapped on-site (USGS 2023), however several unnamed ephemeral channels are present in the east segment of the project site (Figure 4, Biological Resources).
All plant species and vertebrate wildlife detected are included in Appendix E. It should be noted that relatively short-term assessments and studies of this nature are limited in their scope by the seasonality, timing and duration of surveys, and the nocturnal and fossorial habits of many desert-dwelling animals.
Therefore, the species observed to date do not reflect the total number of species that potentially occupy the project site and area.
5.0 DISCUSSION
5.1 Special Status Plants
No special status plant species were observed during the biological assessment. However, there is a moderate likelihood of encountering five special status plant species within the project area, including Joshua tree poppy, Utah vine milkweed, Parish’s club-cholla, Little San Bernardino Mountains linanthus, and Hall's tetracoccus. Additionally, there is a low potential for alkali mariposa lily, Alverson's foxtail cactus, California ayenia, jackass-clover, and spear-leaf matelea to be found within the project area. While none of these potentially occurring plant species are listed as threatened or endangered at the State or
17 federal level, impacts to these species could be considered significant under the CEQA. However, given the relatively small scale of the project's impact footprint, it is unlikely that project related impacts will lead to a significant decline in the viable populations of these species. As such, no further actions are recommended.
5.2 Special Status Invertebrates
There is a very low possibility that Robert’s rhopalemma bee (State ranked as Critically Imperiled) could occur on-site. Robert’s rhopalemma bee is an extremely rare species about which little is currently known.
However, any bee nests or nesting colonies should be avoided if/when found. If unavoidable, and determined to be occupied by Robert’s rhopalemma bee, CDFW should be contacted for guidance.
5.3 Special Status Reptiles
5.3.1 Desert Tortoise
The Mojave population segment of the desert tortoise is federally and State listed as threatened by the USFWS and CDFW. The Mojave population segment includes all tortoises occurring west and north of the Colorado River. The desert tortoise is most common in desert scrub, desert wash, and Joshua tree habitats in a variety of terrain types, including alluvial fans, valleys, rocky hillsides, and washes. They require friable soil for burrow and nest construction. Burrows are typically found at the base of shrubs, in the interspaces between shrubs, and occasionally in caliche soil bank areas or underneath boulders/rocks. They are herbivores and feed on a variety of plants including annual herbs and perennial grasses.
Tortoise activity is greatest during the spring and early summer, and to a lesser extent during the fall; however, tortoises can be active at any time of the year during appropriate weather conditions. Although tortoises hibernate during the winter and typically emerge in late February or early March, hatchlings and juveniles can be fairly active during the winter months. Adults will also emerge from their burrows to drink if water resources have been limited during the previous activity season and/or winter precipitation has provided standing water. Their activity is usually much reduced during hot summer months, but they may be active following summer rains or if temperatures are moderate (Boarman 2003).
Threats to desert tortoises include loss or degradation of habitat, vandalism, poaching, intentional killing, predation on young tortoises by the common raven (Corvus corax) and other predators (e.g. kit fox [Vulpes macrotis], snakes, etc.), and disease (e.g. Mycoplasmosis). Off-road vehicles, military training maneuvers, mining, and livestock grazing also affect tortoise habitat by collapsing burrows, eroding soils, reducing availability of food plants, eliminating shrubs which would provide shade for tortoises and support for their burrows, and ultimately results in surface disturbance that promotes conditions more conducive to invasion by exotic plant species, which provide less nutritional value to tortoises than the native species that were replaced. Human activities, including garbage dumping, landfills, roads, increased nesting opportunities, irrigation, and increased vehicle use have led to increased numbers of common ravens in California deserts. Ultimately, the increased predation on young tortoises by common ravens reduces recruitment into breeding populations (Boarman 2003).
18 Tortoises are most often detected by their scats and burrows. Tortoises themselves can sometimes be detected in burrows by reflecting sunlight inside the burrow with a mirror. Other tortoise sign include carcasses, or fragments thereof, courtship rings, and drinking depressions. Presence of sign is an indication that tortoises either occur, or have recently occurred, at a particular location. Sign can be detected at any time of the year and always indicates suitable habitat, if not occupied habitat.
Although there is no desert tortoise critical habitat designated on the project site, it is present approximately 6 miles to the southeast. Further, the vegetation community occurring on the project site (e.g. creosote bush scrub) is habitat typically utilized by desert tortoises. CNDDB reports populations immediately to the northwest from 2008 (CDFW 2023).
Although no desert tortoise was found during the biological assessment, the project site and surrounding area contains suitable habitat. For these reasons, desert tortoises may be currently present or may enter the project area in the future. The following mitigation and minimization measures are recommended to ensure that any potential impacts to the desert tortoise are avoided:
1) Desert tortoise surveys should be conducted in accordance with the PREPARING FOR ANY ACTION THAT MAY OCCUR WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE MOJAVE DESERT TORTOISE (Gopherus agassizii) (USFWS 2019).
5.4 Special Status Bats
No special status bat species are expected to roost in the project site or immediate vicinity due to no suitable roosting habitat being present.
5.5 Special Status Burrowing Mammals
Two species of special status burrowing mammals (state species of special concern) are of potential occurrence: American badger and pallid San Diego pocket mouse. Both are considered to have at least a low potential of occurrence. Although habitat is suitable for American badger, no burrows diagnostic for this species were found during the biological assessment. However, if an American badger is found onsite during construction, impacts to this species should be avoided. If impacts to this species cannot be avoided, the CDFW should be consulted.
The pallid San Diego pocket mouse is primarily active during the night, making targeted trapping surveys the most reliable method for detection. Although the project site does feature some vegetation associated with this species, such as creosote bush scrub, it lacks the preferred rocky or gravelly substrates that the species typically inhabits. The nearest available CNDDB records for this species, dating back to 1986, are located approximately 2.5 miles to the south, within and around the foothills of the local mountains. These areas likely offer the preferred substrates for this species, which are rocky or gravelly in nature. For these reasons, we do not recommend conducting focused surveys for pallid San Diego pocket mouse. However, If the pallid San Diego Pocket mouse is detected during construction and avoidance is not possible, it is recommended to seek guidance from the CDFW.
19 5.6 Special Status Birds
5.6.1 Loggerhead Shrike
The loggerhead shrike is a medium-sized songbird. In its adult plumage, it sports a grey upper body, a white to pale grey chest, and possesses black tarsi and feet. Notably, it has a distinctive black mask that extends from its eyes to its bill. Historically, loggerhead shrikes were widely distributed across southern Canada, the contiguous USA, and Mexico. Unfortunately, their populations have experienced significant declines since the 1960s. This species is State designated as a Species of Special Concern (CSC).
These birds thrive in open habitats that offer ample foraging space, elevated perches, and suitable nesting sites. Loggerhead shrikes prefer to nest in trees or shrubs with dense foliage, particularly those with thorns or dense branches that provide cover and protection.
To avoid project related impacts to this species, it is recommended that either initial site vegetation clearance and/or or grading be scheduled and conducted to avoid the nesting season (i.e., February 1- August 31), or if avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, a nesting bird survey be performed by a qualified biologist as described above in Section 5.7 of this report.
5.6.2 Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl faces a unique vulnerability due to its habit of both nesting and roosting underground.
This necessitates special measures to safeguard the species from ground-disturbing activities. Designated as a Bird of Conservation Concern at the federal level and a CSC at the state level, the burrowing owl primarily inhabits open, arid grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low-lying vegetation. In Southern California, these owls can be found not only in pristine natural environments but also in fallow agricultural fields, along the edges of active agricultural zones, on livestock farms, at airports, and even on vacant lots. They exhibit a subterranean nesting behavior, typically making use of existing burrows, whether they belong to mammals like the California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) or the kit fox, or human-made structures such as drainpipes and culverts. Signs of burrowing owl presence include tracks, discarded feathers, remnants of prey, nest decorations (such as paper, foil, and plastic items), as well as whitewash or droppings.
Burrowing owls are active throughout both day and night, often seen perched conspicuously on fence posts or standing near the entrance of their burrows. Unfortunately, regional analyses of breeding populations have noted declines, both locally in their central and southern coastal breeding areas, and statewide, indicating a shrinking breeding range. These declines are attributed to various threats including habitat loss, degradation, and modification, as well as the eradication of ground squirrels, which leads to a shortage of suitable nesting burrows and protection from predators. To ensure the well-being of burrowing owls, conservation efforts may encompass the protection of existing breeding pairs, initiatives to expand populations, enhancement of breeding and crucial habitats, and the implementation of specific actions aimed at avoiding the necessity of listing the species under the protections of the ESA or the CESA.
20 While no burrowing owl or sign of their presence were detected during the assessment, suitable land cover is present within and immediately adjacent to the project site. As such, it is recommended to conduct a focused burrow search and, if deemed necessary, implement focused surveys in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012). Following CDFW's recommendations, the initial burrowing owl habitat assessment should encompass the project site as well as suitable habitat within 500 feet of the project site. During this assessment, all suitable burrowing owl burrows should be mapped. Subsequently, if suitable habitat is identified (i.e., suitable burrows), a total of four (4) site visits should be conducted: 1) at least one visit between February 15th and April 15th, and 2) a minimum of three survey visits, each separated by at least three weeks, between April 15th and July 15th, with at least one visit taking place after June 15th. Additionally, following the four site visits, CDFW recommends performing two pre-construction avoidance surveys: 1) an initial avoidance survey no less than 14 days prior to commencing ground-disturbing activities, and 2) a final survey carried out within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance. If impacts to burrowing owls cannot be avoided, it is advisable to seek guidance from the CDFW, which may include the development of a comprehensive burrowing owl mitigation plan.
5.7 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and State Fish and Game Code Native bird species which may nest on or adjacent to the project area could be subject to direct or indirect impacts from the project. The bird nesting season is generally February 1 through August 31, although nesting birds are always protected. To avoid impacts to such birds, including the special status species which occur or potentially occur on-site, we recommend the following: any vegetation removal or grading occurring during the nesting season would require at least one nesting bird survey to be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to such activity. If no nests are found, construction would proceed. If active nests are found, impact avoidance measures (e.g., “no work” buffers; sound and/or visual barriers) would be put in place around the nest until young have fledged. This would also apply to offsite nests which may be indirectly impacted. While there is no established protocol for indirect impacts to nests, when consulted, the CDFW often recommends avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for birds-ofprey and listed species, and 100–300 feet for other unlisted birds.
5.8 Jurisdictional Waters
The eastern section of the project site encompasses potentially jurisdictional State waters (Figure 4, Biological Resources), subject to regulation under the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act. These waters represent ephemeral flows originating from the mountains and lands located to the south of the project site, eventually draining to the north, crossing SR-62. A jurisdictional delineation report has been prepared for this project, see the report for details regarding jurisdictional waters.
5.9 Conclusion and Recommendations
Based on the literature review and subsequent field assessment, the following actions are recommended to avoid impacts to potentially occurring special status species and jurisdictional aquatic resources as result of project implementation.
21 1) Carry out desert tortoise surveys in accordance with the guidelines provided in the document
PREPARING FOR ANY ACTION THAT MAY OCCUR WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE MOJAVE DESERT TORTOISE (Gopherus agassizii)" (USFWS 2019). If desert tortoise is found within the project area, seeking guidance from the USFWS is advised and necessary.
2) Avoid scheduling or conducting initial vegetation clearance, grading or any other site work involving the use of heavy equipment or operation of motorized vehicles on-site during the nesting season. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible and initial site disturbance must occur during the bird nesting season (generally February 1 through August 31), conduct at least one nesting bird survey by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to any vegetation removal or grading. If active nests are found, implement impact avoidance measures (e.g., "no work" buffers, sound and/or visual barriers) until young have fledged. This also applies to offsite nests that may be indirectly impacted. While there is no established protocol for indirect impacts to nests, the CDFW often recommends avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for birds-of-prey and listed species, and 100–300 feet for other unlisted birds. 3) Perform a burrowing owl focused burrow assessment, and if necessary, focused surveys in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012). The burrow search should cover the project site and a 500-foot area within suitable habitat areas. Map all suitable burrowing owl burrows. If suitable burrows are found, conduct a total of four (4) site visits: 1) at least one visit between February 15th and April 15th, and 2) a minimum of three survey visits, each at least three weeks apart, between April 15th and July 15th, with at least one visit after June 15th. Additionally, following the four site visits, CDFW recommends two pre-construction take avoidance surveys: 1) an initial pre-construction take avoidance survey no less than 14 days before ground-disturbing activities begin, and 2) a final preconstruction take avoidance survey within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance. 4) Take measures to avoid impacting potentially State jurisdictional water resources.
6.0 REFERENCES
Boarman, W. 2003. Desert tortoise species account. In Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement for the West Mojave Plan (BLM 2005). California Desert Conservation Area District Office, Riverside, California.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff Report on burrowing owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 7, 2012.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) RareFind 5 records of sensitive elements.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities
22 California Legislative Information. 2023. Fish and Game Code of California. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=FGC&tocTitle=+Fish+ and+Game+Code+-+FGC
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2023. Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California. Accessed online at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023.
Web Soil Survey. November 1. Accessed online at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ United States. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/
USFWS. 2019. Preparing for Any Action that May Occur Within the Range of the Mojave desert tortoise.
October 8, 2019. Accessed online from: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/SurveyProtocols#377281283-reptiles United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2023. 7.5-Minute Series Sun Fair United States Geological Survey. November 2023. Accessed online at: https://apps.nationalmap.gov/downloader/#/maps
APPENDIX A- FIGURES
SeMCe Ulyer Credil:s:Es.n CGrAR USGS, Sources. Es USGS NOAA C for a State Parks Es Tom-om, Gann n, S.of@G .iPh FAQ l,1ETI NASA USGS Burea of L.. f, an~,emen· EPP. NPS. USPNS Agua Caliente
Cathedral City
0 Rancho Mirage
o Palm Desert 0
I
Indio 0
Twentynine
Palms
San Bernardino
Riverside
San
Bernardino
Mountains
Joshua Tree
National Park
* Project Location
,. 5335ft
J '
San
Bernardino
*
Riverside
San Diego
0 5 10
Miles
FIGURE 1
Regional Map
Biological Resources Assessment Report
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Twentynine Palms, CA
,;.J
; ~•: - ·:1:' :
ff?
~ii
Al\-.ff ••i,,,,,J.,...-;· •" fftilft ~/• ~'•t-•:~•i\!l: ... ;.~•• ·-\'11:
1 ~~i. : H~~~ .... ::-:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;··;:D~
':f jiji~l¥ : i~
q..;-l'.'"j ' .':_:~ ' - .. 1; :.!_'.:
'; ,_· ... ~· : .. ~ .;,:~ ·. Q.. ,,1;
-.~·l ,, ..• _:: ·:, :·
") .. ,.~.:~::\
_;,;,.·· ~
c::::J Project Boundary
0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE2
Vicinity Map
Biological Resources Assessment Report
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Twentynine Palms, CA
-ii State '>arks Es
TWOMILE
'PALMS
t,
. . ll " U I
• • :---......~
---1.r-i~--.:1 I
~
---tt-------11 ----------·
_______ -la--.....__
X. X. \
Borrow " •
Pits J\
II
1,000
::::::::::::::::J Feet
0 500
c::::J Project Boundary FIGURE3
USGS Map
Biological Resources Assessment Report
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Twentynine Palms, CA
c:J Project Boundary
Vegetation and Land Cover
Type
- Creosote Bush Scrub
(CBS)
Disturbed Habitat (DH)
Aquatic Resources
- Ephemeral Drainages
0 295 590
Feet
FIGURE4
Biological Resources
Biological Resources Assessment Report
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Twentynine Palms, CA
APPENDIX B- SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
WSP USA
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Client: Terra Nova Planning and Research Job Number: 322520147 Site Name: Yonder Glamping Resort Project Location: Twentynine Palms, CA Photographer: Marshall Paymard Date: October 26, 2023
Photograph No. 1
Photo 1: Facing south. View of creosote bush scrub habitat.
Photograph No. 2
Photo 2: Facing west. View of creosote bush scrub habitat and single-family homes.
ISE •~-r • 5 I SW W
120 . ~so ,ea 210 240 210
I • I • I • I • 'I~; I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • 0 203°SW (T) @ 34°7'53"N, 116°8'57"W ±13ft A 2561ft
SW w I NW N
210 240 270 300 ~ 0
I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • C 283°W (T) @34°7'53"N, 116°8'5T'W ±13ft A 2561ft
2 WSP USA
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Client: Terra Nova Planning and Research Job Number: 322520147 Site Name: Yonder Glamping Resort Project Location: Twentynine Palms, CA Photographer: Marshall Paymard Date: October 26, 2023
Photograph No. 3
Photo 3: Facing southeast. View of habitat and disturbances.
Photograph No. 4
Photo 4: Facing southeast. View of creosote bush scrub habitat.
E sE - I ·s sw
I '90 120 150 180 210 240
• I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I 0156°SE (T} @34°7'54"N, 116°8'46''W ±13ft • 2554ft
E SE I s SW
o 90 120 150 180 Z10 240
• I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • 0155°SE (T) (j) 34°7'53"N, 116°8'39"W ±13ft A 2563ft
3 WSP USA
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Client: Terra Nova Planning and Research Job Number: 322520147 Site Name: Yonder Glamping Resort Project Location: Twentynine Palms, CA Photographer: Marshall Paymard Date: October 26, 2023
Photograph No. 5
Photo 5: Facing east. View of habitat and SR-62 on the left.
Photograph No. 6
Photo 6: Facing east. View of habitat, including erosion and disturbances.
N NE if: SE 5 0 30 60 ' I 120 150 180
I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I 0 90°E (T) @ 34°8'4"N, 116°8'50"W ±13ft A 2510ft
NE E I SE 0 60 90 120 150
I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I O 100°E (T) @ 34°8'2"N, 116°8'39"W ±13ft • 2526ft
4 WSP USA
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Client: Terra Nova Planning and Research Job Number: 322520147 Site Name: Yonder Glamping Resort Project Location: Twentynine Palms, CA Photographer: Marshall Paymard Date: October 26, 2023
Photograph No. 7
Photo 7: Facing southeast. View of habitat and water tower in the distance (offsite).
Photograph No. 8
Photo 8: Facing west. View of drainage feature.
E SE I s SW 60 90 120 150 180 210 .
I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • 0144°SE (T) @34°7'48"N, 116°8'38"W ±13ft A 2580ft
SW WI NW 210 240 27C 300 330
• I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I 0 274°W (T} @ 34°7'47"N, 116°8'39"W ±13ft • 2579ft
APPENDIX C- California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) RareFind 5 Report
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
AMACC10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
ABNKC22010 None None G5 S3 FP
Astragalus bernardinus
San Bernardino milk-vetch
PDFAB0F190 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Ayenia compacta
California ayenia
PDSTE01020 None None G4 S3 2B.3
Boechera dispar
pinyon rockcress
PDBRA060F0 None None G3 S3 2B.3
Calochortus striatus
alkali mariposa-lily
PMLIL0D190 None None G3 S2S3 1B.2
Chaetodipus fallax pallidus
pallid San Diego pocket mouse
AMAFD05032 None None G5T3T4 S3S4
Coryphantha alversonii
Alverson's foxtail cactus
PDCAC0X060 None None G3 S3 4.3
Crotalus ruber
red-diamond rattlesnake
ARADE02090 None None G4 S3 SSC
Cymopterus multinervatus
purple-nerve cymopterus
PDAPI0U0Q0 None None G4G5 S2 2B.2
Erigeron parishii
Parish's daisy
PDAST3M310 Threatened None G2 S2 1B.1
Euderma maculatum
spotted bat
AMACC07010 None None G4 S3 SSC
Eumops perotis californicus
western mastiff bat
AMACD02011 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 SSC
Falco mexicanus
prairie falcon
ABNKD06090 None None G5 S4 WL
Gopherus agassizii
desert tortoise
ARAAF01012 Threatened Threatened G3 S2S3
Grusonia parishii
Parish's club-cholla
PDCAC0D2H0 None None G3G4 S2 2B.2
Jaffueliobryum raui
Rau's jaffueliobryum moss
NBMUS97010 None None G4 S2 2B.3
Jaffueliobryum wrightii
Wright's jaffueliobryum moss
NBMUS97020 None None G5 S2S3 2B.3
Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Twentynine Palms (3411621)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Queen Mtn. (3411611)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Sunfair (3411622)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Indian Cove (3411612))<br /><span style='color:Red'> AND </span>Taxonomic Group<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Fish<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Amphibians<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Reptiles<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Birds<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Mammals<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Mollusks<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Arachnids<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Crustaceans<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Insects<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Ferns<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Gymnosperms<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Monocots<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Dicots<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Lichens<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Bryophytes) Query Criteria:
Report Printed on Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated October, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 3 Information Expires 4/1/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Lasiurus cinereus
hoary bat
AMACC05032 None None G3G4 S4
Lasiurus xanthinus
western yellow bat
AMACC05070 None None G4G5 S3 SSC
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri
Coulter's goldfields
PDAST5L0A1 None None G4T2 S2 1B.1
Linanthus maculatus ssp. maculatus
Little San Bernardino Mtns. linanthus
PDPLM041Y1 None None G2T2 S2 1B.2
Matelea parvifolia
spear-leaf matelea
PDASC0A0J0 None None G5 S3 2B.3
Menodora spinescens var. mohavensis
Mojave menodora
PDOLE09061 None None G4T2 S2 1B.2
Monardella robisonii
Robison's monardella
PDLAM180K0 None None G3 S3 1B.3
Muhlenbergia appressa
appressed muhly
PMPOA48020 None None G4 S3 2B.2
Myotis thysanodes
fringed myotis
AMACC01090 None None G4 S3
Nyctinomops femorosaccus
pocketed free-tailed bat
AMACD04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Nyctinomops macrotis
big free-tailed bat
AMACD04020 None None G5 S3 SSC
Ovis canadensis nelsoni
desert bighorn sheep
AMALE04013 None None G4T4 S3 FP
Penstemon clevelandii var. mohavensis
Mojave beardtongue
PDSCR1L1D3 None None G5T3? S2 1B.2
Rhopalolemma robertsi
Roberts' rhopalolemma bee
IIHYM83010 None None G1 S1
Saltugilia latimeri
Latimer's woodland-gilia
PDPLM0H010 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Sidalcea neomexicana
salt spring checkerbloom
PDMAL110J0 None None G4 S2 2B.2
Sphaeralcea rusbyi var. eremicola
Rusby's desert-mallow
PDMAL140L1 None None G4T2 S2 1B.2
Streptanthus bernardinus
Laguna Mountains jewelflower
PDBRA2G060 None None G3G4 S3S4 4.3
Taxidea taxus
American badger
AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Toxostoma bendirei
Bendire's thrasher
ABPBK06050 None None G4 S2 SSC
Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell's vireo
ABPBW01114 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S3
Report Printed on Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated October, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 3 Information Expires 4/1/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Wislizenia refracta ssp. refracta
jackass-clover
PDCPP09013 None None G5T5? S1 2B.2
Record Count: 40
Report Printed on Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated October, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 3 Information Expires 4/1/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
APPENDIX D- USFWS IPAC REPORT
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2024-0034574
Project Name: Yonder Project
Carlsbad Fish And Wildlife Office
2177 Salk Avenue - Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7385
Phone: (760) 431-9440 Fax: (760) 431-5901
January 10, 2024
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through IPaC by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(l) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects ( or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
Project code: 2024-003457 4 01/10/2024
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ endangered-species-consultation-handbook.pd£
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BG EPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see Migratory Bird Permit I What We Do I U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (fws.gov).
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds.
In addition to MBTA and BG EPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservationmigratory-birds.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
Attachment( s):
■ Official Species List
2 of 6 Page 918 of 1452
Project code: 2024-003457 4 01/10/2024
OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".
This species list is provided by:
Carlsbad Fish And Wildlife Office
2177 Salk Avenue - Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7385
(760) 431-9440
3 of 6 Page 919 of 1452
Project code: 2024-003457 4
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code:
Project Name:
Project Type:
Project Description:
Project Location:
2024-00345 7 4
Yonder Project
Commercial Development
155-acres. planning phase
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@34.13157545.-116.14637894466613.14z Counties: San Bernardino County, California
01/10/2024
4 of 6 Page 920 of 1452
Project code: 2024-003457 4 01/10/2024
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 2 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.
1. NOAA Fisheries. also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
REPTILES
NAME
Desert Tortoise Gopherus agassizii
Population: Wherever found, except AZ south and east of Colorado R., and Mexico There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: hnps://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4481
INSECTS
NAME
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
CRITICAL HABITATS
STATUS
Threatened
STATUS
Candidate
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.
YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.
5 of 6 Page 921 of 1452
APPENDIX E- Wildlife and Plant Species Observed During
Surveys
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Detected Species Compendium
Plant Species Detected
EUDICOTIDAE EUDICOTS
Amaranthaceae Amaranth Family
Amaranthus fimbriatus fringed amaranth
Asteraceae Sunflower Family
Adenophyllum cooperi Cooper’s dogweed
Ambrosia dumosa white bur-sage
Ambrosia salsola cheesebush
Ericameria nauseosa rubber rabbitbrush
Pectis papposa manybristle chinchweed
Boraginaceae Borage Family
Johnstonella angustifolia narrow-leaved johnstonella
Cactaceae Cactus Family
Cylindropuntia echinocarpa golden/silver cholla
Cylindropuntia ramosissima pencil cactus
Echinocereus engelmannii Engelmann's hedgehog cactus
Ferocactus cylindraceus California barrel cactus
Opuntia basilaris beavertail cactus
Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot Family
Atriplex polycarpa allscale saltbush
Fabaceae Legume Family
Senna armata spiny senna
Krameriaceae Rhatany Family
Krameria bicolor white rhatany
Lamiaceae Mint Family
Scutellaria mexicana bladder-sage
Polygonaceae Buckwheat Family
Eriogonum inflatum desert trumpet
Simmondsiaceae Jojoba Family
Simmondsia chinensis jojoba
Zygophyllaceae Caltrop Family
Larrea tridentata creosote bush
MONOCOTYLEDONAE MONOCOTS
Agavaceae Century Plant Family
Yucca schidigera Mojave yucca
Wildlife Species Detected
VERTEBRATA VERTEBRATE WILDLIFE
Cathartidae New World Vultures
Cathartes aura turkey vulture
Passerellidae New World Sparrows
Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow
This list reports only plants observed on the site by this study. Other species may have been overlooked or undetectable due to their growing season. Plants were identified from keys, descriptions and drawings in the Jepson Flora Project (2024). Plant nomenclature and systematics follows the Jepson Flora Project and/or United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (2024).
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
C
APPENDIX C: Jurisdictional Delineation
Available on the City of Twentynine Palms Website:
www.ci.twentynine-palms.ca.us
YONDER GLAMPING RESORT PROJECT
DELINEATION OF JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
CITY OF TWENTYNINE PALMS, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for:
Terra Nova Planning and Research
42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Nicole Criste, Principal
(760) 341-4800
Prepared by:
WSP USA.
11870 Pierce Street, Suite 160
Riverside, California 92505
(949) 356-8476
8 February 2024
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters
February 2024
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................2
1.1 Purpose..........................................................................................................2
1.2 Project Description .........................................................................................2
1.3 Project Location .............................................................................................2
2.0 METHODS.................................................................................................................2
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING....................................................................................4
3.1 Existing Conditions.........................................................................................4
3.2 Topography....................................................................................................4
3.3 Hydrology.......................................................................................................4
3.4 Vegetation......................................................................................................4
3.4.1 Disturbed Habitat................................................................................5
3.4.2 Creosote Bush Scrub..........................................................................5
3.5 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI).................................................................5
3.6 National Hydrography Dataset (NHD).............................................................5
3.7 Soils ...............................................................................................................6
4.0 RESULTS..................................................................................................................6
5.0 IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL AREAS..................................................................7
5.1 Permitting Requirements ................................................................................7
6.0 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Potential Jurisdictional Drainages.........................................................................................7
LIST OF APPENDICES
– Jurisdictional Maps
– Site Photographs
– Regulatory Framework
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIXC
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Jurisdictional Delineation
February 2024
1.0 INTRODUCTION
WSP USA Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. (WSP) was contracted by Terra Nova Planning and Research to conduct a delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources for the proposed Yonder Glamping Resort Project (project) in Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County, California. This jurisdictional delineation report provides methods, results, and discussion of the assessment. All report figures are provided in Appendix A of this report.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of the aquatic resource delineation is to determine the extent of state and federal jurisdiction within the project area potentially subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under Section 401 of the CWA and Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.
1.2 Project Description
The project is proposed to consist of the development of a 150-acre glamping resort with a total of 130 units. Additional amenities include food & beverage space, and a main lodge that could host special events. Vehicular access will be provided via the one driveway connection to the extension of Lear Avenue at Cactus Drive, with a secondary access driveway connecting to the easterly extension of Sullivan Road.
1.3 Project Location
The project is situated entirely within the city of Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1, Regional Map). It occupies the southeast corner of the 7.5-minute Sun Fair, California, United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle, located in Township 1 North, Range 8 East, within Section 33 (Figure 2, USGS Map). The project is specifically located on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 061-412-115. The project site is positioned between Highway 62 and Sullivan Road to the north and south, respectively, and is bordered by Shoshone Valley Road to the east and Monte Vista Drive to the west (Figure 3, Local Vicinity Map).
2.0 METHODS
Prior to conducting the delineation fieldwork, the following literature and materials were reviewed:
• Aerial photographs (Google Earth 2023) of the project site at a scale of 1:1800 to determine the potential locations of jurisdictional waters or wetlands;
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Jurisdictional Delineation
February 2024
• USGS topographic maps to determine the presence of any “blue line” drainages or other mapped water features (USGS 2023A);
• U.S. Department of Agriculture soil mapping data (USDA 2023); • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map to identify areas mapped as wetland features (USFWS 2023).
A field delineation of aquatic resources was conducted by WSP senior biologist, Marshall Paymard, on October 30, 2023. All areas suspected of being jurisdictional waters identified during the literature review were assessed on-foot to determine if they meet the minimum criteria to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. Visual observations of vegetation types, geomorphology, and soil type were used to locate areas for evaluation. Weather conditions during the delineation fieldwork was conducive for surveying with conditions of clear skies, winds ranging from 1 to 5 miles per hour, with temperatures of 62-75° Fahrenheit during the surveys.
If present, USACE regulated Waters of the United States (WUS), including wetlands, and RWQCB Waters of the State of California (WSC) were delineated according to the methods outlined in A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008a). The extent of jurisdiction was determined based on indicators of an OHWM. The OHWM width was measured at points wherever clear changes in width occurred.
If present, potential federally regulated wetlands were identified based on the Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008b). Three criteria must be fulfilled to classify an area as a wetland under the jurisdiction of the USACE: 1) a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, 2) the presence of hydric soils, and 3) the presence of wetland hydrology. State wetlands, if present, were delineated using the methodology per the 1987 Manual and Supplement and modified to allow for areas devoid of hydrophytic vegetation to be considered a wetland per the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures).
The lateral extent of RWQCB jurisdictional areas identified as WSC were determined by indicators of the OHWM. The OHWM was determined by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or the presence of litter and debris. Streambeds under jurisdiction of the CDFW were delineated from the lateral extent of the stream banks (i.e., top of bank to top of bank), or to the extent of the associated riparian vegetation dripline, if present.
If streambed banks were not identifiable or riparian vegetation was absent, CDFW jurisdiction was determined to be similar to jurisdictional RWQCB areas.
To determine jurisdictional boundaries, the surveyor walked the length of the drainage within the project site and recorded the centerline with a Trimble GeoXH global positioning system.
The width of the drainage was determined by the OHWM indicators at locations where transitions were apparent. Other data recorded included bank height and morphology, substrate type, and all vegetation within the streambed and riparian vegetation adjacent to the
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Jurisdictional Delineation
February 2024
streambed, if any. Areas that lacked evidence of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology did not receive soil testing since indicative wetland parameters were absent. Upon completion of fieldwork, all data collected in the field were incorporated into a Geographic Information System (GIS). The GIS was then used to quantify the extent of jurisdictional waters and prepare graphical representations of the data.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
3.1 Existing Conditions
The project site is located in a span of open desert terrain. To the west, there are single-family homes, while State Route (SR) 62 runs to the north. In the south, the area opens to more expansive lands, and a few scattered homes can be found just beyond the southeast boundary.
Moreover, concrete curbs transect the project site in the north, along the span of designated roadways. These curbed areas have been heavily damaged from flow events.
3.2 Topography
The project site exhibits predominantly level terrain, with gentle decline towards the southern direction. The project topography is roughly level overall, with a slight decline to the north.
Elevations range from approximately 2,615 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) (796 meters) in the south, to 2,509 feet AMSL (764 meters) in the north.
3.3 Hydrology
In the desert region, despite generally low rainfall averages, precipitation often arrives in the form of intense, brief storms, leading to flash floods in washes and canyons. The project area is situated within an endorheic basin, which is an area devoid of an outlet to the ocean. Water in these basins follows processes of evaporation, infiltration, or accumulation. Ephemeral streams and washes are notably present in the project area, remaining dry for extended periods but swiftly filling during and after rain events. These ephemeral streambeds and washes primarily drain towards the north.
The project site is located within the Southern Mojave Basin (HUC 181001) and falls within the Southern Mojave Sub-Basin (HUC 18100100), and the Mesquite Lake Watershed (HUC 1810010018).
3.4 Vegetation
Two vegetation and land cover types were documented on the project site, disturbed habitat and creosote bush scrub (Figure 4, Vegetation and Land Cover). Descriptions of the vegetation and land cover types are detailed below.
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Jurisdictional Delineation
February 2024
3.4.1 Disturbed Habitat
This land cover type includes access roads and other areas cleared of vegetation through human activity within the project site. These areas are not paved and retain a soil substrate.
Disturbed habitat is primarily located within the central and eastern segments of the project site.
3.4.2 Creosote Bush Scrub
Creosote bush scrub is the primary vegetation community present in the project site. The community is dominated by creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) and is accompanied by various co-dominant species, including white bur-sage (Ambrosia dumosa), white rhatany (Krameria bicolor), allscale saltbush (Atriplex polycarpa), and cheesebush (Ambrosia Salsola).
Chinchweed (Pectis papposa) is also present at the herbaceous level throughout the project site.
3.5 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
The USFWS is the principal federal agency that provides information to the public on the extent and status of the nation’s wetlands. The USFWS has developed a series of maps, known as the NWI to show wetlands and deep-water habitat. This geospatial information is used by federal, state, and local agencies, academic institutions, and private industry for management, research, policy development, education, and planning activities. The NWI program was neither designed nor intended to produce legal or regulatory products; therefore, wetlands identified by the NWI program are not the same as wetlands defined by the USACE and RWQCB.
The NWI Mapper (USFWS 2023) was accessed on-line to review mapped wetlands or riverine areas within the project site. No wetlands or riverine features are depicted in the NWI dataset (Figure 5, NWI and NHD Map).
3.6 National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
The National Hydrography Dataset is a comprehensive dataset that provides information about surface water features, such as rivers, lakes, and streams. It is maintained by the USGS and is widely used for various applications, including environmental research, resource management, and mapping.
The NHD includes information on the flow and relationships between different water features, helping to create a detailed and interconnected representation of the nation’s hydrography. It is important to note that the dataset is has its limitations in accuracy and should not be used to determine jurisdiction of waters. The NHD data was accessed online to aid in the identification of potentially jurisdictional waters, no water features were depicted in the NHD as occurring in the project site (Figure 5, NWI and NHD Map).
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Jurisdictional Delineation
February 2024
3.7 Soils
Official soil mapping data for the project site is not available as of USDA records from 2023 (USDA 2023). However, the soils in the area are predominantly sandy and well-drained, as typically characteristic of desert landscapes. The nearest mapped soil, approximately one mile to the south, is classified as Morongo loamy sand, with slopes ranging from 2 to 8 percent. The Morongo series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from granitoid and/or gneissic rocks. Morongo soils are on fan aprons, inset fans, fan remnants and in drainageways (USDA 2023).
4.0 RESULTS
Based on the field visit, no jurisdictional wetlands were identified, and six (6) non-wetland ephemeral drainages were documented in the project site (Figure 6, Potential Jurisdictional Waters). The lateral limits (OHWM) of non-wetland waters ranged from 1 to 30 feet and was determined by heterogeneity in soils, vegetation, and geomorphology compared to the adjacent uplands. Soils within the ephemeral features were composed of well-drained, coarse textures, such as sandy or gravelly materials with low organic content. The total acres of the non-wetland waters contained within the project site summed to 1.01 acres and 6,468 linear feet (1,973 meters). No hydrophytic or native riparian plant species were observed in project site. Table 1, below, details the drainage names and their related acreages and linear feet comprised in the project site.
Conclusions derived from the jurisdictional delineation indicate that the ephemeral waters documented in the project site are likely jurisdictional WSC regulated by the CDFW and RWQCB. No waters were deemed jurisdictional WUS as they are ephemeral waters lacking continuous surface connection to (a)(1) waters, namely traditional navigable waters or territorial seas. Given the episodic flow regime and well-drained soils, both CDFW streambed and RWQCB jurisdictions coincided across the project site.
It should be noted that the USACE, in collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as needed, retains the ultimate authority for the final jurisdictional determination of WUS, while the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) holds the ultimate authority for the final jurisdictional determination of WSC. Furthermore, the CDFW exercises ultimate discretion in determining its jurisdiction.
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Jurisdictional Delineation
February 2024
Table 1. Potentially Jurisdictional Drainages
Drainage Type Cowardin Class Jurisdiction Linear
Feet
Acres
A Ephemeral R4SBJ WSC/CDFW 881 0.06
B Ephemeral R4SBJ WSC/CDFW 2,552 0.51
C Ephemeral R4SBJ WSC/CDFW 1,155 0.25
D Ephemeral R4SBJ WSC/CDFW 1,074 0.15
E Ephemeral R4SBJ WSC/CDFW 496 0.02
F Ephemeral R4SBJ WSC/CDFW 310 0.01
Total 6,468 1.01
5.0 IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
No impacts to jurisdictional waters are proposed for the project. The project has been strategically designed to avoid impacts to any potentially jurisdictional waters (Figure 7, Project Impacts).
5.1 Permitting Requirements
The project will not result in impacts to jurisdictional waters and therefore authorization from RWQCB and CDFW are not required. If there is a change in project design and impacts to waters are proposed, the appropriate permits will be necessary.
6.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior.
Google. (2023). Google Earth (Version 9.90.0.5). Google. https://www.google.com/earth/ Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. USDA 2023. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed December 2023.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-8. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. + append.
_____. 2008a. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. A Delineation Manual. Lichvar and McColley. August.
_____. 2008b. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Arid West Region. September.
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Jurisdictional Delineation
February 2024
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. USFWS 2023. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Accessed December 2023.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). USGS 2023A. 7.5-Minute Series Sun Fair United States Geological Survey.
USGS. 2023b. National Hydrography Dataset. https://www.usgs.gov/core-sciencesystems/ngp/national-hydrography. Accessed December 2023.
Weather Underground (Accessed 2023):
https://www.wunderground.com/dashboard/pws/KCANEWBE16
Western Regional Climate Center (Accessed 2023): https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?ca9325
APPENDIX A- FIGURES
SeMCe Ulyer Credil:s:Es.n CGrAR USGS, Sources. Es USGS NOAA C for a State Parks Es Tom-om, Gann n, S.of@G .iPh FAQ l,1ETI NASA USGS Burea of L.. f, an~,emen· EPP. NPS. USPNS Agua Caliente
Cathedral City
0 Rancho Mirage
o Palm Desert 0
I
Indio 0
Twentynine
Palms
San Bernardino
Riverside
San
Bernardino
Mountains
Joshua Tree
National Park
* Project Location
,. 5335ft
J '
San
Bernardino
*
Riverside
San Diego
0 5 10
Miles
FIGURE 1
Regional Map
Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters Report
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Twentynine Palms, CA
~
~oo
C -- .._...
t _,--- • • •
~ •
33 ) l
c:::J Project Boundary
' . .. .
-·
:::
....... ..
.
. '
. '
(
. •.
-=- .........
::=-~·
·:~r=-
:::·
2731,
I :·:
..
0 500 1,000
US Feet
FIGURE 2
USGS Map
Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters Report
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Twentynine Palms, CA
SeMCe Uver Credil:s:U1 f.ol'1"til State Parks, Es Tom Tom, G•rmm, SafeGraph, GeaTecl,nologoes, Inc, ~ETI;'NASA. USGS. 9u·eau of land P.1ane1oement EPA. NPS. US Cel"lsus 9u·eau, USDA USFWS, Esn Com~un•tv ~•os Contnbutors, Cai.fom a i-1' "i;:t•""'~ ~{·_ ·-:, a:,.,;.:_--;, ►,,.~ .... .,...., ,.•J,·. ' l-~.: :;_ij:; t~~ .. ~~~~~""!';;~.;~~~._.~~~!fll~~ ''t~ lil\~!J;;~~z }tJ:-·~:-.~ :i}:_::r·:;' ,.,. , .. ,.' . ' ' '.•f~ • •· '.- -~,µ.--;• !:i'-.a.~ •:;~':.·\~~/~~~~~;~'.; .:~j,\~ •. ;~;J/~:,~-~-::.
X \, ... I ' I ' l . °:-'~··· '.~*:;::=6.~,;1-.,ia(;;ill .~~.;.~_:•;~::·:~ .. -. ~ .. : ,t J .-. •: ·:w;:·:'. •. ,.\ } .jf ~ '\~~/t ~. ,, ----.., :,,;;:;::,,;;;:.;;;;:;;;;:::::::: ... ---- ~::;.:-;=;~. ;,;;:>f:/.!\'.;: {\ ---==-~·-.
~f ii.' " . ';;,. ·,J.','.;
c:::J Project Boundary
0 500 1,000
US Feet
FIGURE 3
Local Vicinity Map
Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters Report
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Twentynine Palms, CA
SeMCe Uver Credil:s:U1 f.ol'1"til State Parks, Es Tom Tom, G•rmm, SafeGraph, GeaTecl,nologoes, Inc, ~ETI;'NASA. USGS. 9u·eau of land P.1ane1oement EPA. NPS. US Cel"lsus 9u·eau, USDA USFWS, Esn Com~un•tv ~•os Contnbutors, Cai.fom a CBS
;.i' "i;:t•""'~ ;l V'i• ~ ~{•_ •-:, a:,.,i,.'_";, ,,.~.,'.V 1 '"'J.•. ' l-~.: :;_ijft:~:; t:-~~~~~tt~~~.,,,.."",. .. ~~~~~!fll~~ ''t~ lil\~!J;;~~z }tJ:-·~:-.~ :i}:_::r·:;' ,.,. , .. ,.' . ' ' '.•f~ • •· '.- -~,µ.--;• !:i'-.a.~ •:;~':.·\~~/~~~~~;~'.; .:~j,\~ •. ;~;J/~:,~-~-::.
X \, ... I ' I ' l . °:-'~··· '.~*:;::=6.~,;1-.,ia(;;ill .~~.;.~_:•;~::·:~ .. -. ~ .. : ,t J .-. •: ·:w;:·:'. •. ,.\ } .jf ~ '\~~/t ~. ,, ----.., :,,;;:;::,,;;;:.;;;;:;;;;:::::::: ... ---- ~::;.:-;=;~. ;,;;:>f:/.!\'.;: {\ ---==-~·-.
~f ii.' " . ';;,. ·,J.','.;
c::::::J Project Boundary - Creosote Bush
Scrub (CBS)
Disturbed Habitat
(DH)
0 500 1,000
US Feet
FIGURE 4
Vegetation and Land Cover
Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters Report
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Twentynine Palms, CA
1~
/:.
c:J Project Boundary
National Hydrography
Dataset (NHD)
-:-.-.:: i Playa or Wash
National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI)
- River
, .. .,, --.. ~\: .. / . ... ~ ~:'·.1.;,•1t : . ,~J.,}~a~~ 0 500 1.000
US Feet
FIGURE 5
NWI and NHD Map
Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters Report
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Twentynine Palms, CA
SeMCe ~yer Credil:s:U1fo!T'lil State Parks, Esn. TomTom, G•rmm, SiifeGraph, GeaTecl,nologoes, Inc ~ETI;'NASA. USGS. 9u·eau of land P.1anci,ement EPA. NPS. US Cel"lsus 9u·eau, USDA, USFWS, Esn Com~un•tv ~•ps Contributors, Cai.fom.- D Project Boundary - Ephemeral
Drainages
0 230 460
US Feet
FIGURE 6
Potential Jurisdictional Waters
Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters Report
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Twentynine Palms, CA
SeMCe ~yer Credil:s:U1fo!T'lil State Parks, Esn. TomTom, G•rmm, SiifeGraph, GeaTecl,nologoes, Inc ~ETI;'NASA. USGS. 9u·eau of land P.1anci,ement EPA. NPS. US Cel"lsus 9u·eau, USDA, USFWS, Esn Com~un•tv ~•ps Contributors, Cai.fom.- c:J Project Boundary
- Ephemeral
Drainages
-- Project Footprint
0 230 460
US Feet
FIGURE 7
Project Impacts
Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters Report
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Twentynine Palms, CA
APPENDIX B- SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
WSP USA
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Client: Terra Nova Planning and Research Job Number: 322520147 Site Name: Yonder Glamping Resort Project Location: Twentynine Palms, CA Photographer: Marshall Paymard Date: October 26, 2023
Photograph No. 1
Photo 1: Facing south. Soils of Drainage A.
Photograph No. 2
Photo 2: Facing northwest. View of shelving along Drainage B.
SE Ii SW 17.0 ~50 10 210 240
I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • 0179°S (T) @34°7'44"N, 116°8'36"W ±13ft A 2594ft
w NW I N 270 300 33 0 30
• I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I 0 332°NW (T) (iJ 34°7'45"N, 116°8'39"W ±13ft A 2589ft
2 WSP USA
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Client: Terra Nova Planning and Research Job Number: 322520147 Site Name: Yonder Glamping Resort Project Location: Twentynine Palms, CA Photographer: Marshall Paymard Date: October 26, 2023
Photograph No. 3
Photo 3: Facing north. View of Drainage C.
Photograph No. 4
Photo 4: Facing northeast. View of Drainage C.
w NW I N NE
270 300 330 0 30 60
I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I 0 341°N (T) @ 34°7'46"N, 116°8'40"W ±13ft A 2587ft
w N Nll E SE
330 a JO • so 90 , 20
• I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I 0 48°NE (T) (t) 34°7'52"N, l16°8'43"W ±13ft A 2561ft
j
3 WSP USA
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Client: Terra Nova Planning and Research Job Number: 322520147 Site Name: Yonder Glamping Resort Project Location: Twentynine Palms, CA Photographer: Marshall Paymard Date: October 26, 2023
Photograph No. 5
Photo 5: Facing north. Shelving associated with Drainage D.
Photograph No. 6
w N I NE E m O ~ ~ M
• I •I• I • I • I •I• I • I •I• I • I •I• I• I
0 24°NE {T) ~ 34°7'58"N, 116°8'44"W ±13ft A 2534ft
SE s I SW
120 150 180 210 240
I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • 0187°S {T) @34°7 157"N, 116°8'44"W ±13ft .& 2540ft
4 WSP USA
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Client: Terra Nova Planning and Research Job Number: 322520147 Site Name: Yonder Glamping Resort Project Location: Twentynine Palms, CA Photographer: Marshall Paymard Date: October 26, 2023
Photo 6: Facing east. View of habitat, including erosion and disturbances.
Photograph No. 7
Photo 7: Facing north. View of Drainage F.
Photograph No. 8
Photo 8: Facing north. View of Drainage C.
w NW I" NE E 270 300 330 0 30 60 90
• I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I 0 358°N (T) @ 34°8'2!'N, 116°8'45"W ±13ft • 2518ft
NW I N NE
300 330 0 30
• I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • 0 345°N (T) @34°7'50"N, 1l6°8'42"W ±13ft .l. 2567ft
APPENDIX C- REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Jurisdictional Delineation
February 2024
Page C-1
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States (WOTUS) pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Waters of the United States
On August 29, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army issued a final rule amending the "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States," initially published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2023. This amendment aligns the definition of "waters of the United States" with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency on May 25, 2023. The Supreme Court deemed certain parts of the January 2023 Rule invalid based on its interpretation of the CWA in the Sackett decision. Consequently, the agencies have modified key elements of the regulatory text to comply with the Court's ruling. The conforming rule, titled "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States'; Conforming," was published in the Federal Register and became effective on September 8, 2023.
Furthermore, due to ongoing litigation, the January 2023 Rule is currently not in effect in certain states and for certain parties. The agencies are applying the January 2023 Rule, as amended by the conforming rule, in 23 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Territories. In the remaining 27 states and for specific parties, the agencies are interpreting "waters of the United States" in accordance with the pre-2015 regulatory framework and the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett until further notice. To summarize some of the most applicable highlights, the agencies’ new rule defines WOTUS as:
Categories of Jurisdictional Waters
1) Waters which are:
(i) Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (ii) The territorial seas; or
(iii) Interstate waters;
(2) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section; (3) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; (4) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters:
(i) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or (ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters;
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Jurisdictional Delineation
February 2024
Page C-2
(5) Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.
Eight exclusions from the definition of "waters of the United States" are codified at paragraph (b), and key terms are defined at paragraph (c). "Adjacent" is defined at (c)(2) as "having a continuous surface connection."
Key Court Rulings
The definition of "waters of the United States" has been shaped by five key Supreme Court decisions. In 1985, United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. upheld the USACE’s jurisdiction over wetlands near navigable waters, asserting that such wetlands are intricately connected to navigable waters and often have significant effects on water quality and aquatic ecosystems.
However, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) in 2001 established that the mere use of non-navigable, isolated, intrastate waters by migratory birds does not alone justify federal authority under the CWA. This decision prompted agencies to develop guidance on the "waters of the United States" definition.
In 2006, Rapanos v. United States presented a plurality opinion defining "waters of the United States" as relatively permanent bodies with a continuous surface connection to traditional navigable waters. Justice Kennedy, in a concurring opinion, introduced the concept of a "significant nexus," requiring a water or wetland to impact the integrity of other covered waters.
Dissenting Justices argued for a broader interpretation.
Following Rapanos, in 2007 and 2008, additional guidance was developed to implement the definition of "waters of the United States." These legal developments illustrate ongoing complexities in interpreting and applying the regulatory framework.
On May 25, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, endorsing the Rapanos v. United States plurality standard for defining "waters of the United States." The Court concluded that the CWA’s use of "waters" includes relatively permanent bodies of water forming geographic features such as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes, as outlined in Rapanos. The Court also agreed with the plurality's formulation that wetlands are part of "the waters of the United States" when they have a continuous surface connection to bodies considered "waters of the United States" in their own right.
In response to the Sackett decision, on August 29, 2023, the agencies issued a final rule amending the January 2023 Rule to align with the Supreme Court's interpretation. Parts of the January 2023 Rule were deemed invalid by the Court's decision. Consequently, key aspects of the regulatory text were amended to conform to the Court's ruling. The final conforming rule, titled "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States'; Conforming," became effective on September 8, 2023, following its publication in the Federal Register.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates activities pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the CWA. Section 401 of the CWA specifies that certification from the State is
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Jurisdictional Delineation
February 2024
Page C-3
required for any applicant requesting a federal license or permit, including a Section 404 permit. Through the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over waters of the State of California (WSC), which is generally the same as WOTUS but may also include waters not in federal jurisdiction.
The State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State was adopted in April 2020 and put into effect statewide on May 28, 2020.
The Water Boards define an area as wetland as follows:
An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.
The Water Code defines WSC broadly to include “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” WSC include all WOTUS but also includes waters not in federal jurisdiction.
The following wetlands are waters of the state:
1. Natural wetlands,
2. Wetlands created by modification of a surface water of the state, and
3. Artificial wetlands that meet any of the following criteria:
a. Approved by an agency as compensatory mitigation for impacts to other waters of the state, except where the approving agency explicitly identifies the mitigation as being of limited duration;
b. Specifically identified in a water quality control plan as a wetland or other water of the state;
c. Resulted from historic human activity, is not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape; or
d. Greater than or equal to one acre in size, unless the artificial wetland was constructed, and is currently used and maintained, primarily for one or more of the following purposes (i.e., the following artificial wetlands are not waters of the state unless they also satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3a, or 3b):
i. Industrial or municipal wastewater treatment or disposal ii. Settling of sediment
iii. Detention, retention, infiltration, or treatment of stormwater runoff and other pollutants or runoff subject to regulation under a municipal, construction, or industrial stormwater permitting program
iv. Treatment of surface waters
v. Agricultural crop irrigation or stock watering
Yonder Glamping Resort Project
Jurisdictional Delineation
February 2024
Page C-4
vi. Fire suppression
vii. Industrial processing or cooling
viii. Active surface mining – even if the site is managed for interim wetlands functions and values
ix. Log storage
x. Treatment, storage, or distribution of recycled water xi. Maximizing groundwater recharge (this does not include wetlands that have incidental groundwater recharge benefits)
xii. Fields flooded for rice growing
All artificial wetlands that are less than an acre in size and do not satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3.a, 3.b, or 3.c are not WSC.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates water resources under Section 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Section 1602 states:
An entity may not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.
Evaluation of CDFW jurisdiction followed guidance in the Fish and Game Code and A Review of Stream Processes and Forms in Dryland Watersheds. In general, under 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, CDFW jurisdiction extends to the maximum extent or expression of a stream on the landscape (CDFW 2010). It has been the practice of CDFW to define a stream as “a body of water that flows perennially or episodically and that is defined by the area in a channel which water currently flows or has flowed over a given course during the historic hydrologic course regime, and where the width of its course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators” (Brady and Vyverberg 2013). Thus, a channel is not defined by a specific flow event, nor by the path of surface water as this path might vary seasonally. Rather, it is CDFW's practice to define the channel based on the topography or elevations of land that confine the water to a definite course when the waters of a creek rise to their highest point.
City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study
D
APPENDIX D: Historical/Archaeological Report
Available on the City of Twentynine Palms Website:
www.ci.twentynine-palms.ca.us
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
TWENTYNINE PALMS YONDER HOSPITALITY
GLAMPING RESORT PROJECT
Assessor’s Parcel Number 0614-121-15,
City of Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County, California For Submittal to:
Community Development Department, Planning Division
City of Twentynine Palms
6136 Adobe Road
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
Prepared for:
Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc.
42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Prepared by:
CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator
Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator
January 24, 2024
CRM TECH Contract No. 4064
Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Twentynine Palms Yonder Hospitality Glamping Resort Project, Assessor’s Parcel Number 0614-121-15, City of Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County, California
Author(s): Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator/Historian Frank J. Raslich, Archaeologist/Report Writer
Hunter O’Donnell, Archaeologist
Consulting Firm: CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-6400
Date: January 24, 2024
For Submittal to: Community Development Department, Planning Division City of Twentynine Palms
6136 Adobe Road
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
(760) 367-6799
Prepared for: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Vice President
Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc.
42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101
Palm Desert, CA 92211
(760) 341-4800
USGS Quadrangle: Sunfair, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangle (Section 33, T1N R8E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian)
Project Size: 151.53 acres
Resources: Sites 4064-1H, 4064-2H, and 4064-8H: historic-period refuse scatters; Sites 4064-7 and 4064-18: prehistoric milling features and lithic artifact; Isolates 4064-3H, 4064-4H, 4064-9H, and 4064-12H to 4064-15H:
historic-period refuse; Isolates 4064-5, 4064-6, 4064-10, 4064-11, 4064- 16, 4064-17, and 4064-19: prehistoric lithic artifacts
(Temporary designations, pending assignment of primary numbers in California Historical Resources Inventory)
Keywords: Southern Mojave Desert region; Phase I historical/archaeological resources survey; no “historical resources” under CEQA; archaeological and Native American monitoring recommended due to sensitivity
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Between July 2023 and January 2024, at the request of Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc., CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on 151.53 acres of undeveloped desert land in the City of Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County, California. The subject property of the study, Assessor’s Parcel Number 0614-121-15, is located on the south side of Twentynine Palms Highway (State Route 62), west of Shoshone Valley Road, and north of Sullivan Road, comprising most of the northeast quarter of Section 33, Township 1 North, Range 8 East, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as depicted in the United States Geological Survey Sunfair, California, 7.5’ quadrangle.
The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed development of a low-density glamping resort on the property. The City of Twentynine Palms, as the lead agency for the project, requires the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of this study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the project would cause a substantial adverse change to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or near the project area. In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/archaeological resources records search, initiated a Native American Sacred Lands File search, contacted pertinent Native American representatives, pursued historical background research, and carried out an intensive-level field survey.
As a result of these research procedures, 19 previously undocumented cultural resources were recorded within the project boundaries and designated temporarily as 4064-1H through 4064-19, pending assignment of permanent identification numbers in the California Historical Resources Inventory. In addition, the segment of Twentynine Palms Highway lying outside but adjacent to the northern project boundary was previously recorded as a part of Site 36-010525 (CA-SBR-10525H). As a working component of the modern transportation infrastructure, the highway today does not demonstrate any distinctively historical character as its current appearance reflects the results of continuous upgrading and maintenance since the historic era. As the proposed project has no potential to alter the condition of the highway substantially, Site 36-010525 requires no further consideration during this study.
Scattered widely across the property, the 19 newly identified cultural resources within the project boundaries include prehistoric (i.e., Native American) milling features and lithic artifacts as well as historic-period refuse items, and they were recorded as 5 archaeological sites and 14 isolates (i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts). The 14 isolates, by definition, do not constitute archaeological sites due to the lack of contextual integrity and are thus not considered potential “historical resources.” As such, they require no further study. The three historic-period sites, 4064- 1H, 4064-2H, and 4064-8H, consist of mid-20th century refuse scatters, and none of them appears to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Therefore, they do not meet the definition of “historical resources” for CEQA-compliance purposes.
The other two sites in the project area, 4064-7 and 4064-18, consist of prehistoric milling features, one of them with an associated lithic flake. Because the presence or absence of additional cultural materials in buried deposits cannot be ascertained on the basis of the surface survey alone, the data potential of these two sites—and thereby their eligibility for listing in the California Register—cannot be determined without further archaeological investigation, including subsurface testing. However,
ii
according to the current project plans, each of these sites lies several hundred feet from the nearest development activities proposed on the property. As a result, the project is not anticipated to impact the current condition of Sites 4064-7 and 4064-18.
In order to ensure the proper protection of Sites 4064-7 and 4064-18 and prevent inadvertent damages, CRM TECH recommends that both of these sites be placed in clearly demarcated Environmentally Sensitive Areas during project construction. In addition to the presence of Sites 4064-7 and 4064-18, the number and multiplicity of isolated Native American flaked-stone artifacts recorded during this study also serve to underscore the overall sensitivity of the project location for buried cultural remains from the prehistoric era. For the timely identification and, if necessary, protection of such remains during construction, CRM TECH further recommends that an archaeological monitoring program be designed and implemented during earth-moving operations associated with the project. The monitoring program should be coordinated with the Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, who may wish to participate. Under these conditions, the proposed project may be cleared to proceed in compliance with CEQA provisions on cultural resources.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 SETTING.............................................................................................................................................. 4 Current Natural Setting..................................................................................................................... 4 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................................. 5 Prehistoric Context........................................................................................................................ 5 Ethnohistoric Context ................................................................................................................... 5 Historic Context............................................................................................................................ 6 RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 8 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 8 Native American Participation.......................................................................................................... 8 Historical Research ........................................................................................................................... 8 Field Survey...................................................................................................................................... 8 RESULTS AND FINDINGS................................................................................................................ 9 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 9 Native American Participation.......................................................................................................... 9 Historical Research ......................................................................................................................... 11 Field Survey.................................................................................................................................... 11 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................................ 22 Applicable Statutory/Regulatory Framework ................................................................................. 22 Conclusion and Recommendations................................................................................................. 23 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 24 APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications............................................................................................ 26 APPENDIX 2: Native American Sacred Lands File Search Results.................................................. 31 APPENDIX 3: Cultural Resources Recorded in the Project Area (Confidential).............................. 35
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity....................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Project area ............................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 3. Recent satellite image of the project area.............................................................................. 3 Figure 4. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area ................................................... 4 Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies...................................................................................... 10 Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1913......................................................................... 11 Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1937-1952......................................................................... 11 Figure 8. Site 36-010525, State Route 62........................................................................................... 13 Figure 9. Site 4064-1H, mid-20th century can scatter........................................................................ 13 Figure 10. Site 4064-2H, mid-20th century refuse scatter.................................................................. 14 Figure 11. Isolate 4064-3H, crushed mid-20th century water can...................................................... 14 Figure 12. Isolate 4064-4H, 1954 bottle fragments............................................................................ 15 Figure 13. Isolate 4064-5, quartz cutting tool..................................................................................... 15 Figure 14. Isolate 4064-6, quartzite flake ........................................................................................... 16 Figure 15. Site 4064-7, metate with lithic flake.................................................................................. 16 Figure 16. Site 4064-8H, refuse scatter with 1970s bottle fragments................................................. 17 Figure 17. Isolate 4064-9H, 1948 liquor bottle................................................................................... 17 Figure 18. Isolate 4064-10, quartzite flake ......................................................................................... 18 Figure 19. Isolate 4064-11, quartzite scraper or cutting tool.............................................................. 19 Figure 20. Isolate 4064-12H, glass bottle ........................................................................................... 19 Figure 21. Isolate 4064-13H, solder drop can..................................................................................... 19 Figure 22. Isolate 4064-14H, solder drop can..................................................................................... 20 Figure 23. Isolate 4064-15H, solder drop can..................................................................................... 20 Figure 24. Isolate 4064-16, milky quartz flake................................................................................... 20 Figure 25. Isolate 4064-17, quartzite flake ......................................................................................... 21 Figure 26. Site 4064-18, prehistoric milling feature........................................................................... 21 Figure 27. Isolate 4064-19, quartzite flake ......................................................................................... 22
1 INTRODUCTION
Between July 2023 and January 2024, at the request of Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc., CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on 151.53 acres of undeveloped desert land in the City of Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County, California (Fig. 1). The subject property of the study, Assessor’s Parcel Number 0614-121-15, is located on the south side of Twentynine Palms Highway (State Route 62), west of Shoshone Valley Road, and north of Sullivan Road, comprising most of the northeast quarter of Section 33, Township 1 North, Range 8 East, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as depicted in the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Sunfair, California, 7.5’ quadrangle (Figs. 2, 3).
The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed development of a low-density glamping resort on the property. The City of Twentynine Palms, as the lead agency for the project, requires the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). The purpose of this study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the project would cause a substantial adverse change to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or near the project area.
In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/archaeological resources records search, initiated a Native American Sacred Lands File search, contacted pertinent Native American representatives, pursued historical background research, and carried out an intensive-level field survey. The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and conclusion of the study. Personnel who participated in the study are named in the appropriate sections below, and their qualifications are provided in Appendix 1.
Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS San Bernardino, Calif., and Needles, Calif.-Ariz., 120’x60’ quadrangles [USGS 1969a; 1969b])
2 Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Indian Cove and Sunfair, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles [USGS 1994a; 1994b]) 29 ....... I
, ...
--C:=.J.-==
2. i
0 1000 0
8M!i..
TW0MIL£ T,.
I
·s~_F: __ _
fndian Cove
Ranger St,1t,on
SCALE 1 :24,000
1/2
1000 2000
llir-a•:
<l
~
3000 4000 feet
._
•
.,U66
• J
•
• ➔•
A
·• 0
0 :.
ROAD
=•=~•a:aa
Project
area
..
••=-
I
I I
I
I I
~
Borrow
Pots
~ •
2h I
I
I I
I
I
,
/
)
~477
Q:
Q
:!
"' :,
0 / :
• *
j
,~""
3 Figure 3. Recent satellite image of the project area. (Based on Google Earth imagery)
4 SETTING
CURRENT NATURAL SETTING
The City of Twentynine Palms is located on an alluvial fan in the Morongo Basin, to the north of the Pinto Mountains, and on the southern edge of the Mojave Desert. The climate and environment of the area is typical of southern California “high desert” country, a reference to its higher elevation than that of the Colorado Desert to the south. The climate is marked by extremes in temperature and aridity, with summer highs reaching well over 110ºF and winter lows dipping below freezing. The average annual precipitation is less than five inches, most of which occurs during late winter, early spring, and the occasional monsoon storms in summer.
The project area lies on the southwestern outskirts of the City of Twentynine Palms, near the northern base of the nearby Pinto Mountains. It is directly east of a residential neighborhood and north of undeveloped land bordering the Joshua Tree National Park (Figs. 2, 3). Elevations on the property range around 2,500-2,620 feet above mean sea level, and the terrain is relatively level (Fig. 4). Vegetation observed in the project area includes creosote bush, beavertail cactus, pencil cholla, teddy bear cholla, barrel cactus, coyote gourd, ephedra, desert trumpet, bladderpod, desert needle grass, sage, chapparal yucca, and other small grasses and shrubs. In its native state, the project area is a part of the California Creosote Bush Scrub Plant Community.
Figure 4. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area. (Photograph taken on November 14, 2023)
5 CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
In order to understand the progress of Native American cultures prior to European contact, archaeologists have devised chronological frameworks on the basis of artifacts and site types that date back some 12,000 years. Currently, the chronology most frequently applied in the Mojave Desert divides the region’s prehistory into five periods marked by changes in archaeological remains, reflecting different ways in which Native peoples adapted to their surroundings. According to Warren (1984) and Warren and Crabtree (1986), the five periods are as follows: the Lake Mojave Period, 12,000 years to 7,000 years ago; the Pinto Period, 7,000 years to 4,000 years ago; the Gypsum Period, 4,000 years to 1,500 years ago; the Saratoga Springs Period, 1,500 years to 800 years ago; and the Protohistoric Period, 800 years ago to European contact.
More recently, Hall (2000) presented a slightly different chronology for the region, also with five periods: Lake Mojave (ca. 8000-5500 B.C.), Pinto (ca. 5500-2500 B.C.), Newberry (ca. 1500 B.C.- 500 A.D.), Saratoga (ca. 500-1200 A.D.), and Tecopa (ca. 1200-1770s A.D.). According to Hall (ibid.:14), small mobile groups of hunters and gatherers inhabited the Mojave Desert during the Lake Mojave sequence. Their material culture is represented by the Great Basin Stemmed points and flaked stone crescents. These small, highly mobile groups continued to inhabit the region during the Pinto Period, which saw an increased reliance on ground foods, small and large game animals, and the collection of vegetal resources, suggesting that “subsistence patterns were those of broad-based foragers” (ibid.:15). Artifact types found in association with this period include the Pinto points and Olivella sp. spire-lopped beads.
Distinct cultural changes occurred during the Newberry Period, in comparison to the earlier periods, including “geographically expansive land-use pattern…involving small residential groups moving between select localities,” long-distance trade, and diffusion of trait characteristics (Hall 2000:16).
Typical artifacts from this period are the Elko and Gypsum Contracting Stem points and Split Oval beads. The two ensuing periods, Saratoga and Tecopa, are characterized by seasonal group settlements near accessible food resources and the intensification of the exploitation of plant foods, as evidenced by groundstone artifacts (ibid.:16).
Hall (2000:16) states that “late prehistoric foraging patterns were more restricted in geographic routine and range, a consequence of increasing population density” and other variables. Saratoga Period artifact types include Rose Spring and Eastgate points as well as Anasazi grayware pottery.
Artifacts from the Tecopa Period include Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood Triangular points, buffware and brownware pottery, and beads of the Thin Lipped, Tiny Saucer, Cupped, Cylinder, steatite, and glass types (ibid.).
Ethnohistoric Context
The Native American groups living near the project location in recent centuries were the Serrano and the Chemehuevi. The Serrano’s homeland is centered in the nearby San Bernardino Mountains but also includes lowlands along both flanks of the mountain range. The Chemehuevi, a subgroup of the Southern Paiute, traditionally occupied the portion of the Mojave Desert extending east to the Colorado River. Both groups belong to the larger Shoshonean language stock, which in turn is part
6 of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic family. The leading anthropological works on the Chemehuevi include Kroeber (1925), Laird (1976), and Kelly and Fowler (1986), while the basic references on the Serrano are Kroeber (1925), Strong (1929), and Bean and Smith (1978). The following ethnohistoric discussion is based primarily on these sources.
Prior to European contact, native subsistence practices were defined by the surrounding landscape and were primarily based on the cultivating and gathering of wild foods and hunting, exploiting nearly all of the resources available. The Serrano settled mostly on elevated terraces, hills, and finger ridges near where flowing water emerged from the mountains, while the Chemehuevi, with fewer people spread over a much wider area, cultivated, gathered, and hunted in the open deserts, but were also known for their agricultural practices, in particular the cultivation of corn, beans, squash, and melons. Social customs brought members of each tribe together at important base camps or villages for annual ceremonies and tribal interaction with neighboring groups.
Both tribal groups had a variety of technological skills that they used to acquire subsistence, shelter, and medicine or to create ornaments and decorations. Common tools included manos and metates, mortars and pestles, hammerstones, fire drills, awls, arrow straighteners, and stone knives and scrapers. These lithic tools were made from locally sourced material as well as materials procured through trade or travel. They also used wood, horn, and bone spoons and stirrers; baskets for winnowing, leaching, grinding, transporting, parching, storing, and cooking; and pottery vessels for carrying water, storage, cooking, and serving food and drink. Much of this material cultural, elaborately decorated, does not survive in the archaeological record. As usual, the main items found archaeologically relate to subsistence activities.
In the Twentynine Palms area, the Serrano and the Chemehuevi relied on the waters of a desert oasis located some six miles to the east of the project location. The oasis was first settled by the Serrano, who named it Maara, “the place of little springs and much grass” (NPS n.d.). The Serrano moved to the oasis on the advice of a medicine man and were told to plant a palm tree each time a boy was born. In the first year, the Serrano planted 29 palms at the oasis, providing food as well as materials for clothing, cooking implements, and housing (ibid.). The Chemehuevi began to settle around the oasis in the mid-19th century (ibid.).
Although contact with Europeans may have occurred as early as 1771 or 1772, direct European influence on Serrano and Chemehuevi lifeways began in the 1810s, when the mission system expanded to the edge of Serrano territory. Between then and the end of the mission era in 1834, most of the Serrano were removed to the nearby missions. While less affected by Spanish and Mexican policies due to their more remote location, the Chemehuevi experienced increasing conflict with encroaching Euroamerican prospectors and settlers during the late 19th century. By the early 20th century, the majority of Serrano and Chemehuevi population was incorporated into the reservation system. Today, most Serrano descendants are found on the San Manuel and the Morongo Indian Reservations, while the Chemehuevi are divided among the Chemehuevi, the Colorado River, and the Morongo Reservations.
Historic Context
Because of its harsh, unforgiving environment, non-Native settlement in the Mojave Desert was late to start and slow in subsequent development. Although the Mojave Desert received its first European
7 visitor, the Spanish explorer Francisco Garcés, as early as 1776 (Beck and Haase 1974:15), for the next 70 years the inland regions of Alta California were largely ignored by the Spanish and Mexican authorities in their colonization schemes. During that period, the presence of non-Natives in the Mojave Desert was essentially confined to a few trails that were established over the years, most notably the Old Spanish Trail, a pack-train road established between southern California and Santa Fe, New Mexico, in the 1830s.
Beginning in the early 1860s, as the gold mines in the Mother Lode country of the Sierra Nevada declined in production, groups of former forty-niners embarked on fresh explorations into the desert between California, Nevada, and Arizona. Before long, new mining districts sprang up throughout the Mojave Desert. However, the discovery of these early bonanzas was frequently incidental to travel across the desert to richer diggings elsewhere, as in the case of the La Paz gold rush in Arizona (Warren et al. 1981:96). A few renowned mining towns, such as Ivanpah and Calico, boomed in the 1870s and 1880s, but the first major strike in the Mojave Desert did not occur until the Old Woman Mountains boom of 1898-1901 (Gallegos et al. 1980:133).
In the mid-19th century, a few new trails were developed on the basis of the Old Spanish Trail, such as the Mormon Trail and the Mojave Road, by which many of the legendary wagon trains from the eastern U.S. entered California. Since the 1870s, the Mojave Desert has seen the establishment of a number of modern transportation thoroughfares across its vast reaches, including the Southern Pacific, the Santa Fe, and the Union Pacific Railroads; the fabled U.S. Route 66; and today’s Interstate Highways 15 and 40. Several urban centers have gradually emerged along these arteries, mostly along the western and southern rims of the Mojave Desert. The bulk of the region, however, remains sparsely populated and rarely touched by human activities, even to the present time.
On the history of what is now the City of Twentynine Palms, a local history source (DesertUSA n.d.) offers the following summary:
Twentynine Palms derives its name from the life-giving waters of the lush oasis where 29 native California Fan Palms grew along the Pinto Mountain fault… By the late 1800s, prospectors bivouacked here while seeking their fortunes in nearby gold camps, the most famous of which was the Dirty Sock Camp.
In 1910, Bill and Frances Keys, among the first pioneer homesteaders, settled at the Desert Queen Ranch in what is now Joshua Tree National Park. Dr. James B. Luckie is credited with populating the community after World War I ended in 1918, by sending veterans suffering from the effects of mustard gas here for the pure, healing desert air. This Pasadena doctor became a prominent citizen and a founding father of the city.
One WWI veteran, William Campbell, arrived with his wife Elizabeth in 1924 and began homesteading 160 acres off Joe Davis Road where they built a home of native stone, now a bed and breakfast called Roughly Manor at Campbell Branch. Aligned with the Southwest Museum of Los Angeles, the Campbells discovered thousands of archaeological sites and donated land for the first schoolhouse here, and for Luckie Park.
In 1952, the U.S. Defense Department established a marine base north of the oasis for glider training.
Now known as the U.S. Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, this vast area of the Mojave Desert encompasses the world’s largest marine base, housing 18-20,000 military personnel. The city of Twentynine Palms was incorporated on March 23, 1987.
8 RESEARCH METHODS
RECORDS SEARCH
The historical/archaeological resources records search for this study was conducted by CRM TECH archaeologist Nina Gallardo at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System on October 23, 2023. Located on the campus of California State University, Fullerton, the SCCIC is the State of California’s official cultural resource records repository for the County of San Bernardino. The purpose of the records search is to identify previously recorded cultural resources and existing cultural resources studies within a half-mile radius of the project location. Previously recorded cultural resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, San Bernardino County Landmarks, as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resources Inventory.
NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
On September 29, 2023, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission’s Sacred Lands File. In the meantime, CRM TECH also contacted the nearby Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians by electronic mail for additional information on potential Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity and to coordinate with the Twentynine Palms Band on Native American participation in the upcoming archaeological field survey.
HISTORICAL RESEARCH
Historical background research for this study was conducted by CRM TECH archaeologist Frank J.
Raslich. Sources consulted during the research included published literature in local history, historical maps of the Twentynine Palms area, and aerial/satellite photographs of the project vicinity.
Among the maps consulted for this study were the U.S. General Land Office’s (GLO) land survey plat maps dated 1856 and 1914 and the USGS topographic maps dated 1955-1994, which are accessible at the websites of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the USGS. The aerial and satellite photographs, taken in 1970-2023, are available at the Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) Online website and through the Google Earth software.
FIELD SURVEY
On November 14 and 15, 2023, CRM TECH field director Daniel Ballester and project archaeologists Hunter O’Donnell, Steven Brierty, and Michael Richards carried out the intensivelevel field survey of the project area. The survey was completed by walking a series of parallel north-south transects spaced 15 meters (approximately 50 feet) apart. In this way, the ground surface in the entire project area was systematically and carefully examined for any evidence of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic period (i.e., 50 years ago or older). Ground visibility was very good (95-100%) due to the relatively light, scattered vegetation.
9 RESULTS AND FINDINGS
RECORDS SEARCH
According to SCCIC records, the project area had not been surveyed for cultural resources prior to this study, and no historical/archaeological resources had been recorded within the project boundaries. Within the one-mile scope of the records search, SCCIC records indicate nine previous studies carried out between 1985 and 2015, mostly along linear features or on very small tracts of land (Fig. 5). As a results of these and other similar studies in the vicinity, five historical/ archaeological sites have been identified within the records search scope, including a “pending” site, as listed below in Table 1.
Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Scope of the Records Search Primary # Trinomial Date Recorded Description
36-010525 CA-SBR-10525H 2000 State Route 62 (Twentynine Palms Highway) 36-010560 CA-SBR-10560H 2000 Historic-period residence
36-010824 CA-SBR-10824 2002 Sparse lithic and ceramic scatter 36-010828 CA-SBR-10828 2002 Sparse lithic and ceramic scatter P1023-5 N/A N/A “Pending” site: trail
As Table 1 shows, two of the five sites were linear features, including State Route 62 and a trail at the base of the Pinto Mountains to the south. Two other sites were described as surface scatters of prehistoric (i.e. Native American) lithic debitage and ceramic sherds, both located more than a halfmile to the southwest of the project location. The final site consisted of a residential building on the north side of State Route 62. Among these, the only site found in the immediate vicinity of the project area is 36-010525 (CA-SBR-010525H). As currently designated in the California Historical Resources Inventory, the site represents the entire length of State Route 62 from Palm Springs, California, to Parker, Arizona, including the segment across the Twentynine Palms area, namely Twentynine Palms Highway (Purcell 2000).
NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
In response to CRM TECH’s inquiry, the NAHC reported in a letter dated November 21, 2023, that the Sacred Lands File identified no Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity.
Noting that the absence of specific information would not necessarily establish the absence of such resources, however, the NAHC recommended that local Native American groups be consulted for further information and provided a referral list of 27 individuals associated with 14 local Native American groups. The NAHC’s reply is attached in Appendix 2 for reference by the City of Twentynine Palms in future government-to-government consultations with the pertinent tribal groups, if necessary.
As mentioned above, the Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the two nearest Native American groups, were contacted during this study, but neither tribe offered any comments. Despite close coordination with the Twentynine Palms Band, a tribal monitor was ultimately unavailable to participate in the field survey on the scheduled date.