Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-01 PUBLIC COMMENTS My name is Nancy Madson. I live in Thousand Palms in a conservation area. There isn't a provision in the CVMSHCP to bulldoze housing to create more habitat, therefore I shouldn't be affected by this plan. That being said, my property was originally sand source land. I didn't see it. Then my property became a wind corridor for the transport of sand. Yes, the wind blew, and some sand along with it. But my home did not impede the flow of sand. Anyone familiar with Thousand Palms will recognize that after a heavy rain, most of the fine silt is down around or on Ramon Road. This silt is crusted over and eventually becomes the PM 10 particles that are hazardous to health. All that is left up near the foothills are rocks and gravel. So now I understand that my property is neither a "sand source" nor a "wind corridor for the transport of sand," but a "wildlife corridor." Hmm, where's the science? I am a bit upset that fourteen years of first hand experience and observation doesn't hold a candle to the expert's scientific modeling. What I'm really confused about is "Didn't the experts realize that most of the really big sand dunes are south of Hwy 10?" What happened to that scientific modeling? But of course, it's a trade off. That property is way too expensive. Let's take land in Thousand Palms, Desert Hot Springs, and North Indio. I thirds it's a foregone conclusion to contest the science, as much as I'd like to. But my major concern is for the small property owners and developments already being planned. I know the plan states that property owners will be paid fair market value. But that still leaves much unclear. What is the value of property to an owner who pays property tax for 10, 15, or 20 years while unable to build on that property while waiting for the funding to purchase his property? Please take a look at the funding for this plan. The trails users were able to work out a compromise. Now, they're all gung-ho for this to move forward. And I understand that some large developers met in private with CVAG. But .what about the small property owners? Can't more be done to assure that they do not bear an undo burden of providing for conservation? 14e4wen reading the letters to the editor from people who are in favor of this plan, Some call developers "GREEDY" And landowners, people like myself, are called "SELFISH" for not wanting to give up a part of their property for conservation. I am asking Palm Springs to join with Indio, Desert Hot Springs, and Cathedral City in pursuing additional negotiations with CV G and the wildlife agencies in making this plan fairer to everyone involved. I am asking s.Zr � to step up to the plate and make a pitch for the landowners,rynot just for the citycity interests. Property-owners'interest-s-shopu_ld-be-the-eiti& l ist. ..� 19l(e- '4J CJ eh{ S- \a5�y cy�n ` .��✓E.e-- o e-- 19ne- ��v4'J' y `�o'T �i'.5" �"dv�0 L''G�.[J �4t'..✓ �„° p Q _ Nancy Madson P.O. Box 1024 Thousand Palms, CA 92236 398-1515 D 19 March 1, 2006 To: The Palm Springs City Council Mayor Ron Oden, Mayor Pro Tem Ginny Foat, Councilman Steve Pougnet, Mike McCulloch and Chris Mills. From: Homeowners on East Murray Canyon Palm Springs, CA 92264 RE: Scheduled Paving of East Murray Canyon We are before you on this evening of March 1, as concerned homeowners, to address two issues. The first is regarding the over all condition of our street, East Murray Canyon. It has been deteriorating for some time with chunks of asphalt being displaced and has become a patchwork with the most recent installation of reclaimed water pipe by DWA in January to serve the two golf courses on either side of us, Canyon Country Club and Indian Canyon's Golf Club. City staff believes we will be on the 2007 re-surfacing schedule and we are here to ask that we indeed do stay on schedule. The second issue is the traffic speed along Toledo and Murray Canyon from Laverne to South Palm Canyon. With only one stop sign on such a long road, speeds of 70 MPH are not uncommon. We have collaborated with another citizens group (Canyon Estates homeowners and residents of Toledo Road) who have been working to slow down the traffic. We would like this area to be studied for traffic calming measures, and to tie into the traffic calming plan from Laverne to South Palm Canyon. Our spokespersons this evening are Ryan Espinosa of 1500 East Murray Canyon and Rocky Blumhagen of 1330 East Murray Canyon. The attached undersigned are active homeowners on East Murray Canyon. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Thomas M.Topp ' l�, Kevin Radi „� � 1680 East Murray Canyon Drive Pahn Springs, CA 92264 760 778 6178 tmtopp@aol.com John Newell. Steve Newell 1600 East Murray Canyon Drive Pahn Springs, CA 92264 Cell 612 750 5591 snewe11000 c.aol.coin Ken Rosemeyer 1578 E. Murray Canyon n e Z 11�' Palm Springs CA 92264 Home 760 327 3728 Matthew Haddad Janeen Bell 1570 East Murray Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92264 Home 760 322 5619 mhaddad a,medversant.com i aneenhell l na,yahoo.cotn Ryan Espinosa John Goettlicher �— ^ 1500 East Murray Canyon Drive Palm Springs CA 92264 Home 760 206 9700 I Jackie Ludwick f _ Gary Ludwick 1488 E. Murray Canyon Drike� Palm Springs, CA 92264 Home 760 320 0933 Richard L.Borgen Martin Coneannon 1444 E. Murray Canyon Drive Palm Springs CA 92264 Mailing address: Newport Gateway 19900 MacArthur Blvd, Suite 960 Irvine, CA 92612 Cell 949 756 9500 rborgengrborgen.com Eric Kurasch 1350 East Murray Canyon / Palm Springs CA 92264 Mailing address: 2490 S. Yosemite Drive Palm Springs, CA 92264 Cell 310 428 6964 Ekurasch ,aol.com Rocky Blumhagen Richard Royse _ 1330 East Murray Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92264 Mailing address: PO Box 5198 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Home 760 318 7405 Vicki Buck "I «—'E c`"L a2� rirx J� Rick Buck A-� �-- 1300 East Murray Canyon Driv Alefj �Zj Palm Springs CA 92264 � Mailing Address: 1801 N.E. Marine Drive Portland Oregon 97211 P.S. 760 320 6058 Dennis Pogue General Manager Indian Canyon's Golf Course 1097 East Murray Canyon Drive 760 327 6550 Jan I3art General Manager Canyon Country Club 1100 East Murray Canyon Driv 760 327 1321 William Cohn Secretary King's Point Homeowners Assoc. 44 units on East Murray Canyon Drive 760 320 1986 March 1, 2006 City Council Meeting Pahn Springs Oppose the CVMSHCP Honorable Mayor and Council I am very concerned that the 4,000 small land owners are being trampled on by CVAG, Supervisor Wilson and the other proponents of the Plan. There has been no notice in the newspapers notifying them that the 4,000 small land owners only had 30 days from February 7- , 2006 to file a complaint against the E1R and MSHCP that reduces the value, usability and salability of their land for 75 years. On the contrary, there seems to be a disinformation campaign. There headlines are all about a June I"deadline. Does the Plan's ramrod, Supervisor Wilson, control the press too? Even if the cities do not approve the plan the 4,000 small land owners are swooped up in the Plan and they cannot win a lawsuit unless they file against this EIR and the EIS for the Fish& Wildlife portion that will follow. The developers can negotiate and amend the Plan until June I" but the 4,000 small landowners must file a lawsuit in what (?) SEVEN days. At the hearing to adopt the CVCC Wilson castigated the representative for the small landowners as though our mentioning the loss of the value of our land was not to be tolerated. 'We're called selfish in the press. Why don't the proponents of the Plan give us part of your retirement funds? CVAG's attorney Michelle Ouillette even mentioned the 30 day notice at the February 6, 2006 hearing. Why isn't this drop-dead deadline in the news? Three big name environmental attorneys confirmed this. One even inquired whether or not the city had hired its own environmental attorney to protect the City from this deadline. The Plan is not wise. It is dangerous to the health of the city's residents. The"blow-sand area" has dangerous, disease-causing dust. It should be called the dust or disease-source area. For the record I submit a soil test showing 67% dust in one area of the "blow-sand area" (Attachment 1) There are square miles of dust blowing into the cities south of the wind corridor& Preserve. The dangerous particulate matter that reaches the cities blows 300 and 400 feet high in the air (Expert's comment at the Desert Hot Springs City Council Meeting of Feb. 21, 2006). I This storm of dust clogs the lungs, reduces oxygenated blood and causes heart disease & j a painful and terminal bone disease. A response ( in the FEIR says the Plan only has to account for the dust inside the Plan. The Plan doesn't take into account the disease causing particles the wind blows outside the Plan. Response to me in the FEIR says the Plan only concerns itself with dust inside the Plan. The enviromentalists who are pushing this Plan with threats of a quagmire of law suits assured my family in 1986 that they had the land they needed and would "not restrict our remaining land (outside the 1986 CHP) in such a way as to reduce valuation (Attachment 2). Nine years later they're back. Sen. Battin was right. They are never satisfied. There is only a false sense of security. Fish and Wildlife unilaterally took our land out of the 1986 HCP agreement as they have done to other agreement participants over and over again. The FEIR fails to show how much total LAND in the valley the proponents of this plan already CONTROL today. Does this mean they are embarrassed to admit how much land is already under their control? The map in the FEIR Fig. 2-1 is three years old and even has a disclosure that it may not be accurate CEQA requires the Plan to show what percentage of habitat is preserved inside the Plan verses how much is outside the Plan so the public can make an informed decision as to the Plan's effectiveness. The Plan does not do this. "The EIR authors provide no statistics with respect to what percentage of habitat for this species (CVFT-L) for this species is located within areas subject to the Plan, relative to what percentage of habitat is outside the scope of the Plan." (Attachment 3) It is impossible to devise a reasonable habitat conservation plan without knowing this. CEQA requires that the Plan be reasonable. The so-called DNA test on the CVFT-L was not designed to determine if it is a separate species. It's co-author, Robert W Murphy, says "It is a matriarchal geneology only." (Attachment 3: Comment submitted at February 6, 2006 CVAG hearing) Undercrossings for the lizard are not reasonable because the CVFT-L probably wouldn't use them (Attachment 3) In the Thousand Palms "blow-sand" area only ONE CVFT-L was found on the north edge of Ramon Road (in Thousand Palms) thirty years ago. The Plan requires a lizard undercrossing where there are no CVFT_L today and where there was only one thirty years ago. This comment was truncated in my Public Hearing Comment of March 7, 2005. Here is the map from the reference cited by the EIR to support the Plan. (Attachment 4). The attachments to my written comments were not included with my written comment. Here are three that cast doubt on the wisdom of the Plan (Attachments 5, 6, and 7) 1. F& W spends almost half its time fighting or preventing lawsuits. 2. Environmentalists force parks to accept land which it cannot afford to manage. 3. Center for Natural Lands Mgmt i8s struggling to develop a formula as to how to keep lands in perpetuity. Yours truly, Mary Justice (APN: 651-030-004) 3998 Ave. Verano, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 ya5 ) 5 -) I - � S D � e Earth Systems C`�,0 ' ' i Cri Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive Bermuda Dunes,CA 92203 (760)345-1588 (800)924-7015 'A.(760)345-7315 February 6, 2006 File No.: 10504-01 'DSO 06-02-733 Ms. Mary Justice 3998 Avenida Verano Thousand Oaks, California 91360 Project: NEC Ramon Road &Vista Del Jardin APN 651-030-004 Thousand palms, California Subject: Laboratory Test Results Long Hydrometer Analysis Dear Ms. Justice: As requested, on Friday February 3, 2006, a representative of this firm visited the above project. The purpose of this visit was to obtain samples of the surface soils. Two samples were obtained, one from the low lying "flat" area and one from an elevated dune area. The samples were returned to the laboratory for testing in accordance with ASTM D-422. The results of the tests indicate that the surface soils in the flat areas are predominately silts (ML) while the dune areas are sandier (SM-SP). The results of the tests are attached. If there are any questions regarding this letter, do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully Submitted, OQPpFESS/pN9 EARTHSYSTEMS SOUTHWEST Reviewed b v2• (,•eLll2G� CE 38234 z d Exp.03/31/07 Phil ' Ain Craig S. * k Supervisory Technician CE 38234 s9T QW- PAP Fop CAL\F� Letter/pdc/csh/ajf Distribution: 4/Ms. Mary Justice 1/RC File 2/BD File j Attachments: 2 Test Result Sheets I i I I File No.: 10504-01 February 6, 2006 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422 Job Name: NEC Ramon Road &Vista Del Jardin Sample ID: Silt Area Description: Sandy Silt (ML) Sieve Size % Passing By Hydrometer Method: 3" 100 Particle Size % Passing 2" 100 #N/A #N/A 1-1/2" 100 20 Micron 50 1" 100 12 Micron 40 3/4" 100 6 Micron 32 1/2" 100 4 Micron 27 3/8" 100 3.2 Micron 21 #4 99 2.6 Micron 18 #8 99 L4 Micron 13 #16 96 #30 95 % Gravel: 1 #50 93 % Sand: 14 #100 89 % Silt: 67 #200 85 % Clay (3 micron): 18 't ��66AI C�I.s 100 90 80 70 60 oq G �g 50 W 40 30 20 10 0 LE]iJ 100 10 1 0.1 0,01 0.001 Particle Size(mm) I T File No.: 10504-01 Febmary 6, 2006 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422 Job Name: NEC Ramon Road &Vista Del Jardin Sample ID: Dune Area Description: Silty Sand (SM) Sieve Size % Passing By Hydrometer Method: 3" 100 Particle Size % Passing 2" 100 #N/A #N/A 1-1/2" 100 23 Micron 9 1" 100 14 Micron 6 3/4" 100 7 Micron 5 1/2" 100 5 Micron 4 3/8" 100 3.4 Micron 4 #4 100 2.8 Micron 4 #8 100 1.4 Micron 3 #16 100 #30 99 % Gravel: 0 #50 92 % Sand: 84 #100 53 % Silt: 12 #200 16 % Clay (3 micron): 4 100 -- -- 90 - 80 - 70 — - - -- 60 - — — c 2 50 - - a 0 40 — 30 20 - - 10 - - 0 - 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Size(mm) FARTH SYcTFMe cnT]THWFST ig 76e7705729 S ll- TVNkR' ' d simply stated, the threat to the lizard is future urban growth -- 02 at blocks sand transport and growth that takes place on existing Zoning o g g is a major r tool directing growth 'and, it is logical to look to as a method of conservation, The ECP does not substitute zoning for outright acquisition of areas 'ta be conserved. While the definition of a zoning or General Plan designation may Include conservation of wildlife and preservation of natural open space as one objective, it is obj generally held in the courts that strict limitation of land use to those purposes amounts to an uncompensated taking of private land for public pse. To the contrary, what the PCP accomplishes through conservation by cation is the addition of a concern and obligation for protection to exist�n zoning designation that are already well founded on established -- p��la purposes. .- SoT:ing can accomplish UCP goals in several ways. zoning districts with conservatsc•: potential include districts which are unsuitable for intensive development due to lack of urban services or due to significant engineering or public safety problems. M example of these are watercourse districts or natural asset districts. Several zoning categories, are primarily established to allow certain types of land use and are considered Compatible Uses under the PCP. The permitted uses themselves may result in taking, but are customarily cn••ducted in such a fashion that significant habitat value will remain around the active use area. For example, the actual building sites around wind aachines would be lost, but the surroundings would remain undisturbed, and sand transport would continue. The character of compatible uses is described in Chapter IV. Specific mitigating measures are considered which will increase compatibility and to reduce net impact on the CVFTL. The adoption of mitigation programs by a public agency (exempt from fees) is treated as Conservation by Management. The distinction between Regulation and Management is in the source of the control and in the responsibility of the land 'owner(s). The source of Regulation is the County acting through its zoning authocity. Restricl'ions on land uses established by the County for various zoning districts will apply uniformly to all owners. No owner will be required to be a signatory to th6 RCP documents nor to undertake any responsibility for carrying out RCp provisions -- all the owner must do is comply with County ordinances. Lands to be Conserved by Regulation The 6Cp will(,nakaresult in zoning changes on private land that will ceatfiict use so as to cause devaluation. In every Case where the zoning Is P , ccina{dered comptible w�`t6 GVF17 conservation zoning ordinances specify a broad range of economically productive land uses which are available to the landowner. While the practice of these uses will lead to occasional lizard takings and localized destruction of habitat,presently permitted uses from esta the SCp does not need to exclude those blished zoning. This is true because 1) absolute exclusion would amount to a special zoning which may be beyond the lawful scope of the local Jurisdiction's authority, 2) outright acquisition is ormmoftman's`tive activity withinylizardlhabitat, 3)rted means g lation of otal is appliedltof any outlying areas not central to the biological function of a reserve but related to its long term sustenance and preservation, or regulation is applied as an interim measure where it is judged that permitted uses are either sufficiently To: Executive Committee and Governing Board of Directors of CVAG From: C. D. Scobee on behalf of Mary Justice, Ramon Rd. landowner Date: February 6, 2006 Re: Adequacy of Draft Final EIR/EIS for the Coachella Valley MSHCP Boardmembers, I'm a biologist (B.S. Biological Sciences, Minor in Urban Studies - CSU Hayward; Ph.C. Plant Biology, Ecology-Systematics-Evolution specialization - UC Davis) asked by landowner Mary Justice to answer basic questions of biological sufficiency of the CVMSHCP. For members of the public wishing to participate in the planning process, it can be very difficult to have access to and gain an understanding of the ecological complexity involved in a project of this magnitude. Following this cover letter are my abbreviated responses to these questions: 1. What is meant by `habitat' in the EIR, and how is it measured? 2. Were minimum standards for content of an EIR met? 3. is Uma inornata a separate species? 4. How much habitat remains for Uma inornata? 5. Are wildlife undercrossings for Uma inornata a reasonable mitigation? The MSHCP represents a huge opportunity — both for costly mistakes, as well as far-sighted conservation planning. Here's a quote from the Independent Science Advisors' Review (2001) included in the EIR/EIS page AI-67: "The Adaptive Management and Monitoring Program document we reviewed is confusing and statistically difficult to defend. Moreover, it is probably not an optimal use of the limited funds likely available for management." That slims up my opinion of much of this entire document. The public's comments were not taken seriously in CVAG's responses. Infeasible mitigations are proposed that would be a costly mistake to try to implement. The Draft FEIR/EIS document as it stands now is inadequate and incomplete, and my recommendation is that a supplemental EIR be prepared, so that decision- makers can have current and complete information upon which to plan for the next 75 years in the Coachella Valley. 02/06/2006 12_11 5307576917 C SCOBEE PAGE 02 Terminology used in the Draft EIR/EIS is random and ill-defined. The main objectives of an EIR/EIS depend on disclosure of the environmental effects of a project. This disclosure is provided so both the public and the decision-makers have"enough to go on"in order to analyze the plan. We asked why"habitat"was capitalized in a particular section of the DEIR/EIS, and we commented that the lack of clear definitions and relationships between types of habitat designated made analysis (by either the public or the decision-makers) difficult or impossible (See response B10-08 in the DFEIR/EIS) The EIR authors responded that," `Habitat' is capitalized because it is a defined term in the MSHCP and therefore has a precise meaning". Further, they state that the many different qualifiers placed on habitat (suitable habitat,historical habitat, etc)do not need to be defined in the document because"the referenced terms appear self-explanatory." Lower case"habitat"appears intermingled with upper case Habitat throughout the EIR, for reasons which are not explained. For an example of lower-case habitat, a word search can easily be performed on the document. Likewise, to locate the many qualifiers placed on habitat throughout the document,any word processing program should have a"Find"command. For a specific example without doing a word search, see DEIR./EIS page ES-41 section entitled, "Natural Community Accounts and Conservation Measures". The first paragraph begins, "The natural communities preserved under the Plan provide the Habitats for the Covered Species". The very next paragraph provides a description of consen+ation approaches which includes, "incorporate a range of environmental gradients and high habitat diversity" (bullet 2), and, "Conservation of species, habitats, and conserved natural communities..."(bullet 6). Sometimes it's capitalized, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's qualified with a defined term, sometimes it's not. Below is a list of just some of the qualifiers placed on habitat in this document. Since this is a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, the document cannot be considered adequate and complete unless the decision-makers are clear on the definitions of and relationships between the many"habitats"referenced in the document, including: Habitat habitat suitable habitat modeled Habitat primary Habitat secondary Habitat .non-Habitat Other Conserved Habitat Core Habitat Core-habitat viable Habitat viable habitat potential Habitat unstabilized Habitat occupied Habitat occupied habitat armored habitat current habitat historic habitat historical habitat optimal habitat pre-settlement habitat The decision-makers should ask themselves, "Are these referenced terms `self-explanatory'?" 02/06/2006 12:11 53075?691? C SCOBEE PAGE 03 -- - - � yr ,( win L How much habitat remains for the CVFTL? DEIR 9-119: "today,less [than] 5% of the original Habitat for this species remains" DFEM BIO-01: "Historically,the CVI'TL inhabited about 270 square miles.." "Today the fringe-toed lizard habitat has been reduced to about 50 square miles" 5%of 270 square miles is 13.5 square miles. The document is inconsistent with respect to habitat remaining. How much of this"remaining habitat"is on lands addressed in the Plan? No one knows! The EIR authors provide no statistics with respect to what percentage of habitat for this species is located within areas subject to the Plan,relative to what percentage of habitat is outside the scope of the Plan (see their comment in the DFEIR BI0- 06). The best they could come up with was a figure of"most"based on a"cursory review"of the Natural Communities Map. r Decision-makers are being asked to approve a plan for the long-term survival of a threatened 1L' species without consistent data regarding habitat size, and without any actual figures for what percentage of remaining habitat is within"not-a-part"lands. It is flatly impossible to devise a reasonable habitat conservation plan without knowing what percentage of the habitat is located within lands covered by the plan, relative to lands not covered by the plan. "Most" could mean 51%, or it could mean 99%. There's a world of difference between developing a habitat conservation plan that covers just over half of the remaining habitat, compared to one that covers all but I%of the habitat. 02/06/200612:11 5307576317 C SCOBEE PAGE 04 Were standards for content of a Final EIR met? CVAG's responses to public comments on the DEIR are required to make a good faith effort at disclosure. Without this,the FOR cannot be considered adequate and complete. In multiple responses, the EIR authors do not appear to be making a good faith effort at disclosure. See DFEIR response B10-04. We stated: "The Fish&Game status report for the CVFTL(Administrative Report 77-1) is telling as to how scientists would respond [to the question of species level status for the CVFTL]... In fact, the authors(England and Nelson)did not even support the lesser listing of threatened (Federal)or rare(State)!" This report was the basis for listing. At the last minute, some of the conclusions were changed (and some weren't). The EIR authors need to acknowledge this, and acknowledge that the report contains conflicting information as to species status findings. We provided detailed quotes from the report to support our comments,and expected a good faith effort in response.. Given the report name,report date(77-1 designates the report was issued in 1977),and report authors,the EIR authors responded: "The comment cites a CDFG administrative report but provides no date for the report. It is apparent that the report was prepared prior to ... June 27, 1980..." The EIR authors act as if they've never heard of,much less seen,this report. It is listed in their own references(see page 10-14 of DEIR/EIS following). They also appear ignorant of the report numbering system used by CDFG. The public expects the CVAG planners preparing the EIR responses have a certain level of familiarity with the project and agencies involved. Based upon their DFEIR response B10-04, we must assume the EIR authors are unfamiliar with the literature they cite in their own document, as well as basic CDFG administrative procedures. According to the EIR authors, "all literature cited in the document was considered in the preparation of Plan and Draft EIR/EIS" (see DFEIR response B 10-07,paragraph two). Decision-makers should be clear that this obviously wasn't the case when considering public questions and comments. In terms of disclosure,decision-makers should acknowledge the level of error in this document that CVAG finds acceptable. We pointed out that a 2-sentence paragraph from the DEIR contained two typos,a non-cited reference, and an unexplained capitalization of a noun (see DFEIR response B 10-08). The EIR authors acknowledged the errors but respond,"CVAG does not believe the errors discourage or prevent public review and public participation". This level of error in fact does discourage public review and participation. It also demonstrates an incredibly low standard for quality control. Was the document proofread before it was issued? Consider the size of the errata section in the Draft FEIR. 02i06i2006 12;11 5307576917 C SCOBEE PAGE 05 Daft H EZS CorLelta Valley MSHCP-October 2094 Section 10—Organizations,Persons and Documents Consulted Department of Fish and Game. 1989. Special recreation use permit,Desert Off Road Adventures. Long Beach, CA, USA. Devers, P.K. 1999. Public attitudes,wildlife,and recreation management in Pasch Ridge Wilderness, Arizona Thesis, University of Arizona,Tucson, USA. Dor ance, M.J., P.J. Savage,and D.E.Huff. 1975.Effects of snowmobiles on white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 39(3):563-569. Douglas, C. L. and D.M. Leslie,Jr. 1986. Influence of weather and density on lamb survival of desert mountain sheep. Journal of Wildlife Management 50(1):153-156. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 2003. Prepared by the Bureau of Land Management. Draft Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Management Plan. 2003. Prepared by the Bureau of Land Management. Dunaway, D.J. 1971. Human disturbance as a limiting factor of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. 1st Transactions North American Wild Sheep Conference 165-173. Duncan, G.E. 1960. Human encroachment of bighorn habitat. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 1960 5:35-40, Duncan, Russell B. and Todd C. Esque_ Draft: An Ecological Study of a Slender Salamander at the Guadalupe Creek Study Site of the Santa Rosa Mountains, Riverside County, California. 86, Riverside, CA. Dunn, W.C. 1996. Evaluating bighorn habitat: a landscape approach. Produced by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,National Applied Resource Sciences Center, and Information and Communications Group. Dyer, S.J.,J.P. O'Neill, S-M. Wasel,and S. Boutin. 2001. Avoidance of industrial development by woodland caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(3):531-542. England, A.En l I, Sydney and Steven G_Nelsoa 1976 Status of the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (U»oa inonkga). Inland Fisheries Administrative Report No. 77-1,The Resources Agency, Califomia Dept Fish and Game_ England,A. Sydney. 1983. The Coachella Valley,an endangered ecosystem: Progress report on conservation and management efforts. Cal-Neva Wildlife Trans. pp. 148-156. Ernest, H.B, E.S. Rubin, and W.M. Boyce. 2002. Fecal DNA analysis and risk assessment of mountain lion predation of bighorn sheep. Journal of Wildlife Management 66(1):75-85, Ernst, C. H., J.E. Lovich, and R.W. Barbour. Turtles of the United States and Canada. 94. Washington, D.C, Smithsonian Institution Press. .*A#CA,-" 02/06/2006 12:11 5307576917 C SCOHEE PAGE 06 Is Uma inornata a separate species? (See DFEIR comments B10-03 and response)The EIR authors simply refuse to acknowledge scientific references that were given,and also mis-interpret the conclusions of the references they choose to use. We commented as follows: "Data exist in many types of studies which support a less-than-species-level distinction for the CVFTL: Molecular evidence(Trepanier 2001); Biochemical evidence(Adest 1977 and deQueiroz 1992); behavioral evidence(Carpenter 1967); morphological evidence(Norris 1958 and Zalusky 1980)as well as direct observation of copulation between U. inornata and U. notata (Cornett 1982)." To which the EIR authors replied: "The commenter does not provide reference to the"...scientific data". All of the papers we cited are either listed in the EIR's reference section,and/or discussed in papers listed in the EIR's reference section. How much reference do the EIR authors need? According to the EIR authors: "In a recent paper[listed above as Trepanier 2001] ...Tanya L. Trepanier and Robert W. Murphy conclude that based on genetic analysis,the CVFTL is warranted as a frill species". In fact,this study was not designed to determine if CVFTL is warranted as a full species. The EIR authors appear ignorant of the limits of the methodology used in the study they cite. Furthermore,Trepanier&Murphy state in the paper(second column,page 332): "Either a two- species classification or a five-species classification is required[to explain the study results]. In the two-species classification,U.inornata would not be recognized as a species." Additionally, the study authors note(first column, page 332)that: "Recognition of U. inornata has been contentious." The Trepanier&Murphy paper was simply a reconstruction of the maternal lineage of a presumed family tree for nine individuals of U. inomata. Robert Murphy,the study author,clarifies (personal communication dated January 17,2006): "In retrospect,I would not call the tree [the graphical representation of study results] a phylogeny. It is a matriarchal geneology only," The DFEIR is inadequate and incomplete if it does not recognize that there is disagreement among experts as to full species status of the CVFTL. The fact that the EIR authors incorrectly interpret this study's breadth and conclusions casts great doubt on their ability to design a habitat conservation plan for the CVFTL. I i I 02/06/2006 12:11 5307576917 C SCOBEE PAGE 07 Are wildlife undercrossings for the CVFTL a reasonable mitivation? DEHVDEIS 4-103: "...the County will install wildlife under-crossings for the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed lizard." DFEIR B-10-13: "The types of under-crossings discussed in the Plan,while not optimal habitat for the lizard,provides [sic] a safe route of movement and will reduce the numbers of lizards lost to road-kills." DFEIR B-10-15: "The Reserve System,including the TPCA,was designed to include all components of the CVFTL habitat,including food sources and adequate corridors." Independent Science Advisors Review page AI-69: Experience...has demonstrated that wildlife crossings...can be effective in reducing roadkill. Responses are highly species- specific,however,so mitigation measures must be carefully tailored to the species in question..." One of the most extensive studies done on the CVFTL is by K.S.Norris, 1958. "The field investigations reported here have involved in excess of 14,000 miles of travel in three years, including visits to all but two of the localities at which Uma is known to occur. Twenty-five new localities for the genus have been discovered, and the ranges of all forms have been redefined and extended." He measured 21 character traits using 64 Uma notata inornata (he is one of the many scientists who consider the CVFTL a sub-species). The Norris paper appears on page 10-20 of the DEIR/EIS as a document that was `consulted' in the development of the MSHCP. Unfortunately, the DEIRBIS incorrectly reported that the paper started on page 151 (rather than page 253)of the referenced journal,hindering the public's ability to participate in the planning process(see photocopy following). Still, we were able to track down the correct reference. Here are some of the things Norris said about CVFTL behavior: "Migration of present-day forms of Uma seems entirely limited by movement of occupied sand accumulations." "Surface activity of Uma is often restricted to a small portion of the available daylight hours because of a narrow range of temperature tolerance." "[Two records of Uma captured 50 yards from the nearest dune] represent the farthest a Uma has been [found] from its habitat as far as 1 know" "Uma tended to select the areas of finest sand for burrowing.... Uma nearly always selects ... the sand-grain diameter of 3mm" "As the grain size becomes larger... burrowing[is] noticeably retarded in sand of 2-min average grain size(Stebbins 1944)." "A reluctance to emerge before a closest temperature of 26 C(78.8 F)was reached has been noted by Cowles and Bogert(1944)for individuals of...Uma n. inornats." "Predators include badgers,various snakes... hawks,shrikes, road-runners,and coyotes (Stebbins, 1944)." DFEIR B10-13: "The referenced study does not provide information to suggest that CVFTL would not use properly designed wildlife undercrossings." 92/06/2006 12:11 5307576917 C GCOBEE PAGE 08 The CVFTL stays buried until it reaches a body temperature of nearly 80 F. It doesn't stray more than 50 yards from a dune. It only emerges in daylight. It is physically unable to burrow in sand of a diameter greater than 2mm, and prefers sand of.3mm. So,a "properly designed"and/or"carefully tailored"wildlife under-crossing for the CVFTL should be lighted,heated,and equipped with the proper size of sand grain for lizard movement. It should shelter the lizards from predators,and be within 50 yards of the dunes. www.wildlifecrossines.info is a searchable database for case histories of mitigation measures, initiated by the USFS (in conjunction with the FHA and Western Transportation histitute,among others). The CVFTL would be considered an "upland reptile"for purposes of using this site. A search of this database reveals no under-crossings which come close to being adequate for the specific needs of the CVFTL. A mitigation measure is considered feasible if it is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,taking into consideration economic, environmental, legal,social,and technological factors(CEQA Guidelines Section 15364). Wildlife under-crossings are not a feasible mitigation for the CVFTL. If the under-crossings are to reduce "road-kill",where are the statistics to back up this problem? Where are the records of CVFTLs lost to road-kill? How will decision-makers be able to recognize the economic absurdity of this mitigation measure without any species-specific road-kill data? How will the heated, lighted, sand-filled under-crossings be kept dry? Undercrossings are ostensibly feasible mitigations in some cases,but not in this one. Any design that comes remotely close to meeting the physiological needs of the CVFTL will be unjustifiably expensive to build and maintain, and CVAG should have recognized that. I i I 02/06/2006 12:11 5307576917 C SCOBEE__ _ __ PAGE 09 w. l SA Rec�— Drafi'Coachella Valley MSHCP—October 2004 Appendix I t areas separated by major roads are generally assumed to be functionally isolated from one ' another (although, paradoxically, some of the corridors proposed in the Plan alternatives 4 cross several major roads). We agree that many studies support the assumption that roads are ' major threats to biodiversity, Potential effects of roads include barriers to movement of organisms and sand, sources of direct mortality (road kill), access to disruptive human activities(e.g.,poaching, collecting,ORV use), and spread of invasive exotic species. No data are provided, however, on the effects roads may have on the covered species and a natural communities in the Plan Area. Apparently no studies have been conducted. Nor are - potential mitigation measures (e.g., road closures, tunnels, overpasses, fences) considered in any detail. We recommend that the adaptive management and monitoring plan include research on the effects of roads. Moreover, we recommend that specific mitigation measures to reduce the likely impacts of roads be considered in the planning alternatives. 8. Can the target species be grouped into categories that reflect general area requirements related to viability? What are those categories and general area requirements? The ability to group species into "conservation guilds" should be taken as a testable hypothesis to be considered as part of the monitoring and adaptive management program. Possible answers to the first question posed above are "yes," "yes, under certain circumstances," or even "no." However, it is likely that some lumping of species into conservation guilds is possible. This question needs to be investigated as one of the first implementation programs of the HCP insofar as it could make considerably more efficacious the management prescriptions in preserved habitat. It certainly seems that the sand-dependent species may have needs in common allowing some lumping, but this should be taken as an hypothesis. Whether area requirements alone would serve as a basis for grouping species into categories is questionable. A more fruitful approach may be one suggested by R. Lambeck (1997,Conservation Biology 11: 849-856), which is to group species into vulnerability guilds (e.g., area-limited, dispersal-limited, resource-limited, process-limited) and then identify the species in each guild that is most demanding. These species would then serve as potential umbrella species for the others in their guild. This process would need to be repeated for each major habitat type in the planning area, as well as for the area as a whole. Asking "what are the categories and what are the general area requirements?" is outside of the scope of a peer review. As reviewers, we suggest that planners make an attempt to lump species based upon hypothesized common needs and vulnerabilities. Outside reviewers could review the evidence for lumping,but the process of testing the efficacy of lumping should be proposed as an activity in the adaptive management program of the HCP. 9. Does the prescribed CVWD groundwater management plan provide adequate water table levels to sustain the target natural communities and species? If not, what additional data are needed? Several natural communities that affect the species covered under the MSHCP are strongly 55 02/06/2006 12:11 530757GS17 C SCOBEE PAGE 10 Draft EIR/EIS Coachella Valley MSHCP-October 2004 1 Section 10—Organizations,Persons and Documents Consulted Mountains. Herpetologica 15:78-80. Mullens, B.A. and Dada, C.E. 1992. Spatial and Seasonal Distribution of Potential Vectors of Hemorrhavic Disease Viruses to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep in the Santa Rosa Mountains of Southern California, Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 28(2): 192-205, Nelson, Marcus. 1966. Problems of recreational use of game ranges. Desert Bighorn Council 1966 Transactions 13-20. Nicol, K. 2003. Personal Communication. California Department of Fish and Game. Bermuda Dunes, y, California. II Norris, K, S. 1958. The evolution and systematics of the iguanid genus Uma and its relation to the �I Evolution of other North American desert reptiles. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull. 114:151-326. Osterman, S.D.,J.R. DeForge, and W.D. Edge, 2001. Captive breeding and reintroduction evaluation criteria: a case study of peninsular bighorn sheep. Conservation Biology 15(3):749-760. Ough, W.D and J.C. deVos, Jr. 1984. Intermountain Travel Corridors and Their Management Implications for Bighorn Sheep. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 34: 32 -36, Palm Springs Desert Resorts Convention and Visitors Bureau, Spring 2000. "Palm Springs Desert Resorts Fact Sheet". Papouchis, C. M.,F. J. Singer, and W. Sloan. 2000, Effects of Increasing Recreational Activity on Desert Bighorn Sheep in Canyonlands National Park, Utah Pages 364-391 in Singer, F. J. and M. A. Gudorf. Restoration of bighorn sheep metapopulations in and near 15 national parks: conservation of a severely fragmented species. USGS Open File. Report 99-102, MidContinent Ecological Science Center, Fort Collins, CO. Papouchis, C.M., F.J. Singer, and W.B. Sloan, 1999. Effects of increasing recreational activity on desert bighorn sheep in Canyonlands National Park, Utah in Thomas, A.E. and H.L. Thomas (editors). 2000. Transactions of the Second North American Wild Sheep Conference. April 6-9, 1999. Reno, NV. 470 pp. Papouchis, M., F. J. Singer, and W. B. Sloan. 2001. Responses of Desert Bighorn Sheep to Increased Hunan Recreation. Journal of Wildlife Mangement 65(3):573-582. Peek, J.M., D.A. Demarchi, R.A. Demarchi, and D.E. Stucker. Bighorn sheep and fire: seven case scenarios. Platt, J.R. 1964, Strong Inference. Science 146:347-353. Pomerantz, G.A., D.J. Decker, G.R. Goff, and K.G. Purdy, 1988, Assessing impact of recreation on wildlife: a classification scheme. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:58-62. Purdy, K. G. and W. W. Shaw. 1981. An Analysis of Recreational Use Patterns in Desert Bi hg orn Page 10-20 I -sad y' q -7 5 ✓i/ta.P CV Fa e- -ia L�2axAs- - (�tP,�t.. t,U WI'rr� IL•S G-G�S-{-SOZ�G2� I . p p p 4kL CVMSJtCp i x IS r ■ ❑ p ■ r ■ /fit J vl R _ m � 71 ■ M ■ 1r J�/✓L' ■ . III '1' ■ Vv ON LEGEND ❑p �U ■ UMA PRESENT ❑ UMA ABSENT p III 41 R �> FIGURE 10. Distribution of Uma inornata based on observations during July, 1975. �I 1 Open squares represent locations checked but no U. inornata or tracks V I observed. �, _ R•c c t 7, �c c�S ar— 'G� J �p5 i7 � <_ 3 2� . 8A•WEDNESDAY,, JULY 24,2002 • USA TODAY Washm Bush approves Nev. nuclear waste site There was no fanfare or public ceremony Tuesday as President Bush signed into law legislation that would create a S58 billion facility under Nevada's Yuc- ca Mountain to store radioactive waste now piling up at sites in 39 states.It's set to open in 2010,but even I backers say it will take longer.The bill apparently ends I 20 years of haggling over what to do with the nations nuclear waste, but Nevada officials and other oppo- nents have vowed to continue the fight in court.Crit- 0y J.Scott A pplewhlte.AP i ics of the Yucca project say that the waste can be kept Tough guy with big heart safely at reactor sites and that transporting it across the country is more dangerous.Reporters weren't al- At white House:President Bush and First Lady Laura lowed to witness the bill signing. Bush join actor Bruce Willis to unveil a public service Trauma doe confirmed as su[ eon eneral advertising campaign encouraging Americans to i g g adopt children who are in the foster care system. The Senate unanimously confirmed Tucson trauma surgeon Richard Carmona,52,as surgeon general.He House vote on Traficant due today replaces David Satcher,who ILeft in February.The sur- P geon general helps shape public health policies but House Republican lead s agreed to vote today on r has a small staff and budget.Carmona, a high school whether to expel Rep,Ja es Traficant,an Oluo Dem- t dropout,fought in Vietnam and went onto become a ocrat convicted of babe and kickbacks.House Ma- it part-time sherilf's deputy,registered nurse,physician jority Leader Dick Arme of Texas announced the de- b and professor of surgery at the University of Arizona, cision after the leader considered Postponing the n A 1992 exploit in which he rapelled from a helicopter vote until they retu n ' Se tember from an August yr to rescue someone stranded on a cliff inspired a TV recess.They review hei options after a juror said th movie.He was questioned at his confirmation hearing he believes he was mi t ke when he voted in April to fle about his background,including his eight-year strug- help convictTYaficalm. ey said about six members life gle to w n certification in his field. ex ressed concern tha he House might vote to ex- cot Bush wants business fraud law this week t he hl a w t L Bui Lawsuits slow work on endangered species President Bush would sign compromise leg slatio g P I to curb business fraud and accounting abuses,but h Workers at the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service spend wants it passed this week before Congress begins it more than half of their time on lawsuits or attempting summer recess,White House spokesman Ari begins to avoid lawsuits relating to their decisions about en- ants said.The House of Representatives and Senate hav dangered species,the General Accounting Office said. passed 'separate bills.Lawmakers are negotiating th Congress' investigative arm said that because of all final version.Rep.John B0ehner,R-Oh o,said hew the Paperwork, there's little money or time for field favly optimistic that a final agreement could b work on conservation or recovering endangered spe- reached by today.The final bill is expected to contai ties.The agency agreed with the CA recommen- harsher penalties for corporate crimes and increas dation that clearer guidelines could reduce lawsuits o oversight of the accounting industry, by making it easier for the agency to defend decisions. The House leaves at the end of this week for a fiv week recess.The Senate leaves next week. By Paul Leavitt with staff and wire reports c �. h� Bud et limitationsput brakes � on plan arkland ae uisition p q U1 Associated Press acquisition," not anti-park or anti- acquisition of 4,075 addition;acquisition," said Bob Camp- acres for state parks, mostly i bell, general counsel for the small pieces next to existir SACRAMENTO — California governor's Finance Depart- parks. By comparison, U has stopped acquiring land for :ment:-`But'we are mindful of board acquired a total of 62,9 state parks for 'the. foreseeable .: the'budget situation. And we acres in 2002 and 2003. future because it can't afford to have to take that into account•" staff and maintain new park- Critics of the plan suspend- h land, according to a newspaper ing new acquisitions point out report. that voters have approved more Facing a budget deficit next than $10 billion in bond money C year of up to $10 billion, state for new parks and water pro- public works officials quietly jests over the past four years. C decided in March to stop Some argued that no other Cali- accepting or buying new park- fornia governor has halted all land, the San Jose Mercury land purchases for parks, even New, reported. during the-Depression. Following outcries from Fred Keeley,' a former Santa environmentalists and conser- Cruf dsseinblyman who,helped vationists, however, the Califor- write several recent parks bond nia Public Works Board agreed measures, said the policy was Friday to add 1,000 acres of red- against the wishes of the voters. woods to Castle Rock State Park "They haven't stopped in the Santa Cruz Mountains, acquiring lands for new prisons But in a compromise with or DMV offices. Somehow they park: supporters, the board also have singled out state parks for decided to keep the newly special punishment," he said. 101 acquired acreage unmarked The Mercury News reported .t and closed to public access to that so far this year, the Public •* save money. Works Board has approved the +; 7� / -a -(�2 tl -T l2!*� h L Natural Lands Management - The Property Analysis Re(. . . Page 1 of,{3 Jc'C' S F1 il, c ll 'iit C2 r J I'L f'wyl„ Center For Natural Lands Management Property Analysis Record (PAR) seminar: "Understanding stewardship-Programs and Funding" = southern California, location to be announced. ^l January 22, 2003; 9:00 am to 4:00 pm You' ll receive PAR software and the guidebook. Plus we' ll have ® discussions in the morning of the biological and financial foundations of the PAR and a hands-on project in the afternoon. Please bring a laptop computer if you can. ERR If you have already bought the software but your organization has not attended a seminar, you can do so for no additional MEMMM charge. ® Hurry! only a maximum of 30 persons may attend each meeting. sign-Up Form The Property Analysis Record : 'Paying for Perpetuity Every parcel preserved for the benefit of biological resources requires management involving some level of expense. If not planned in advance, management in perpetuity can escalate into a tremendous capital P , , ,, ML requirement. The ideal , of course, is to establish a funding source that provides enough income to cover annual stewardship costs and includes a buffer to offset inflation. How Much Money Is Enough?) The al cost ofs management deeding how mth gg teemed of the average annual cost of mana ement over the veryton term unfortunate) there _ I no_ eas e_wa _to determl,pe this, and mana ers around the county are stru lie to develo formulas for calculatin these costs The costs vary wi e y witF the nature of the land, the type of protection (owned or under easement) , the purpose of conservation (endanggered species, visitor services, education) , and further varies year by year. The Property Analysis Record The Center for Natural Lands Management has developed a new tool , the Property Analysis Record (PAR) . The PAR is a computerized database methodology that is extremely effective in helping land managers calculate the costs of land management for a specific project. The PAR helps analyze the characteristics and needs of the property from which management requirements are derived. It helps pinpoint management tasks and estimates their costs as well as the necessary administrative costs to provide the full cost of managing any property. The PAR generates a concise report which serves as a well -substantiated basis for long-term funding including endowments, special district fees, and other sources. PAR Seminars The center presents the Property Analysis Record (PAR) methodology to land trusts, governmental agencies, environmental consultants , protect proponents , and other interested parties throughout the U. S. through the seminar, "Planning sustainable conservation Projects . " PAR software and a user's manual are provided to participants, and software is upgraded as new versions are introduced. The PAR seminar enables participants to: • understand the need for long term stewardship; • Readily determine and justify the long-term activities and financial requirements of a conservation project; http : //www. cnlm . org/par. html 8/28/2002