HomeMy WebLinkAboutTT 31676 GPA 61-1 CZ 6-1 Cornishe of Bighorn, LLC 03-09-2006I. TO:
II. REQUEST:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Approval of a tentative tract map and environmental impact report to
allow the subdivision of 11.87 acres into 7 lots to allow construction
of 4 single family homes adjacent to the "Canyons at Bighorn Golf
Club", west of Indian Cove and south of Dead Indian Creek; and a
request by the City of Palm Desert on same property for a general
plan amendment from Low Density Residential (Study Zone) to
Hillside Reserve and zone change from a combination of Planned
Residential, 5 units per acre and Hillside Planned Residential, to
Hillside Planned Residential on the entire property:.
III. APPLICANT: Comishe of Bighorn, LLC
P. O. Box 789
Ceres, CA 95307
IV. CASE NOS. TT 31676, GPA 6-1, CZ 6-1
V. DATE: February 23, 2006
VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
MEETING DATE
❑ CONTINUED TO
❑ PASSED TO 2ND READING
Background
Recommendation
Draft Enviromental Impact Report
Legal Notice
EIR comments
Planning Commission Staff report dated February 21, 2006
Tentative Tract Map 31676
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Accept public testimony and continue matter to the meeting of March 9,2006
B. DISCUSSION:
The project is almost entirely surrounded by the 400-yard buffer for the captive sheep at
the Bighom Institute by The Canyons when that project was approved. The applicant
originally submitted a 57-unit project, which was scaled back to a 38-unit, which was
analyzed in an environmental impact report. The project was recently scaled back to a 4-
unit project while the EIR found that the only project on the property that would not
significantly impact the Institute operations was a 2-unit project.
The general plan amendment and zone change are city initiated.
STAFF REPORT
PM 33996
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
Staff is recommending a continuance for this project to the meeting of March 9 to allow
extra time for staff and city attorney to; 1) respond to comments, 2) review the regulatory
takings claim, and 3) review the analysis for no impact altemative.
For a more detailed report on the project please refer to the planning commission staff
report contained within your package.
Submitted By: Dep ment Head:
rhil Joy -, I1hilip Drell
Associate Transportation Planner
Appl ed by:
Homer Croy, A istant City Manager for Development Services
Carlos L. 0 ga, City Manager
Director of Community Development
2
CITY Ir PH ffl DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TELL 760 346—o61i
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@pilm-desercorg
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. TT 31676, GPA 6-1 & CZ 6-1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission and Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by Comishe of Bighom, LLC for
approval of a tentative tract map and environmental impact report to allow the subdivision of
11.87 acres into 7 lots to allow construction of 4 single family homes adjacent to the "Canyons at
Bighorn Golf Club", west of Indian Cove and south of Dead Indian Creek; and a request by the
City of Palm Desert on same property for a general plan amendment from Low Density
Residential (Study Zone) to Hillside Reserve and zone change from a combination of Planned
Residential, 5 units per acre and Hillside Planned Residential, to Hillside Planned Residential on
the entire property: APN 771-030-008
A. MESQUITE HILLS DRNE
B. PALM ROAD
C. CANYON ROAD
D. LANTANA VIEW
E. ANDREAS CANYON DRNE
F. SUMMIT CONE
G. ROCKY CREEK
H. ARROY VIEW
1. `. INDIAN COVE
J. PINNACLE CREST
PROJECT SITE
SAID public hearing before the Planning Commission will be held on Tuesday, February 21,
2006 at 6:00 p.m. and SAID public hearing before the City Council will be held on Thursday,
February 23, 2006, 4:00 p.m in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510
Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are
invited to attend and be heard. Written comments conceming all items covered by this public
hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the
proposed project and environmental impact report is available for review in the Department of
Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or city council at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
February 9, 2006 Palm Desert Planning Commission
RACHELLE KLASSEN
City Clerk
02/14/2006 16:25 FA% 213 820 8816 ALL,EN �IATKINS
��1 ����l.t1S
www_ allenmatkins, com
(�004
Allen M�s �.dcic G�i�le & Mallory LLP
Auoraeys �t Isw
515 Satth Figuao�, 7° Flnar �(,cs At►geles, CA 900?1-3398
Tetepi�onC: 21�_622.SSSS � Facsircdle: 213.620.8816
Patriefc A. Perry
E•raa�: pperry(�aDennmtkins.00rn
Dir�ct Disl: 213.935.5504 l�'Ie Nuraber F3163-002/LA709S45.Oi
Febxuary 14, 2006
VYA FACSYIVIII�E ANb
FIRST C�,ASS MAIL
Mayor Ji�m Fergusom
Mayor Pro Tem Riciwr�d S. Kelly
Cauncilmember Yean M. �enson.
Cowncilmembex' Buford A. G�ites
Councilmamber Robert A. Spiegel
City of Paim Desert
73-51 U Fred Waring brive
1'aim Desert, Cali�ornis
Re: Case Nos. GPA 6,1 aad CZ 6-2.
Dear Membars of the Palm Desert City Cow�i�:
This fum represe�ts Corni�he of �ighom ("Cornishe") in connectivn with its a�plication �or
Tentatave Tract Iv�ap No. 3167b to subdivide appmximately 12 acres of undeveloped propecty (the
"Prapert�r") abutting the sonthern bounaaiy o�the City. Th� Tentative Tract Map is scheduled to be
considcred i�y the City Plxnning Co�nission on February 2],, 2006, and by the City Council o�n
Febzuary 23, 2006. The Flanning Comz�ission snd C�ty Council are atso scheduled to cocnsider the
abov�zeferenced �'ieneral P�an amenda��nt and zone change for tbe Properiy at the same time. The
eunent Gene�al Plan land use desi$aation for the Prop�ty is Low 'Density Residential (Study Zone},
which pezmits up to faur dwellipg units per acre. The currerrt zonin� desi�on far most of the
Property is PR-S, Pia�ned Izeside�atial, 5 imits pez acre. A, small pnrkion of the Properiy is currently
xoned Hillside Planned Resideatial, whic.h perxnits the derre�opment of onc unit per five a�res. The
General Plan amendment '�rould chan,ge the land use designation o f the Properiy from Low T�e�zsi�y
Res�idential (Study Zone) to Hillside Reserve, and the zone change would change the zonimg
d�.signation of the portion o�'the Property zoned PR-5 to Hillside piann�d Residential.
As nated above, thc Prapert�r consists of agproximately 12 acres. Under the current zot�ing
desi�ation, a maxi.mum of 57 dwel�in� units could be de�ve�oped on the Property. The General Plsn
amendment and the zone change, if approved, arould reduce the maximum numbe�r of dwelling units
tha# could be developed oa� the Property from S? to two. 'The Tentative T�cact Map praposes to
subdivide the Property into� four residential lots for the developiuent of foux single fazniiy hames.
��� I�� ��r I saa niego � Ceatwr atY ( S� �raacisco � Dd Mar seigi�,
4 ug a
s�awu�u.ss
s�vtcc�
United States Department of the Interior
In Reply Refer To:
FWS-ERIV-4739.1
Mr. Philip Drell
FISH AND WII.DLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Catlsbad, California 92011
Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert, Community Development Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
�.� c�i
�'r�' � � 2�
�OhlhiUNITY DEt'ELOP:�fENT DEPARTI�EN`
C1TY pF pALM DESEIiT
F E 8 � 2006
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact report on the Cornishe of Bighorn Project
(Tentative Tract Map 31676)
Dear Mr. Drell:
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the proposed Cornishe of Bighorn Project. We are providing these comments for
your consideration under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and
the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. The mission of the Service is working with others to
conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing
benefit of the American people. The proposed project is a 38-unit residential subdivision with
associated improvements and amenities on approximately 11.87 acres of vacant land. The
proposed project would signiiicantly impact the federally endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep
(Ovis canadensis) and threatened desert tortoise [Gopherus (xerobates) agassizii]. Our concerns
regarding the accuracy and completeness of the DEIR, range of alternatives analyzed, and
adequacy of the mitigation measures are outlined below.
1. Inadeauate data on nronosed imnacts to cautive bi�horn sheen and inadeauate mitisation
for proposed 'impacts to Peninsular bi�horn sheep
The proposed project site is located partially within designated critical habitat for
Peninsular bighorn sheep and approximately 50 yards from the lambing pen at the bighorn
sheep captive breeding facilities located at the Bighorn Institute. The proposed project
construction would occur only 125 yazds from the lambing pen. We recommend that any
proposed project in this location be consistent with the minimum 400-600 yard buffer that
was negotiated through a previous court-mediated settlement agreement among the
Bighorn Institute, Altamira, City, and County. No human disturbance (e.g., construction,
home owner activities, hiking, etc.� should occur within 400 yards of the existing lambing
pen, in order to maintain the isolation of the captive bighorn sheep from human activities.
Disturbance, as would be expected from the project as proposed, would likely result in
i"�A4�� ��tt?�l_��' .a
E N�� � �'�." I ��!'� e�';
Mr.� Phil Drell (FWS-ERIV-4739)
2
stress to pregnant ewes and habituation of lambs to human disturbance. Habituation to
disturbance would likely make lambs substantially less suitable for survival in the wild.
Bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges of the United States were federally listed as
endangered in 1998. This bighorn sheep population is comprised of approximately 8
subpopulations or demes. Demes in the northern Santa Rosa Mountains and San Jacinto
Mountains have declined to precariously low numbers in the recent past, and the San
Jacinto Mountains deme remains at critically low numbers. Captive breeding and
augmentation, in combination with field research, has assisted greatly in recovery of the
bighorn deme in the northern Santa Rosa Mountains (Ostermann et al. 2001). Captive
breeding has been important tool for recovering the bighorn deme in the San Jacinto
Mountains near Palm Springs, and the smail subgroup in Dead Indian Canyon of Palm
Desert has persisted in part from the long-standing release program in the northern Santa
Rosa Mountains. Of the ten female sheep currently remaining the San Jacinto Mountains,
six are captive-reared ewes.
The Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California (USFWS
2000) recognizes the importance of captive breeding and augmentation to the recovery of
Peninsular bighorn sheep. Reintroduction and augmentation are prospective tools to
establish ewe groups and restore connectivity among demes. Augmentation increases
population size and reduces the risk of extirpations due to environmental or demographic
stochasticity, and provides a mechanism to increase genetic diversity and reduce the risk
of inbreeding depression (Foose et al. 1995). Augmentation may also play an important
role in conserving bighom sheep habitat selection patterns, which aze learned from
experienced animals. Captive breeding programs have been successfully used to aid
recovery of threatened and endangered wildlife populations throughout North America,
and include programs for the American bison (Bison bonasu), California Condor
(Gymnogyps californianus), and red wolf (Canis rufus) (Kleiman 1989; Tear et al. 1993),
and have proven successful for a wide variety of species on a worldwide basis.
As a good neighbor, the City has a responsibility to respect the Bureau of Land
Management's Recreation and Public Purpose lease and investment in the recovery of
bighorn sheep at the captive breeding facility on BLM-patented lands. If the 4(}0-yard
buffer around the breeding pen can not be legally protected under private ownership, we
recommend that the City, and perhaps others, join in pursuing a purchase the proposed
project site and place the lands in permanent conservation, to ensure that activities on
adjacent lands do not compromise the integrity of the captive breeding facility. Much
private funding, multiple government and non-governmental partnerships, and many years
of hard work were required to establish and refine this captive breeding program for
bighorn sheep.
If a regulatory takings concern exists with the proposed project, we further suggest that,
for this unique situation, the City consider an alternative that would atlow one home to be
developed in the far northeastern corner of the project site. Based on our Geographic
Information System parcel data, approximately one-third of an acre of the project site lies
MrRPhil Drell (FWS-ERN-4739)
3
outside of the 400-yard buffer from the lambing pen. If one house and a minor deviation,
if needed, from the 400-yard buffer were allowed in tt�is corner, maximum mitigation
measures to avoid and minimize edge effects would be required to provide a functional
equivalent of the 400 yard buffer, though it may not be possible to provide full
equivalency. The buffer surrounding the captive breeding facility should be placed in
permanent conservation with funding provided for associated land management, per
California Civil Code 815 et seq. Fencing surrounding developments in Peninsular
bighorn sheep habitat should be constructed in accord with guidelines provided in the
Recovery Plan (USFWS 2000; pages 80-81). The precise alignment of the fence should
be deternuned in consultation with the Service and California Department of Fish and
Game.
2. The ran�e of alternatives analvzed did not include all reasonable alternatives
All alternatives analyzed in the DEIR (except the no build option} would result in
significant impacts to captive bighorn sheep. We consider the mitigation measures
described as part of the Hillside Limited Alternative in the DEIR (reduced project
footprint, design features, and an 8' wall) to be ineffective at mitigating the effects of the
project on captive bighorn sheep. The DEIR focused on minimizing the direct innpacts of
construction, but underestimated the indirect effects of the project after construction (e.g.,
noise, lighting, and home owner activity). As determined through a lengthy legal and
biological process, the consensus among bighorn sheep experts for the previous Altamira
project was that a minimum 400-600 yard buffer between the captive bighorn sheep and
any development project is required to avoid significant impacts to captive sheep. The
Hillside Limited Alternative would allow for construction and human disturbance within
the 400 yard buffer.
Despite devoting considerable effort to the identification of mitigation measures for the
Hillside Limited Alternative, the DEIIt contains an important oversight: failing to
consider an alternative that allowed for the development of one house in the northeastern
corner of the proposed project site as discussed above, with a focus on respecting the
integrity of the 400 yard buffer and the feasibility of any functional equivalents to any
minor deviations from past precedent. This alternative should have been analyzed in the
DEIR.
3. Reliance on the CVMSHCP for miti�ation of biolo�ical imnacts
Mitigation for the proposed Cornishe project cannot rely upon mitigation measures
potentially supplied by the proposed CVMSHCP (Plan), unless the Plan is permitted and
implemented prior to certification of the Final EIR and approval of the project by the
City of Palm Desert. Additionally, the following sentence describing mitigation of
cumulative effects on page (17) is unclear:
"The cumulative impacts of tkis are not significant due to
CVMSHCP mitigation and conservation measures, if adoptea�, the
sctme cumulative impacts would not be significant if the same
M�, Phil Drell (FWS-ERIV-4739)
mitigation and conservation measures are incorporated into
projects, if the CVMSHCP is noi adopted. "
Regardless, the lack of focus or detail in the proposed CVMSHCP for addressing
cumulative adverse effects to the captive breeding facility renders this conclusion
questionable.
4. Incomplete data on Desert Tortoise
0
The proposed Cornishe project is within CVMSHCP modeled desert tortoise habitat, and
is in ciose proximity to recent tortoise sightings (see attached map). Furthermore, a
breeding population of desert tortoises has been documented on the nearby alluvial fan of
Deep Canyon. These findings are not consistent with the DEIR (page 150) statement that
the project site is poor quality tortoise habitat. Impacts to desert tortoise should be
reanalyzed after the most recent data on tortoise occurrences and modeled tortoise habitat
are obtained. It should also be noted that because such a small percentage of desert
tortoise habitat is designated as critical habitat, the absence of designated critical habitat
on the project site should not be interpreted as an indication of little or no impact to desert
tortoise. Loss of desert tortoise habitat on the adjoining Canyons at Bighorn project was
mitigated off-site through the acquisition of private lands under section 7 consultation
between the project proponent, Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Since the
same tortoise individuals (or their progeny) and home range territories would be adversely
affected by the proposed Cornishe project, past precedent and biological equity requires
comparable znitigation in this case. At a minir�um, replacement habitat should be
purchased or secured at a ratio of 1 acre of conserved land for every acre of desert tortoise
habitat impacted. The mitigation habitat should be within the Santa Rosa Mountains and
benefit the tortoise population that will be impacted by the proposed project.
In addition, the EIR should be revised to describe what actions will be taken if tortoises
(or burrowing owls) are found during pre-construction surveys. Though clearance
surveys would be appropriate to avoid death and injury to individual tortoises, presence
absence surveys are not needed because the project site is known to be occupied by the
tortoises inhabiting nearby burrows. Incidental take of desert tortoises would require
authorization under State and Federal law.
In summary, we are concerned with the impacts of the proposed Cornishe of Bighorn Project on
Peninsular bighorn sheep and desert tortoise. Based on our comments above, we hope that the
City will respect the long-term conservation work that has occurred on lands adjacent to the
proposed project and take responsibility for requiring a project design that avoids and fully
mitigates signi�cant adverse effects to the captive-breeding herd.
MrY*Phil Drell (FWS-ERIV-4739) 5
Please contact Jon Avery or Stacey Ostermann-Kelm of my staff at 760/431-9440 if you have any
questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Therese O' Rourke
Assistant Field Supervisor
cc: Kim Nicol, CDFG, Bermuda Dunes
Literature Cited
Foose, T. J. L DeBoer, U. S. Seal, and R. Lande. 1995. Conservation management strategies
based on viable populations. Pages 273-294 in J. D. Ballou, M. Gilpin, and T. J. Foose, editors.
Population management for survival and recovery. Columbia University Press, New York.
Kleiman, D. G. 1989. Reintroduction of captive mammals for conservation. Bioscience 39:457-
481.
Ostermann, 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 15:749-
760.
Tear, T. H., J. M. Scott, P. H. Hayward, and B. Griffith. 1993. Status and prospects for success
of the Endangered Species Act: a look at recovery plans. Science 262:976-977.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Recovery plan for bighorn sheep in the Peninsular
Ranges, California. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. xv + 251 pages.
.�� `'
.��
�
�� , � #�,�
�
_� I' fL
� � ' ��y � ,�`�
� ',
i
�. <,�; ' ..1� - _
-.�,;;';' -
.��.:.
�:-�-_- - -
- .�: � r:
�� � .
' _ "��.
�_ �_
', r r�.�f '�^.!
F�
. � � � o .� 'c�`a r
{, �iS � <
J(," � -t':hl ' ,i, '
� �t�p • � . .�
, .. r . -.. . I�
_ � �'� �.��, ... �
�f� '� �r'�.�
� � 9 � �� :�F � #k' �..
.] -;.i�Jl Y. t :
i��` a .��� �• �11t_ ; I
�M}� ^ � . �"� � �. £ �� � � � �
' i.>- r
i'. '� d A.� ��' ; -
��.�-� - .�
.'�'y
S4
�' `�.
,�
�
�,�♦ �p 'Y���' �Y�• �`���`'y �t��
,� �� F � .r`r�+, a �i }
'y. ^.+�*� : � �'+��-
.. :
�� , i r �,
3. �' T�:;.S
�,r.....�. . �.
;,�-
11 k.
r t :� T �
� , `� : ,
?�/ �, �
P' �1 � .Y
Z Y< �
. h,{ l.li ' .� -�
7 � �} `-'i _, � :r�� � �
- f _i
�� ` y� �' ��.,
S. � �I
_ . } � :�•
� ' � �:
� , s �.:
� ,�� y.� t a
�� � � . . . � r ra ms ' �`► � '. �� t`T . r. �' �]
����� seo■. `i� � � V��:� ��7
.�a��c,�a"YSY ,� v ���. :�'-rA�e,��"�- �... w? .•�� 4 �- Y . •�
y,Ysi i ' r ' �'�H�y�{�r4 � � �,A+' v'9�� s��� a,a''�`"9aA '"`.' � ) i � �1[,. ,-�,i
�s , r , J ��� 14� "�.��v�s'2G�ay �, � r: J .X+:
� � � a � 6�� �f ��,��,.r � e„ � < �.�?' < . S �'�1. ,,:,
� 5r I�
' � � e �' ,x, e��?�L£ �� ' � �. k. • � r y 1� .r ''l.J� .. � k �,: k g� - - � .., ` i . +� . Y t}a �)
r '` . � . �
, . e � 7� �' 9 �S' L.c. � ' "'} ' x .� @ ;L �' � Qt 1 � . b .
�Y pM � F � l.Ch4 .t . � �`+Y . ��,y.�+L
t '
� *+�' .� Y(�` < f � ,.� r � F`x:, T �'',A� .s yf . �'. �{ y .�. . . j
.S F i� L�
'�''� . '� S .*.. ' �,r �%., ��� 'hl'y_ . .1 .rr _ � Z. � ^' . " f:,�7�7F�j,. ; -�
� ?��.': ,.�y � • ��%t �� . -...�.i
� � )�' y ayy "� 1 . 'i�� 5 , � �K�: '1 .�" _.;. �
+�. '.ki'+.A �7
� � �, �f � ��M�,f � ��j - . "��N...�:� S � � . .
G� � � ..' � ✓ �t.�'� ) �t% V .' ' . . . �' � 4i"_i y� fp, . . . 1(*'. .
�r ,_,it+�.t: 'i . � .. � ... F �
D 7 . . � i �'r N ..4 � >������" � / ..r � ���
i �t. .eY��4. 4,va y�-n ..t ' , . . � � ''�
L . � �"r � '� �x � af . �'�'p . ` , r�.��� r� . .
( 7'. � ti �` � ' ..fj �J 'q _: .
{ O F 1^ '
F 1 � s � - � � � . � �- � t -1
� , � � , � � . � . . , . � y A� . .3: '�E� i
�. �,� .) � � �v� r ' � ' �. . . . ��
� , � ' � - . - ' . . , .
� ' t _� � � . � � � � . ��� . .
y �
i� 7
�
Y �e. � y . . .. � . . . .
�- �,,uY. � ,,-Sd} _ . . , . . � i . � . -
'i �
�j . )� Y� " � . � � . .
�% •.. '1 . . .
�sr .✓ �'� j � � �4. . .� �. . . . . .. .
�� � . . . . ' . .. . .� .
7 �t . -. .t.. . ,.
S J J '
��,; t;*;,�: ' � .. '',. . . . . . . � ' . '
7! .. -..:' . .� . .� . ��. . - . . . . . . . . ' . -
:: ( : •
{ [ ,� ' .. .. . .
� , %s r 7 -s
� 4 ' . . _ , ' . . . . , . .
. . . . . � .:.. ,� - . ... .
. <.. 4� `�` - . . . . . . . . . . „ _ . _ .. _
. ,.. ' :. . �-, ,. ; ..
', .' -'� 4 s' z .
l _
`; . r 'f� �'
�°� ' - r
-'�, ''�
`a:u ;
' �"Dt. .
J �
2 ' '
�: � :
� . .. - �SkC� ' )' . . .. . '
, ' � ;. � . . . ' ' ` � Y'3'�� . . ' . . .
y' :� 7'
e +`�� �
, �
�
o �
�' � . = , :��.�.,,��s' .
�:: , �
_ , � ���'`3� : � �"94'e . . � . .. � . 1'
. _ . O �'� . . . !�/ ,
t ' . ,��_ . _ 5. _ ' . `�Jr:,F.i:
-. � '. . .. , .
' ,� : ', � . . � • '.• . bi�, . , ���•.,d4.
� . � �
� � �v� ] ..�.:�: � •w��9tbM�Mfii �>Oef����� . 4 � - s:.
_ . . . . _T " _: y! _. . .. _ . . . . .. . ..a._. i .:'.
CALifORNIA
iiei:_. :.� •�:
� '�.. ` ,�,.
, ��r.a
���"�a
1p .
State of California - The Resources Aaency
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
t DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME p.�,
a78078 Country Club Dr., Ste. 109
Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Mr. Philip Drell January 30, 2006
Director of Community Development 1�E C E IVE D
City Of Palm Desert, Community Development Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive ��B Q 2 2�6
Palm Desert CA 92260-2578
Dear Mr. Drell,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
The Califomia Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Cornishe of Bighom Project.
The proposed project consists of construction of 38 single family homes on 11.87
acres. The project is located along the southernmost border of the city of Palm
Desert and is east of Highway 74. The proposed construction activities would
occur 375 feet from the lambing pens of the non-profit Bighorn Institute.
The Departrnent requests that the project be consistent with the 400 meter buffer
that was negotiated through a previous court decision with the Canyons at
Bighom. No construction activities should occur within 400 meters of the lambing
pens for the captive bighorn sheep population to remain isolated from human
activities.
The Departrnent reque,sts the project proponent check other souroes such as the
DepartmenYs Natural Diversity Database, BLM records and EIRs for the
Canyons at Bighorn, Ironwood and the Reserve for sightings of desert tortoise in
the area closer to the project than 16 miles.
The project requires a notification of streambed alteration (Fish and Game Code
Section 1602). The type of habitat impacted must be delineated for purposes of
mitigation. Mitigation for the impacted acres of streambed listed in the DEIR must
be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report before a permit can be
issued.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (760) 200 -9174.
Sinoe�efy,
Eddy Konno
�Staff Environmental Scientist
Conser'ving Ca�fornia s�iCdCife Since 18T0
�,� � � ��,��D
.
t
i�� ..�..'d �J � ..,`+1l�
C4MhtUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALhi DESERT
IN REPLY REFER TO:
20Q0 (1')
CA660.41
Visit us on the Internet at
www. ca. b tm. gov/palmsprings
United States Depa.rtment of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Palm Springs-South Coast �eld Office
690 West Garnet Avenue
P.O. Box 581260
North Palm Springs, CA 92258-1260
(760) 251-4800 Fax (760) 251-4899
JAN 31 2006
Mr. Philip Drell, Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert, Community Development Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Cornishe of Bighorn Project
Dear Mr. Drell:
�.�������
wn�uoruwwwc
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the proposed Cornishe of Bighorn Project.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) supports the Bighorn Institute's endeavors in sustaining
the endangered wild population of bighorn sheep occupying the Peninsular Ranges. The BLM
has had a longstanding partnership with the Institute, and through provisions of the Recreation
and Public Purposes Act transfer patent, retains involvement in the Institute's ability to conduct
ongoing research occurring at the site.
Based on the analysis provided in the DEIR, BLM has serious concerns about potential impacts
of the proposed Cornishe of Bighorn Project on captive sheep at the Bighorn Institute. The DEIR
concludes that impacts to these captive sheep after implementation of recommended mitigation
measures would be significant and unavoidable due to the close proximity of the proposed
residential improvements and associated human activity to induce stress in adult sheep and
habituation of young to human activity (pp. 166 and 270). These impacts would occur during site
preparation, construction of homes, and ongoing occupancy and operation (pp. 166 and 270).
Z'he BLM acknowledges it is not the intent of the City of Palm Des��t to preclude development
from occurring within the project site (DEIR, p. 253). The BLM also acknowledges that it has no
jurisdictional authority with regards to the proposed project. However, the BLM recommends
�L
that adoption of all possible mitigation measures to reduce impacts to captive bighorn sheep at
the Bighorn Institute be adopted should the Cornishe of Bighorn Project be approved. It should
be noted that the DEIR cites Mitigation Measure IV-G-9 as recommended, among others, to
address project impacts upon operations of the Bighorn Institute (p. 165); however, this
mitigation measure is not described in the DEIlt (see pages 221-222 regarding the "IV-G" set of
measures}.
Should you have any questians with regards to these comments, please contact Jim Foote, Acting
Monument Manager, Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, at (760) 251-
4836.
Sincerely,
Gail Acheson
Field Manager
cc: 7im DeForge, Executive Director, Bighorn Institute
Mike Pool, State Director, California
Steve Borchard, District Manger, California Desert District
,S� lyT UF� t.
��/..•'� ' ' �;�,
,�,. �'�:F�
;w; - � ,:_�� ��;:
`?,:;! , '\ �-� i
\\� �:i I 5't��/
REPLY TO
ATl'ENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O BOX 532711
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053-2325
JanU.ary z4, 2006
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
City of Palm Desert
Atteniion: Philip Drell
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
Dear Dr. Drell:
� � w/ �w/ � ♦ � �
.eTi3� � � 2VW
;'O�1I�UNITY DEVELaPMENT DEPARTMENT
r,ITY OF PALM DESERT
It has come to our attention that you plan to develop a residential subdivision near
unnamed tributaries to Whitewater River, in the city Palm Desert, Riverside County, California.
This activity may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit.
A Corps of Engineers permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into,
including any redeposit of dredged material within, "waters of the United States" and adjacent
wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. Examples include, but are not
limited to,
1. creating fills for residential or commercial development, placing bank protection,
temporary or permanent stockpiling of excavated material, building road crossings, backfilling
for utility line crossings and constructing outfall struciures, dams, levees, groins, wens, or other
structures;
2. mechanized landclearu►g, grading which involves filling low areas or land leveling,
ditching, channelizing and other excavation activities that would have the effect of destroying
or degrading waters of the United States;
3. allowing runoff or overflow from a contained land or water disposal area to re-enter a
water of the United States;
4. placing pilings when such placement has or would have the effect of a discharge of fill
material.
�.
�i
Y
�
/
, , .
-2-
�
�
Enclosed you will find a permit application form and a paznphlet that describes our
regulatory program. If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 452-3418. Please
refer to this letter and 200600537-CLM in your reply.
Sincerely,
�
Crystal L. quez
Projeci Manager
Enclosures
•L
�� WORDEN WILLIAMS aPc
Representing Pub(ic Agencies, Private Entities, and Individuols
February 1, 2006
Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail
��������
� G.� i� � 2��
`;O�ItdliNITY DEyEIAPMENT DEPARTMEN^!
CP['S' OF PAL�1 AESEAT
Mr. Philip Drell, Director of Community Development
City of Pa1m Desert
Connmunity Development Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Pa1m Desert, California 92260-2578
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report
Comishe of Bighorn Project
SCH#:2004091012
Dear Mr. Drell:
These comrnents are made on behalf of the Sierra Club. We have briefly reviewed
the Draft EIR for the above Project, and have the following fundamental concerns:
Failure to Identifv and Adout Alternatives or Mitigation Measures to Reduce
Impacts.
The EIR correctly concludes that the Project, as designed, will result in significant,
unavoidable impacts to the Bighorn Institute's sheep breeding program. Once this
conclusion has been reached, the EIR (and ultimately the City of Palm Desert) has a
duty to attempt to "a�oid or lessen" the identified impact. Mitigation measures and
alternatives must be identified and adopted, unless they are found infeasible.
However, the EIR has failed �to identify any alternatives to the Project that will
reduce the impact to the Bighorn Institute to below significance. The discussion
must focus on alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing each significant
adverse effect, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment
of the Project objectives, or would be more costly. (CEQA Guideline § 1512b(d)(3).
At a minimum, an alternative that was outside of the �00 foot buffer for the
Institute's breeding program should have been considered. This is a fundamental
flaw of the document that must be addressed. Furthermore, it is not clear that
suggested mitigation measures will, in fact, avoid or lessen the impact. The EIR
must demonstrate that the mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the impact,
and are enforceable. "Recommended" measures are not enforceable.
IAREAS OF PRACT{CE
I PUBLIC AGENCY
LAND USf AND
E�VIRO�VMENTAL
i REAL ESTATE
IPERSONAL INJURY
ESTATE PLANNING
' AND AD��IINISTRATION
I
i CIVIL LITIGATIOn'
ATTORNEYS
TRACY R. RICHMOND
D. WAYNE BRECHTEL
TERRY J. �CILPATRICK
TERRY M. GIBBS
�+AALINDA R. DICKENSON
KRISTEN M�BRIDE
D. DWIGHT WORDEN
OfCounsel
W. SCOTT WILLIAMS
Of Counsel
OFFICE
462 STEVENS AVENUE
SUITE 102
SOLANABEACH
CALIFORNIA
92075
(858) 755-6604 TELEPHOnE
(858) 755-5198 FnCSirou�E
www.wordenwi I liams.com
rT
THE
WLF V�TI LLI�MS
LAW F'IRM, PC�
����.�� � ����
� �.� i� i �i��
February 1, 2006
Via Facsimile. Email and Overnite Express
760-341-7098, pdrell@ci.patm-desert.ca.us
Mr. Philip Drell, Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert, Community Development Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report
Cornishe of Bighorn Project
SCH#:2004091012
Dear Mr. Drell:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPM�NT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DSSEflT
This law office has the pleasure of representing a non-profit research organization,
Bighorn Institute that is concerned with the Cornishe of Bighorn Project referenced above. This
le�ter communicates the Institute's comments on the above-described Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR}.
Just last August 2005, the northern Santa Rosa Mountain (NSRN� population of
Peninsular bighorn sheep suffered a shocking 40% die-off due to a virus present only in the wild
population, and thankfully not present in the Institute's captive herd. As shown in more detail
belaw, since 1982, the Institute has released l08 captive-bom bighom in the wild, successfully
augmenting the existing population and pulling it back from the brink of disaster.
The institute's captive breeding program has been documented as highly successful, and
recognized as such the world over, and praised by the governmental agencies that oversee its
privately-funded efforts. T'he United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFW�), the California
Department of Fish & Game (CDFG), and the United States Bureau of Land Management
I oo BAYVIEW CIRCLE� SOUTHTOWER� SutzE 33�
NEWPORT BEACH� CA 92660-298¢
TELEexoNE: 949-8 3 3' 3 08 $
FACSit�tttE: 949-$33-3�5g
�C�t'tt'. �t'LF-LARC CODi
J 1WDoz�DO(5�369�A02151920.DOC
THE
WLF WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PC,
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 2 of 19
(I3LIvn and the joint public and private Recovery Team all look to the Institute as a beacon in
wha.t would otherwise be a bleak outlook for the survival of this species.
In other words, without the Institute, the Peninsular bighorn would likely be extinct.
This DEIR must therefore very carefully evaluate the effect of this project on the
Institute's pens. In actuality, the DEIR fails to meet even the most basic evaluative criteria.
Previously and in response to the DEIR prepared for Altamira (now the Canyons at Bighorn
project), the City, developer and the Institute participated in a study undertaken by 29 biolagists,
including biologists nominated by the City and the developer. Those biologists recommended a
minimum 400 to b04 yard buffer between any development and the Institute's captive pen. That
recommendation has been completely ignored in the Cornishe DEIR.
This proposed project is located just 50 yartis from the Institute's main captive breeding
pen, the 30-acre pen. Lambing occurs on the northeast side of this pen each yeaz between
January and June, and directly faces the proposed project. Lambing is not only the time when
the ewes are the most stressed, it is also the time when the lambs are most susceptible to life-
threatening diseases, such as pneumonia. Increased stress from both construction and continued
hiunan activity greatly increases the risk of disease and death, and the Institute's ability to
successfully release bighorn into the wild to augment the already dwindling papulation.
To add insult to injury, a lazge defect of the DEIR is in the misinformation it includes.
As set forth below, the DEIR assumes inconect facts and indeed shows a lack of consultation
with appropriate governmental agencies and the Institute in order to obtain the correct facts. The
conclusions in the DEIR aze consequently fraught with mistakes. It is a case of "garbage in,
garbage out." The DEIR should be redone with the conect facts and recirculated to allow a
fully-informed evaluation by the public and the governmental agencies. Without the correct
basic information, the decision-makers cannot even hope to make a conect decision.
I. OVERVIEW OF BIGHORN INSTITUTE
Created in 1982, the Institute is a non-profit organization dedicated to the conservation of
the warld's wild sheep, through research and education with particular emphasis on the
Coachella Valley's endangered Peninsulaz bighorn. For the.last 24 years, the Institute has
S:1t\'Dox�DOCS1369\002�51920.WC �
.
THE
WLF' WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PCo
Nir. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 3 of 19
assisted in bighorn research and recovery. The Institute is the only private faciliiy in the world
that focuses on bighorn in the Peninsular ranges. Its programs include research, captive
breeding, and wild papulation augmentation to support declining bighorn populations. The
Institute's work is conducted with the cooperation and oversight of CDFG, USFWS and BLM.
The Institute opera.tes on an annual budget funded with nearly all private dollars. In effect, the
work and efforts of the Institute aze a gift to the people of the Coachella Valley and the rest of
the nation for the conservation of Peninsular bighorn.
Peninsular bighorn have experienced dramatic population declines from 1,200 down to
280 and now number around 700 animals in the United States and less than 2,500 in Baja,
Iviexico. Since 1985, Bighorn Institute has released 1Q8 captive-bred or rehabilitated Peninsular
bighorn into the wild through its Captive Breeding and Wild Population Augmentation Program,
which provides genetic and demographic support to declining Peninsular bighorn populations.
The Institute's land, located on nearly 300 acres purchased from BLM, is a very successful
Peninsular bighorn breeding area. Animals born at the Institute are released into the
local northern Sa.nta Rosa Mountains and San Jacinto Mountains (SJM) near Rancho Mirage and
Palm Springs, California, respectively.
A key issue created by this proposed project is its adverse effect on the Institute's captive
breeding facility. This facility has been in its current location in aperation since 1984, and the
Institute believes that the Cornishe project's current landowners were aware of the Institute, its
captive breeding operations and the environmental issues surrounding the project land when they
chose to purchase it. They were alsa aware of the Final Environmental Impact Report that was
done on the adjacent Canyons at Bighom and the minimum 400-yard buffer no-development
area established around the Institute. In addition, the City of Palm Desert had designated the
project land as a Special Study Area (SSA), indicating that this land was a special case that
needed extra study for these issues as they relate to the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep. If
this established buffer is not going to be considered, then this project must have comprehensive
studies investigating all of the potential impacts to the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep,
particularly in the captive herd.
Additionally, we note that from a land-use planning perspective, the Cornishe
development sits between what essentially amounts to open space and lazge estate homes. The
proposed development of two-story condominiums is at best inconsistent with current land uses.
Moreover, the Cornishe development is propased in the foothills of the City yet fails to address
the City's ordinance on that point. ��
, �wvo,�oocs�s9woz�s,9za.noc 3
THE
WLF' WILL.IAMS
LAW FIRM, PGm
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 4 of 19
II. OVERVIEW OF DEFECTS
The Institute has serious concerns with the proposed project, Comishe of Bighorn, related
to the captive herd of Peninsulaz bighorn sheep and ongoing, long-term conservation activities
conducted at Bighorn Institute. The Institute's primary concern is the intense use and proxunity
of the project to the Institute's property, particularly the 30-acre lambing pen, and the impacts it
could have on the captive herd of endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep. Bighorn Institute's
concerns are outlined below.
The DEIR. does not go far enough in addressing the substantial impacts on the Institute's
captive herd of bighorn. In addition, its mitigation measures are either not feasible or lack
adequate provisions to achieve the required mitigation.
Please remember the goals of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
To identify the significant environmenta.l effects of the City of Palm Desert's actions;
and, either:
(a) avoid those significant environmental effects, where
feasible; or,
(b) mitigate those significant environmental effects, where
feasible.
The DEIR in its present state meets neither of these goals.
A. Failure to Consult with Annropriate A�encies
In order to ensure the City's DEIR adequately addresses the concerns of all responsible
agencies, the lead agency must consult with and solicit comments from responsible agencies.
California Public Resources Code §§ 21080.3, 21080.2, 21104, 21153; CEQA Guidelines §§
15073, 15082, 15086, 15096. The City must consult with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and
California Department of Fish & Gazne Code regarding harassment of an endangered species,
Peninsulaz bighorn sheep. The City has violated CEQA by failing to consult with and solicit
comments from all responsible agencies.
r�wDox�nocsu�woz�s, no.noc 4
THE
WLF WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PC.
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 5 of 19
B. The DEIR Fails to Adequatelv Identifv Miti�ation Measures; The DEIR
Must Fnllv Analyze and Mitigate Patentiallv Si�nificant Imnacts
The DEIR must identify and focus on the possible significant environmental impacts of a
proposed project. CEQA Guidelines § 15126(a); California Public Resources Code § 21000(a).
CEQA requires that a DEIR must not only identify the impacts, but must also provide
"information about how adverse the impacts will be." Santia�o Countv Water Dist. v. Countv of
Oran e(1981) 118 Ca1.App.3d 818, 831. As the lead agency, the City may deem a particular
impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence
justifying the finding. Kin�s Countv Farm Bureau v. Citv of Hanford (1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d
692.
CEQA contains substantive provisions with which lead agencies must comply. The most
important of these is the provision requiring public agencies to deny approval of a project with
significant adverse effects when feasible alternatives and mitigation measures cannot
substantially lessen such effects. Sierra Club v. Gilrov Citv Council (1990) 222 Ca1.App.3d 30,
41. California Public Resources Code section 21002 requires agencies to adopt feasible
mitigation measures in order to substantially lessen or avoid otherwise significant adverse
environmental impacts of a proposed project. See also, CEQA § 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines
� 15370.
To effectuate this requirement, DEIRs must set forth mitigation measures that decision-
makers can adopt at the findings stage of the process. CEQA Guidelines § 15126(c). For each
significant effect, the DEIR must identify specific mitigation measures. V�here several potential
mitigation measures are available, each should be discussed separately and the reasons for
ctroosing one over the other should be stated. CEQA Guidelines § 15126(c). Mitigation
measures should be capable of "avoiding the impact altogether," "minimizing impacts,"
"rectifying the impact," or "reducing the impact." CEQA Guidelines § 15370. The midgation
measures are inadequate for light, noise, traffic, cultural resources, biological resources and land
use. The Institute has concerns with some of the suggested mitigation measures and additional
xnitigation measures should be considered:
1. Mitigation Measure IV.C-6 specifies that no outdoor construction should take place
during January — June, which is the bighorn lambing season. This mitigation measure
should prohibit indoor and outdoor construction during January — June to protect the
captive herd at Bighorn Institute �since many indoor construction tools are very loud.
Along with specifying indoor and outdoor construction, it should be made clear in the
summary that lambing season is January — June (pg. 19).
J�\WDox�DOCSii694W2�51420.DOC `
J
�E
THE
WLF W[LLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PCm
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 6 of 19
2. The City of Palm Desert has a history of non-compliance with mitigation measures,
specifically with Canyons at Bighorn. Grading and other outdoor construction
activities often illegally occur during the designated lambing season at Canyons at
Bighorn, but no one properly en%rces the mitigation conditions of the Canyons at
Bighorn as set out in either the EIR or the settlement agreement with the City. When
Institute staff reports the infractions to the City of Palm Desert, the City refuses to
enforce the mitigation conditions by creating ambiguity in the definitions of grading
or construction. If the current Canyons at Bighorn EIR can so easily be breached,
then why would not we expect Cornishe of Bighorn be any different? Mitigation
conditions must be drafted to a11ow for an outside agency with law enforcement
capability and funding to enforce these conditions against the Cornishe project since
the City has refused to enforce entirely similar mitigation conditions in the past.
3. Mitigation measure IV.C-5 suggests a permanent fence or wall will be constructed to
keep wild bighorn out of the developed project site, but there is no map depicting this
alleged fence/wa11. The fenceiwall to keep wild sheep out needs to be clearly
depicted in the DEIR along with specifics of the potential types of barrier materials
and estimated height. As a guideline for this condition, the pens at the Institute are
constructed with the fence located three feet underground to prevent tunneling, and
are ten feet high. The City of Rancho Mirage constructed a four and one-half mile
long fence that is eight feet high, but not constructed underground.
4. Mitigation measure IV.C-8 specifies a stone wall (8 feet high) will be built to screen
the development from the captive herd. The stone wall in mitigation measure IV.C-8
will not adequately screen the development from the captive herd. The 30-acre
lambing pen consists of natural, mountainous terrain rising to approximately 1,150
feet in elevation. A structure much higher than eight feet would have to be built and
extend the length of the pen to assure the development cannot be viewed by the sheep
from any point in the pen. A view-shed analysis should be performed to determine
the necessary height of the structure. Based on personal observation and estimating
the height of a two-story building on the Cornishe property, such a fence would
(impractically) exceed 100 feet in height.
It is ironic and inconsistent that a minunum buffer (between 50-300 ft, pg. 18 & 163)
would be required for non-threatened nesting birds on the project site, but that no
consideration is given to the legal�y established 400-yard buffer between the captive
herd and Canyons at Bighorn. After extensive meetings, twenty-nine bighorn sheep
biologists gave their expert opinion on the minimum distance necessary between the
captive herd of bighorn at the Institute and development to maintain a successful
� �woox,00csub9woz�s,vzo.noc 6
�;
THE
WLF �IILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PGm
Mr. Philip Drell
3anuary 31, 2006
Page 7 of 19
breeding program. These experts concluded 400-600 yards was the minimum distance
needed. The City of Palm Desert imposed a minimum 400-yard buffer between the
lambing pen and Canyons at Bighorn. If the DEIR is suggesting a minimum buffer
for non-threatened species of birds, then it is imperative that this established 400-yard
buffer be recognized for the Peninsular bighorn, a fully protected, federally
endangered species.
C. The DEIR Does Not Include an Analvsis of a Reasonable Ran�e of
Alternatives
The DEIR must "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives." CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a); see also Citizens of
Goleta Vallev v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 566; and see California Public
Resources Code § 21100(b)(4).
The DEIR must also "ensure that all reasonable alternatives to proposed projects are
thoroughly assessed." Wildlife Alive v. Chickerin� (1976) 18 Ca1.3d 190, 197. Under CEQA,
public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives
available that would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.
California Public Resources Code § 21002. Without meaningful analysis of alternatives in an
EIR, neither the courts nor the public can fulfill their proper role of analyzing the information
presented.
The DEIR completely fails to address and analyze an alternative to develop only the
northeast corner of the project land that is entirely outside of the 400-yard buffer area from the
Institute. Under the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a), this one house 400
yazds from the Institute alternative "could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the
project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project."
Building one large, single-family home on the land that extends beyond 400 yards from the
Institute's land would attain most of the basic objectives of the project by:
l. Developing a project that is compatible with and complementary to surrounding land
uses;
2. Developing a project that is financially viable by avoiding adverse property impacts
upon adjacent residents and at the same time providing benefits to the City by means
of a large residence; and, .
7:\WDox�DOCS�364W021S197A.DOC Z
THE
WLF WIL.LIAMS
LAW FIRM, PCS
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 8 of 19
3. Minimizing the potential impacts on the Institute's captive breeding program adjacent
to the project site, to the extent feasible, by reducing or eliminating significant
impacts of light, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, land use, noise
and traffic.
Because of the reasons stated, the DEIR does not include an analysis of a reasonable
range of alternatives by failing to consider an alternative at least 400 yards away from the
Institute's property. The DEIR should be revised to include the full consideration of this
alternative and then recirculated.
D. The DEIR Has Numeroas Inaccuracies
Given that the following facts aze wrong, the DEIR conclusions must likewise be wrong
since the initial premise is inaccurate. In addition, the authors appear to have little knowledge or
familiarity with the area, the animals or the data. with which they are working. These facts need
to be corrected and the DEIR recirculated with the correct facts:
1. Peninsular bighorn lambing season is January — June. The DEIR refers to the
lambing season as such except in the summary (DEIR Mitigation Measure IV.C-6 pg.
19). The suxrimary needs to be corrected to January — June;
2. The DEIR should provide the most recent data. The DEIR gave the number of
bighorn released into the wild from the Institute's captive breeding program through
1998, but current da.ta. should be provided. Since 1985, over 100 Peninsular bighorn
lambs have been born at the Bighorn Insritute and 108 captive-reared or rehabilitated
bighorn sheep have been released into the wild. This data needs to be included in the
DEIR;
3. The DEIR states that Bighorn Institute's efforts began focusing on captive breeding in
1995 (pg. 14). This is incorrect; it was 1984 and the DEIR needs to be corrected;
4. In the DEIR, Bighom Institute's ram pen is repeatedly and incorrectly referred to as a
"den." Dens are for bears, not sheep. Also, the ram pen is seven acres in size, not
one acre (pg. 14). In addition to these corrections, the ram pen needs to be redrawn
and accurately depicted on the DEIR maps (Fig. 16, pg. 115; Fig. 24, pg. 205);
5. The DEIR is inconsistent and inaccurate when discussing desert tortoise sightings
(pg. 140 & 141 }. The DEIR inaccurately states that the neazest desert tortoise
observation is almost 16 miles from the project site. T'he USFWS and CDFG are
1:\ W Dwc1DOCS� 691002151920.DOC
8
•T
THE
WLF� WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PCo
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 9 of 19
aware of desert tortoise sightings in the buffer between Bighorn Institute and Canyons
at Bighorn. Also, BLM and Bighorn Institute biologists documented a desert tortoise
on City of Palm Desert land south of the BLM Visitor Center on September 26, 2003,
near the "Old Shirley Road." It is obvious the City did not consult with the wildlife
agencies or the Institute on this point and the DEIR must include all desert tortoise
sighting data;
6. The DEIR incorrectly refers to the Santa Rosa Mountains as the Santa Rita Mountains
(pg. 142). It is hard to believe that the data provided in the DEIR is correct given this
apparent fundamental misunderstanding of the location of the project. This reference
needs to be corrected;
7. The DEIR incorrectly lists the dates of the Institute's lamb study as 1998-2002 (pg.
152). The study was conducted from 1998-2001 and this date needs to be corrected;
and,
S. The DEIR incorrectly states that the Institute's Memorandum of Understanding
(MOLn with CDFG is the only MOU for releasing Peninsular bighorn sheep (pg.
153). The Instiiute's 1�(a)(1)(A) permit with the USFWS also allows for releasing
Peninsulaz bighorn sheep into the wild. This misstatement needs to be corrected. In
addition, on February 1, 2001, the USFWS distributed a news release stating "to
conserve this native bighorn sheep population, a captive-breeding program has been
established at the Bighorn Institute in Palm Desert."
II. ANALYSIS OF ELEMENTS OF DEIR
A. Aesthetics, Views. Li�ht and Glare
1. The Mitigation Measures in the DEIR Do Not Adeqaately Reduce or
Eliminate the Impacts of Aesthetics, Views, Lights or Glare on the Captive Herd at
the Institute.
As previously discussed, bighorn sheep experts agreed upon a minimum buffer of 400-
600 yards between the captive herd and development for the continued success of the breeding
program at the Institute. The experts had to consider these elements when they recommended
the buffer. It is wrong to think that shielding light, tinting windows ar using certain landscaping
materials will prevent the captive bighorn sheep from being adversely affected. This proposed
project construction would only be 125 yards from the lambing pen, which is significantly closer
than the established buffer for Canyons at Bighorn. The primary concern with these elements is
):1WDoic1DOCS�3691002�51920.DOC n
7
THE
WLF" WILLIAMS
LAW FiRM, PCm
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 10 of 19
captive herd habituation and the potential effects on reproductive success. These issues will be
discussed further under biological resources.
B. Air Oualitv
1. The DEIR Does Not Consider the Feasible Mitigation Measure of
Establishing Restrictions That Would Reduce Air Quality Impacts
This project will increase emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter
(PM10). The mitigation measures proposed to deal with these excesses are insufficient. All
increases in these criteria pollutants must be considered significant and must be mitigated. There
should be no net increase in emission of these chemicals or particles. CEQA requires a public
agency to adopt feasible mitigation measures in order to reduce or eliminate otherwise
significant adverse environmental 'unpacts. California Public Resources Code §§ 21102 and
21081(a). The DEIR establishes that "regional construction activities would exceed the South
Coast Air Quality Management District daily emission thresholds for NOx ...and for PM10."
(DEIR pg. 14 & 102).
Human deaths from hanta virus are known to have occurred near desert construction
where foothill and alluvial areas in Canyons at Bighorn were disturbed. (pers. comm. Dr.
Lawrence Cone). There is substantial reason to believe that these unfortunate circumstances will
be repeated with this proposed development.
The DEIR states "bighorn sheep live in a desert habitat and are regularly exposed to high
levels of fugitive dusY' (pg. 11). Animals that inhabit a desert environment are used to natural
dust associated with windy days, but to suggest that bighorn sheep are used to the same type of
fugitive dust in their natural habitat as they would be exposed ta from a construction site is
illogical. Construction activities destroy many different layers of rock, creating different types
of dust particles. The DEIR also states "There are no existing regulatory guidelines or
sigriificance thresholds designed to protect Bighorn sheep from air pollutants." The DEIR air
quality analysis for bighorn sheep was based on the fact that an adult bighorn sheep weighs
approximately the same as an adult human (115-280 pounds, pg. 11}. If there are no known
thresholds for bighorn sheep, then an experiment should not be made out of the captive herd of
bighorn that have so far proven to be invaluable to the recovery of the local population of
endangered Peninsular bighorn.
� We recommend no construction since there are significant, unayoidable impacts to air
quality that would adversely affect humans and bighorn sheep in the captive herd after suggested
mitigation measures.
1�\WDox�DOCS1369100215197A.DOC � O
.s
7HE
WLF WILLIAM�
LAW FIRM, PCm
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 11 of 19
C. Biolosical Resources
There are several biological resources that would be impacted by Cornishe of Bighorn.
Tk�e desert tortoise and Peninsular bighorn sheep are the two species most impacted by this
proj ect.
1. The DEIR does not provide all of the known observation data for desert tortoises in
the vicinity of the project site. As discussed previously, the DEIR authors did not
consult with the USFWS regarding known tortoise observations because the DETR
incorrectly states that there are no sightings within 16 miles of the project site (pg.
141). Impacts to desert tortoises need to be reanalyzed after all of the data is
collected and included and the DEIR results and conclusions need to reflect the new
data.
2. This project will cause desert tortoise habitat destruction, contrary to what is
suggested in the DEIR. It is obvious that the DEIR conclusions would be inaccurate
since it did not include all of the desert tortoise sighting data. Impacts of the project
on desert tortoise habitat need to be reanalyzed with a11 the data, and the DEIR
recirculated with the appropriate data included.
3. There are many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the DEIR relative to impacts to
free-roaming Peninsular bighorn sheep.
a. "Dead Indian Creek is believed to be a regionally significant wildlife
corridor..." (pg. 117-118), and was not analyzed fully in regazds ta bighorn
sheep. The Recovery Plan for Bighom Sheep in the Peninsulaz Ranges,
California recognizes the importance of maintaining movement corridors for
bighorn sheep to prevent subgroups from becoming geographically isolated
from each other. The subgroups are part of a meta-population that relies on
gene flow via movement corridors.
b. The DEIR makes a key statement, "use of the project site and azeas nearby by
wild sheep is not well understood" (pg. 152), but then suggests the project
land and surrounding area is not suitable sheep habitat. Approximately half of
the project site, however, is in Unit 2 of federally designated critical bighorn
sheep habitat (pg. 130, Fig. 17 pg. 143). These statements are inconsistent at
best and neec� to be reconciled by the DEIR. .
J\R'Dox1DOCS�369\002�51920.DOC � �
E
THE
VSILF WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PCo
Ivir. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 12 of 19
c. The DEIR suggests that bighorn do not use the area because there aze not
many bighorn sightings on or around the project land. The lack of bighorn
sheep sightings in the area of the project sight is more likely due to the lack of
people looking for sheep in that azea. Even so, however, the Tnstitute received
two independent reports on January 20, 2006, and January 23, 2006, of a
group of wild bighorn sheep on the mountain directly south of the project
land. On January 20�` Institute biologists confirmed the sighting of 13 wild
bighorn sheep including ewes, lambs and rams and there were two additional
wild ewes on the other side of the ridge. The Institute has observed wild
bighorn sheep near the project site in the past as well. A full study needs to be
done to adequately determine the extent that wild bighorn sheep utilize the
area surrounding the project site and thus determine the extent of the impacts
on these sheep. The DEIR draws poor and incorrect conclusions due directly
to poor and incorrect information.
d. Mitigation measure IV.C-5 suggests building a fence or wall to keep wild
bighorn out of the developed project to mitigate the impacts of the project on
wild sheep. Fencing off an area merely condones the taking of critical habitat,
and does not lessen the impacts of the project on wild sheep. Critical habitat
will stitl be impermissibly lost.
e. The DEIR states, "the proposed development would remove less than 10 acres
of potentially suitable habitat and increase &agmentation of habitat only
marginally" (pg. 153). The DEIR concludes that there would not be
significant impacts to wild bighom, yet this statement clearly acknowledges
the project �vould involve taking of critical habita.t and would cause
fragmentation. The DEIR is contradictory because it also states "Today,
habitat loss and fragmentation are recognized as the leading threats facing
bighorn sheep" (pg. 152). Therefore, since the project will result in further
habitat loss and fragmentation, it should not be allowed to do so, and again,
these statements in the DEIR need to be reconciled.
f. Whatever monetary value the project land is estimated at, an equal value
should be put.on Peninsular bighorn sheep. The project would take critical
habitat, cut off a potential movement corridor, cause habitat fragmentation,
and impact more than one� endangered species that are biological and cultural
resources.
�:�w�ox�ocsysn�ooz�i9zo.noc 12
vs
T H E
WLF WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PC,
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 13 of 19
4. There axe many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the DEIR relative to impacts on
the captive herd of Peninsular bighorn sheep at Bighorn Institute.
a. All of the same concerns apply from the EIR on Altamira (now Canyons at
Bighorn) relative to the captive herd. The Institute's comment letter on that
project is attached, and incorporated by this reference.
b. The project site is a mere 50 yards from the Institute's 30-acre lambing pen
and 125 yards from the proposed construction (pg. 16). As previously
discussed, numerous bighorn experts recommended a minimum distance of
400-600 yards between the captive herd and development to maintain the
Institute's successful breeding and rearing program. There is no reason to
dismiss the oginion of these experts and not apply this knowledge and buffer
to the proposed project. If the established buffer will not be considered, then a
separate study must be conducted to determine the appropriate distance
between the captive herd and Cornishe of Bighorn. The following new
information should be considered since the original buffer was established:
i. Peninsulaz bighorn sheep are now a federally-listed endangered
species (listed March 18, 1998); they were a state-listed threatened
species when the 400-yard buffer was established;
ii. Since 1985, Bighorn Institute has released 108 bighorn from the
captive breeding facility into the wild. The NSRM bighorn population
declined to only 2lbighorn in 1996. It is recognized that the NSRM
population of bighorn would have been extirpated without the
augmentation of captive-reared bighorn sheep;
iii. The Peninsular bighorn Recovery Team has deemed the SJM
population of bighorn to be in most need of augmentation efforts. The
Institute has focused its augmentation efforts on the SJM since 2002,
because there were only four adult ewes there at that time. Today
there aze 11 ewes in the SJM, six of which were released from the
Institute;
iv. The USFWS sent�out a news release on February 1, 2001, stating, "to
conserve this native bighorn sheep populatioxi, a captive-breeding
program has been established at the Bighorn Insritute in Palm Desert"
(news release attached and incorporated by this reference);
,.�w�x�oocs�6moorsis�o.Doc 13
THE
WLF WILLIAMS
LAW F[RM, PCe
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 14 of 19
v. In August 2005, a severe bighorn die-off took place in the Santa Rosa
Mountains. A virus was detected in the wiid sheep, but was not
present in the Institute animals. In 2005, the NSRM bighorn
population declined by approximately 40%. With the known success
that the captive breeding and augmentation program has had with the
NSRM bighorn, it is imperative to keep the captive herd wild and
protect them from habituation from this new project. The captive herd
should not be used as an experiment;
vi. The Peninsular bighorn sheep are far from being delisted as an
endangered species and augmenta.tion of captive-reared bighorn has
been an integral and vital part of species recovery to date.
c. The mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate impacts on the captive herd of
bighorn at the Institute are inadequate.
i. Mitigation measure IV.C-6 recommends that no outdoor construction
take place during the lambing season, January — June. In the Canyons
at Bighorn EIR there was to be no activity in the 400 yard buffer. This
measure must also prohibit all types of indoor construction during
lambing.
ii. Mitigation measure IV.C-6 does not take into account the information
provided in the DEIIZ regarding habituation of bighorn sheep to
disturbance.
1. The DEIR includes Miller and Smith's studies that conclude
that bighorn react differently to the same stimuli (pg. 158). In
other words, some sheep may appear to have little or no
reaction while others may have a dramatic response to the same
stimuli.
2. Miller and Smith also found that despite an almost daily
presence of pedestrian biologists, bighorn sheep did not show
any tendency to habituate (pg. 158). If the captive herd does
not habituate to the proposed project, then they will be in a
constant state of stress because they �annot escape the
perceived threat of the project, as they would in the wild.
Stress can lead to decreased reproductive success and loss of
1:\W'Dox�DOCSU69�002�51920.DOC 14
THE
WLF WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PGo
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 15 of 19
fitness of the captive ewes since the lambing side of the 30-
acre pen is only 125 yards away from the proposed
construction, and only 50 yards from potential human activity.
Ewes may be too stressed to properly care for their young.
Lambs would be subjected to the disturbance at the project site
and could become sick and die from stress-induced pneumonia.
This would result in talce of a federally endangered species and
impact important recovery efforfs.
3. The captive herd habituating to the proposed project would be
equally devastating to the captive breeding and augmentation
program. If the captive herd habituates to human disturbance
from this project, then they will not be adaptively fit to survive
in the wild. Habituated sheep released from the Institute will
be less viable, will not integrate properly with the wild herd
and will not have the protection of the wild herd, thus making
them more susceptible to predation and disease after release.
The DEIR acknowledges that even after mitigation measures the impacts to the captive
herd at the Institute are significant and unavoidable (pg. 19 & 166). We recommend no building,
construction and human activity within 400 yards of the 30-acre pen since the impacts of the
project cannot be reduced or eliminated through mitigation measures.
D. Cultural Resources
The DEIR incorrectly concludes that there will not be any significant impacts to cultural
resources from the proposed project. Peninsular bighorn sheep are a cultural resource. The
bighorn has been used across the Coachella Valley as a symbol of the native heritage existing
here. The bighorn has been used as the logo for the City of Rancho Mirage and by Bighorn
Counhy Club in Palm Desert, as well as by numerous businesses throughout the Valley. The
bighorn was also featured in the Institute's public art project, Path of the Bighorn, which raised
awareness of the plight of this endangered species. The DEIR says there would be no significant
impacts, but if the wild and captive bighorn are impacted by the project, then there are impacts to
cultural resources. Due to the irreversible impacts to Peninsular bighorn sheep, we recommend
no construction.
, ��ox��6����0.�� 15
,s
THE
V1ILF' WILLIAMS
LA\!Il FIRM, PCm
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 16 of 19
E. Hvdrolo�y
This project would include building in a Coachella Valley flood plain in Dead Indian
Creek. There would be streambed alteration, which requires consultation with the Army Corps
of Engineers, CDFG and the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Boazd to
obtain the appropriate permits. All of these agencies must be made aware of the potential
impacts to bighorn sheep at the captive herd and the issue of the established buffer between
Canyons at Bighorn and the Institute 30-acre pen. Due to the irreversible environmental impacts,
we recommend no constniction.
F. Land Use
The DEIR suggests that the project land does not have any significant impacts because it
is within the level of development for it zoning, Residential Low Density (R-L). This land was
designated by the City of Palm Desert as a SSA; therefore, zoning cannot be the only factor
involved in deciding the impacts of land use. All of the species occurrence data was not included
in the analysis of this project's impacts. Further studies need to be conducted to determine the
extent of the impacts on biological resources if the project is proposed for development as R-L.
The studies conducted for the DEIR are inadequate.
Two-story townhouses are not consistent with the adjacent open space and large, single-
family luxury homes at Canyons at Bighorn, nor aze they consistent with the undeveloped lands
of Bighorn Institute. The DEIR inaccurately concludes that land use for the project is consistent
with the current adjacent development (pg. 191).
The DEIR states that although it was not addressed in the City of Palm Desert's General
Plan, the City recently suggested changing the land use designation to Residentiai Hillside
Reserve (R-HR), which is more consistent with the topography and adjacent use of the project
site (pg. 183). This suggestion by the City is in direct conflict with the proposed altemative for
maximum development of this project. It appears that the City is aware that the proposed project
is completely inappropriate for this pazcel of land. The goals of CEQA are to either avoid or
mitigate environmental impacts. There are numerous significant, unavoidable impacts to
bighorn sheep that result from land use with the proposed project even after suggested
mitigation; therefore, we recommend no construction since the goals of CEQA are not met.
G. Noise
Under CEQA, an increase in noise can have a significant effect on the environment. Oro
Fino Gold Minin� Corp. v. Countv of El Dorado (1990) 225 Ca1.App.3d 872, 88l -882. In that
�:�w-no�ocs�6�ooz�siszo.tioc 16
Y
E
THE
WLF' WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PCo
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 17 of 19
case, the Court noted that project noise levels were significant, even if consistent with general
plan standards for the zone in question.
1. Noise levels from the proposed project would grossly exceed the normal ambient
levels at the Institute, thus having significant impacts on the captive herd of bighorn.
The 30-acre lambing pen is only 50 yards from the project land. Aithough the
western portion of the land is to remain undeveloped, construction is proposed as
close as 125 yards from the 30-acre pen. This is 275 yazds closer than the 400 yard
minimum distance recommended between the captive herd and development.
According to the DEIR, ambient noise levels at Bighorn Institute are 40 dBA.
Construction noise levels are between 77-86 dBA. Due to the distance from the pen,
construction noise would measure approximately 70 dBA. This level exceeds the
normal ambient noise level by 30 dBA (pg. 25-26). Conshuction noise levels,
however, have the potential to exceed 70 dBA when construction vehicles are closer
to the western edge of the project land (for sta.ging areas, to get equipment out of the
way of construction, etc). The machines could come as close as 50 yards from ihe
30-acre pen. Bighorn sheep inhabit a quiet, pristine desert environment and noise
levels produced by the proposed project would significantly adversely impact the
captive herd.
2. Mitigaiion measures are inadequate and fail to reduce or eiiminate the impacts
resulting from noise.
a. . Mitigation measure IV.G-5 should not specify only grading, but should
prohibit all indoor and outdoor construction during lambing from January —
June (pg. 28 & 221). As discussed previously, the City of Pa1m Desert has
had a history of not upholding mitigation measures on properiy adjacent to
Bighorn Institute relative to constraints on construction.
b. 'The DEIR suggests that construction activities would adhere to the
requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. These codes regulate
construction hours during October 1-April 13 and May 1-September 13. It is
not clear why April 14-Apri130 and September 14-September 30 are not
included (pg. 25). The hours of construction should be clear for all days of
the year. Again, conshuction should not occur from January — June.
c. Mitigation measures for noise should include avoidance of indoor and outdoor
construction during sensitive times in the Institute's captive herd such as the
7:\WDox�DOCS�369�002�51920.DOC � �
`E
THE
WL,F WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PC�
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 18 of 19
January — June lambing season. Unnecessary stress on the captive herd could
result in stress-induced pneumonia in young lambs and lack of fitness to
survive in the wild, which would result in take of an endangered species and
jeopardize the success of the captive breeding and augmentation program for
recovery.
Due to the significant, unavoidable impacts on bighorn sheep resulting from noise, we
recommend no construction.
H. Traffic. Circulation and Parkin�
The DEIR incorrectly suggests that there would be no significant impacts from tr�c,
but does not adequately address the issue of the two new proposed roads. Both of these roads
would illegally go through an established buffer between Canyons at Bighorn and the Institute
that prohibits development and year-round activity. Bighorn Institute will not grant easement
rights on its property for development of these roads.
We recommend no construction since the DEIIZ proposes building roads illegally through
an estab�ished buffer that was set up specifically for the protection of the captive herd of bighorn
sheep and allows no outside activity.
III. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Bighorn Institute requests that the City of Palm Desert include in the
administrative record for this project these comments. The Institute also requests, and CEQA
requires, that the City consider these comments and prepare a written "good faith reasoned
analysis" in response to each comment. CEQA Guidelines § 150$8(b). This analysis cannot
1 \WDox�DOCS�369�002�51920.DOC � p
O
.
THE
WLF" WILLIAMS
LAW F[RM, PC,
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 19 of 19
include conclusory sta.tements unsupported by facts. Id. Thank you for considering and
responding to these comments.
Very txuly yours,
WLF � The Williams Law Firm, PC
� �_ �_� �
�
---- �. --� '��--.�
_
J. Craig Wilhams
JCW/
Enclosures
cc: Members for the Board of Directors, Bighorn Institute
Mr. James R.DeForge, Executive Director, Bighorn Institute
,:��x�������.m� 19
�
�
HONQRARY GIAIRMAH
pF FUiJpRAt31NG
� re�.� R. rma
SBM P�a1daN ..
Of �he (l+u�d Sbta
SOAstD OF P1R6CtURS
Kant A. RobcRs'
���
�� ��� �
r�xecwiw vke R.,tdtnr
C�sdes W. dennet. D.VM,'
� �M
Dave Stockton'
vloe ➢wudtm
Rtcet �, Cy+oy, D.v.M,'
a.�w�
Rlchsed C, McClung'
Tf+auier
Cindy Austu+
VJoI(g�ny F. Bsere• .
WlAlam $cna
deek Brhiu+9ham
l�wta�ea A� Cane. M,D�
Mkhed Pee
John E. EarhaR
Beb Howma
J, Robat MeOou�an
&u�r MsMat!
Fmn Mol►eT
scsrs !.. Tlmm+na
•fuecunw CeveN
ADMINI5�TRnTtON
aw�s x. Dsr•oTye
em�+us rnxae•
Raxmek Bfolo@I�t
El�lne M. Bucetl
� ��
ere+owe
�ov�soas
Rohert A+esley
CrOfO��xa b�mk S��w
M.mbar. s.w,. cone�nma a�
f�ktwo! ANovRv� eAI N7idWI
Dooafd C. Buta
HW �Icr.Con�arvattOnitl
Tans+ �. Cs�a�a b.V.M-, Ph.D.
cd we.rl�ar �� cabawav
Hlrftltl & Clak
� ��
ow�a n, ��a avM.
Cs�+�s anc. o( Rrh wd Gomc
Mark C, Jorqens�n
Awa•Danr4e D�a� .S�ae Perk
. Gfmn t� StewaA, Ph•D,
cd � c�w�, �.
Rau1 Vtl1ds:� Ph.D.
i'hw Muke Srare Un�re�nry
t�(khasl va�:ncw
Uaua� �a sKw sneev si�.►
M M.rtco
�
���hor� I�sti�ute -
.pedlcated so the conseruc�tion of the world`s witd aheep throuqh restanch and education
�une 27r 1991
Mr. Phil 3oy .
Associate �lannex
City af Palm neser�
73-520 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desezt, CA 92260
Re: Camments on May i99i Dra£t Environmental Imp�aat Repart
far the Proposed Al�amira Country Cl�b project
Dear Mz. Joy:
This letter �ets �arth a number ot comm�nts I have
with respect to the Dxaf� Environmerital impac� Re�ort
t"�EtR"�� prepared for th� Ci�ty o� �alm Dese�t, Cal�fornia
t"Caty"I by Culbertaon� Adams & Assoc�ate5, I�o. (^D�IR.
preparez") wbict� inoiudeg th�e Bioiog3cal. Report ("DEZR a..R."�
o� P�ct�ic Sou�hwest Biolog�ca�, ServiCes, Ync. {"biological
con5a�.tan�ts)n) fox the pzaposed Altamira Countr� C1ub
project {the "PrOjBCt"y in t�,e City.
I am commenting a� Executive Direotor and.Research
Biolag�.st of tt�e Bigh,orn znstitute, w%th neax��.y 20 year� of
experi.ence study.ing bighoz'n sheep2. �
� woul� like to �acus the ma�or3ty oi my camments on
7.85�3�8 invo.lving Peninsular 8�.gharn Sh�ep iQvis ��sadensis
c�emteaba�es) �"Bighorr," or '�Si�ghorn Sheep" or "Peni,risular
Big horn") and the actis�i�ies of the $�ghorn Xns�itute (the
"Ins�itu.�e"). in additiar,, I wou1� liice briefly to commen�
an the discussion in the DEIR �f certain pther potiential�y
highly signi.ficar►t environmen�ai impactis of the proposed
projeCt to biolo�ical values and habitat in th� a�r�a.
z
State Clearinghouse Number 91912061, di��ributed
5��a�si.
Z
F'or mare deta�il,ed information �re�.ating to my
bacfcgzoeand and experience on these issues, glease see my
Resgons� to Pacific Southwest Bio].ogical Services
Qu•estionnaire, date February 22, 1991, which is inc].uded xn
A�pendix C of the DEIR and whxch I incorporate herein by
r ef e r et,ce . Er�c.losuze 1 to the Le�ter �o Phil Joy
_.frbm J�s A. Geocaris and Pe�er L.
R:Monprojlt I,a13.�8 dated �7uT1� 27, 1R91
1bx-Ezempt ��gon�anon A,O. $CiX 262 / . PAI.M QESERT, CAC.{FbRNIA . .__ . .._. -.. ,--., „.., .,,,,.
FAX {619) 340-3987 �
•t
� � �DRA�SiNG
o.��a a. �a
�n a�ue.m
eJ rho uMMd &qMi
Bt}ARD Of ptREC1L�R5
Kant A. Rabe�'
PaddrM
En+at Ft.bn�
Ezteuuas yta P�setdmt
Chak� W Jenncr� D•V.M,'
Vk� RMNdeq
Oev! StocMcn'
we� n,a�aa�e
an� �. cy�o9, au.�.�
�,�
rt�n.►e c. �c��,9,
����
a�ay Awa�
WoNgang R Beee'
WpN�m 8one
Jeek Bria�egh�m
l.aw►p�cv A. Con., ht.Q
Michac! Deo
JoMt E. Eaehert
Bob ]iowerd
d. Roben fFlcGaw�o
Bruca McNdt
Fl�n MQI4et
S�an L. T�mm�ne
•Emcwlw coW�W
ADM{NfSTRAT{ON
�am.s R. OcForee
euew�e anm�r
pt.wreh BwbglR
£lefne i�4, Sar+eM
+U1oNa� onraa
e���
ADv15CRS
Robett PresMy
Caw.�Na sra. sseaa
Mamsw. s.�«• cor�n�kNr on
NNwei RtlOwCN OAd NAtdY(�
Donsld c. Butu
Fiwwa{cn,aeailcnt�
Tor1Y �. Cattro� DV.ht., Ph.D.
cut wtfrt�ery tlqpM�kc 4�baot«Y
Npyehf & Ga�ts
t�pel Counpl
DavnO i� da�up. DVM.
c«rk�e rkp, e1 Fw� .na co�.
M�rN C JarSens�+
a�uo•Bom.so Ae.nr S�ae Fort
G4e1►n R. 51fr+art. Ph•b•
ca aew uti+�..nr• ►e��
qwf thfdoa. Ph•D•
t�eW M�++ee Seue U�roe�nv
jdlcheel Vakntb
crwon m wua se..a ai�a�.,
ti ►H,�
A Nonprolrt
?hu-Exemat 0►gan�aairon
Bigharn In�tit�t�
Dedicated to the .conseruoticn of !he euorld's w!!d aheep through r�esac�ch and educatlan
June ?7, 1991
Mr. Phil 3oy
Associat� planner
C�ty of Palm Deaert
93-510 �'red Warxng Drive
Pal�n Desert, CA 92260
Re: Gamm�nts ori May 199I Draft �nvironmenta3. Impact Repost
�or the proposed Altamira Country CYub Project
�aar Mr. �oy:
This let�er S�tS forth a number af comm�nts T have
wi�,h xes���ct tn the Draft Environmental. �mpaat Repork
t"D�iRn�i �reparea fcr the City o� �a1m D�sert, Ca�.iForn�a
t"City") byCulbertsan,.Adams & Associates, Yno. t"D�IR
preparer"> which includes the 8iological �teport t"DEIR a.R.")
of Pacific Sauthw�st 8iological, ServiEes, InC. ("biol�ogica7�
consnl�antt.$)"3 for the proposed Altamira Country Club
project (fihe "Project") in tk�e City.
Y �m �ommentin� as Ex�cu�ive birecto�r
Bl.d�oqist of �he S:igharn Institute, with nearlX
experience studying bighcrn sbeep2.
and Aesearch
ao ye�r� o�
, I�auI,� l�ke to fpcus the.majdrity o� my comments on
iseues involvirig P�eninsu�ar Highorn Sbeep (Qy,�,,� ��}g8e,�s,�s
c�,�mnob�tes? t"�ighorn" ar "�ighorn She�p" or "Peninsular
BiqhOrn"i and the ac�ivi�ies of the B�,ghorn Yna�i��ate {the
"institu�e"1. in additiion. z would like briefly �o oamm�nt
on the diacussion in the DEZR of certain other pot�ntiaZly
highly sign�g�.cant environmental �.mpacts of the praposed
project to bialogical values a�nd habitat in the area.
�
8tate Clearinghouse Numbex 91912061, distr�:buted
5/14/93..
�
For more detaiied information relating to my
baakgrovnd and experience on these is$�ues, pl.ease see my
R�spon8e to Pac�,f'rc Southwest $iological Services
Questier�naxre► date �ebrua�y 22, 19�9],r whi�h is incZuded in
Appendix C of the D�IR as�d wh�ch I ir�corporate herein by
referenc�e.
P,O. BOX 262 / PAi.M D�SERT, GALIFORNIA 9Z261•0262 J TELEPHONE (619? 346•7334
FAX (619} 34p-398?
. � � �
Y
x
Mr. Ph�l Joy
Jane 2?► 1991
Page 2
�,Q,� ,�h� ,�,��,� and Concern,�
1. Status.of �.he Bigharn
While the DEIA d�v4tes a n�umber of pages of
discussfan to issues rela�ing to the pot�r��ial xmgacta a� the
proposed Project on the Bighezn, it �ails �a provi�e certa�,n
import.ant information relating to the current s�atus o� the
�ighorn in the w%ld. �or exampler the i��zR does no� app�aY
to indicate ttre eX�Ct levels of popu].a�.ion and popu�atior�
decline oF Penir�sular Siqhorn wi�hin the U�ited States. A1.so
�he discussion o£ the saot causes of �his dramatxc populati.on
�ealine is v�ry brieE. See e.g. page 77.
Pena.,nsular Biqhorn exi$� only in Riverside and San
i7iego coun�ties o� snuther� Cali�ornia and rie where �].s�. in
�he United��States. k dras�ic declfn.� in th3a zemai�ning �
Psninsular�Bighorn popula�ion has been accumented �or at
least the past 12 years. ApQroximately 1,171 Pe��,naular
Bighotn irihabi�ed Ca�i�ornia ir► 1979 IWeaver, �979}, but
today the es�ima�ed popul.ation in the state has drapped to
only 380. The P�ni.n�s�lar eigharn of the Santa Ros� Mou�t.ta�ins
we�� ance des�.g.n'dted as the largest h�rd of deser� bighorn in
C�liforni�a. fiOW�Veti the Santa Rosa �erd hag de�Iined
d�ama'tical�y since 1979, from at� e��ima�ed 500 tWe.aver, 1979)
to 120 taday. This estimat�e of I20 $ighorn t�etexm�ned by
�he Znsh.itutels �all 19�90 helico�ter census? is. dpwn �rom an
��stima�ed populaCian o� 220 in the Sant�a Rosas �u�ing� the
znstit��e's 1�89 census, repres�n�in.g a declxne aF almost 55$
�n yust one y�ar.
The Peninsular Bighorn o� the Santa Rosa Mouataias
have been contin�ualiy su��er�ing ftvm an �pp�oxima�e 90� lamb
mortaliGy f�rst d��ectsd by �ne Cali�orn�a Departmen� oi �ish
and Game in 1977. This high nrortal��x rate i� a p�rinc�pal,
caus� a� the overall decline of tbe species in �h�ts range 3.
�h� Bf�horn Ynstitute was in f�ct fox�med or�ginal�y �o
inve�t�g��.e the cause o� this i�mb mortality.
� The St�t� ot Cali��ornia has recogr�ized the s�nsiti ve
ns�ure of the Peninsul.ax Bighorn, and the�r con�inued
aecli�ne► by listing it as "threatened" und�r the Califarn�.a
EndangQred Sgecie� Act and bX 7:ist�ng it a8 a"£ully
3 �
An ac7di.tional importanx cause af the Bpeci�� decl:Lne
is habitat loss due to develop.ment and other human
�c�.ivi.ties.
�
, - . � .. : � _ . ± -, ;` _ ,. __
,E
Mz. FhiZ Jqy
Jur►e 27 , 1 � 91
Paqe 3
protec�ed mamma3." und�r the�Caliiornia Fish and G�me Code.
Additionally, the U.3. Fish and Wildlife S�rv�ce currently is
�onsidering li�$ting the$e anim�7�e as threa�ereed or endangered
at the Pedera]. level.
It is impartant for the puislic to be ttware o� these
detaixs �.n the presen� caaer in order to appreciate the
extremely gra.ve potenti8l. consequ�ences of the �raposed
Project, and any miscal.culatian relatin� to Project impactg
on the Bighorn. Ti,is in�orma�tion should be included in t�he
discussion of impacts in the fi.nal EIR. Tfiese data
�ilustcate the fact t��t the Peninsu�ar 8ighorn ia an the
very ��lge oF survivalr and give c.o�ntext to th� op�niong o�
the Ci�ty`s consul�ing biologist that the praposed Pro�ect
would "sf�g�if i�cantly impinge" on. th� prospect for �'v�..val o�
free-rat�ging Peninsular Bighorn popula�ions. See D�IR, page
lla.
T�iis situatioa - i.e., �he f�ct that the sp�cie$ is
on the edqe o£ surviva� - demands extteme caution with
respevt to any activity wbich may have �n adverse impaot vn
the species. zn particular, if �hexe a.s any �easonable
chanc�, oc even remote chance, tha� an ac�ivit�y will
jeopa�dixe survival af � species. �hen we must avoid thati
acti�rity. .
2. Ro�e oF the Bigh4rn Institvte
The Report o€ the C�ty's consulting bialogist
provides a valuabie r�view of the impor�ance o�f �the Institute
i� svpporting the 8i�gharn and r�xntrod�cing �ighorn into the
wild. See D�TR $.R. page 43. The Bighorn Institu�e is the
g,r�y orgar�izatiot� working specifically pn_ the reseax'Ch aAt3
conservation of the P.eninaul.ar Bighorn in the Santa Rosa
Mauntain�, and is the on3.y facility•auccessfully
zeintzoducfng penir►sular 8ighorn inta the �aild. fihe
Fnstitute is pl�yinq a v3ta7. role in �he� repo.p�ulat�.on of
tbese wiXd� sheep in the rtorthern 8�r,ta Rosas t�.ighway 74 to
Cathedra� CitX). As noted xn �he Biplogist's Repor�� the
institute has been ir►strumer,�al !�n supporting thi.s highly
en�dangered popalation, and has pzovi�ed directly for a b�gh
percentage of the po�alatian of wxld $i,qhorn in �he northa rn
Santa Ro�a Mountain populatfon. The Institu�e's r�searah
activit�.es have permitted us to suvicessfuily.isalate seveca3
varuses�which have been df��Ctlriq tYl� bighorn in �he a�ea:.
It should be recognized in the DEZR �hat if it had
not been for the 8ighozn institute's operatians, ths,
vL
M�. Phil Joy
�une 27, 1�9I
Page 4
Peninsu�ar Bighorn populatiott in �he northern Sa�ta Ra$aa
would most likely not �xis� today.
Th� nee8 oF the species for successful and ongoing
r�search, rehabi�ftation af wi�d �augh� lambs, �ambing and
relea�e activities simply is abso�utely cr�tical, ana the
Znstitu�e has been able ta serve the$e needs. These faats,
an� our exgerience with �he Bighorn over �he years, inaicates
to us that �t as. coxrec� ta conclude tha�t �he ope�atio�s o�
the Ins�itute are "...critical to the suzviva� af the wiid
8eninsular sighoXn Sheep populatidnsr par�icularly in the
Sa�ta Rosa. Mountains." �g €:�,c.;.. DEIR page 110 (referr�n� to
sta�emen�.oF sever�l bighorn exp�rts�. The City si�ould adapt
this �onclusion.
3. Compari�son o�' the T�nstitate to The Livfng Desert
��he D�IR makes faulCy comparisons betweQn the
Bighorn Institute an.d The Lxving Ae$ert► and in fact uses
these incorr�ct cvmParisbns �s a bagis for its di$c�s�ian of
the criti.ca�, isswe of a protectiv�e bu�fer fo� the In.s�itute's
faciliGie.s. See A�iR pages ].46� �q9 and I50. Despite the
£act �ha� � strang com�atisans were made between the
Irrstitute �and The Living De�ert in the cot�sulting biologists'
report, the bEIR greparer �ttempts to identify similariti�e$
between ttie two Eacilities which d4 not exist. The DE�R,
how�ver, Eaiis to pxovi.de information about eaoh o� the�e
organizations, thef.r puzpo�se �anc] operatians, tp enablA an
i.nFormed evaluat�ion of the �wo faciJ,ities by the public.
�he final �iR shouid �clarify the aiffe�er,aes of
purpose an8 opera.ti,on o� th� faaflities. The Bighorn
Ins�itute .�s prim�rily a research �nd con$ervatipn
organiza�ion for b�.ghorn sheep. The znst�tute's main purpose
and orig�naJ. reason �for fo�rming i.s to look in�o the oauses a�
b�.ghorn d�clinQ with its primary tnau� on tbe Peninsular
Bighorn o� �be Santa Rasa Mountain�. In order to carry out
thi$ missian, the Institute has Y�ad a Memorandum of
Unders�an�ding with �he Cali�oxnia Department of Fish ana Game
to a11aw Tnstitute personnel to, amang other t�ing�, aonduct
research, cagture sick and dying lambs fQr. study�of dise�se
processes, t�ioiogical sampI.ing and treatment trehabi�itation?;
and release heal�hy adult�bighorn ir,ta the wi].d. The captive
bigharn exparience very l�mxted exposure to Institute
personnel who Foliow stric.� ptotocol tor rhe�care o� th�
capt�ive herd �o avoid such th�,ngs as str�ss, diseas�e
transm5.ssian, and habituation. This �ro�acol ia foltowed to
mainta�n healthy Bighorn in as�much o� a"wildl�ke"
�+ t 1'
1'-'• ..�'
m �
f)
� H
m c�
��
�. �
�S W
1-�- fA
5nL3'
�'f� �0
� O !-r
�' ri r-
N 3 t0
C1 p. N
� �
N �
�� rt
� *3 m
'Ly :J' t't
fl1 i�
A ��
N C fD
o r•- 3
�� �
'� �ri �C
rt C7 1-�
�' fD m
m oa a�
fD Q+
t'� *t
w �* o�
N � Fw
+�• w
M ��' '
..'7 � '.7
1-�- M
Sv f1u K
Cy t�' H
(p 1 �
� A� O�o
•y Co tp
� �
� �
� 1D
rt n
N
O
rn
fr f+- x o tA m rr *�s nr
� �. o '� n `* r�a i� `t
c E?CCrtr��H
r c� N sr �-- �r rr m�
�- �a �u +-< < m m �v
C� 4 to sb rs tD
ir- tQ � i�+ f1' tD Li� �
c
� � [a • N- f-' F'•
lL7 O CA ��D N• C'.�'1
n p W tD W� r• f0
t7 �-r ►� � H m � A
/D S1+ Ca � O 1L ��t? O
(D f--� v� N Hf • 1g n
tV r• t* tu k C7 S],
�c ft' "J� � C t'f f� I!?
rr +C � t� m H�-' W
in �-1 F� �J' to� N t7�
3 E w �'1 �o w ao ►� �-
wY• O.1�" �.}� � 07 Dl1 �t �
' • �V � W N � 1 1
�' ►s F+- F+- 10
r. H C. O � W O rt
� � N• 1--' 9� tb ►-' � 'J�
��Q�ti �10�
�N rr aQ �, iZ tD �� rt
ZT Ci � 07� pP ID tb �'
�,�" fb ID i1► � N+ rt 1-+ "J'
o� b� r o r�-� as � ri
r+ C*t �0 Y�1 M 8D tD
an �- r+ � Q. o, o tn
O '� ��LkM
O �-r t*l O �' .H � sY
�„ x*, n► ,rr sL f+- a
fL tD f�' � � W
��A� �prt� O
a- �' � ro a� � m� �
s�• 9Q r- d su �n t�.� O
OfeA�ty*O��W
ti+-s ty a Zt m oo n
� iD ►�- ��t? 1D �' tn fb
�M� oO�O A.
�' N 1-rt� t? � Q. Y� rr � W
f-��C c�' G� � fl. N-.
e0 O x' Q W rr �!?
v�i r�i��� � �� � O
N*t �WtDOM
Q. N � (� S► �
� lD tD � tu
M fA � tf R�i� i7'
O � t+� M�C �D M
g O ►r �
�
i�+ ft �U 1-� m• � M b
om�o��a�a
i�'- ID `.i �. W G? «'3
o� �'t7 � � � F--
o � �r eo •s �a r-� �
• �s ►s r, �D rr m
O cp �y� G
LL M�I 1p ''..7r ff 1-+
y� rs m sD � sr
Oi]tnc9� Ky
r* c m r sv �'
� r•+t2 W r- � pD N
�C O �L1 O C D� +r-
^J iD'd M Y• W C7
�c' Gu do tv � H�' t9
� rr rt pf� �' O N
Ern��aQC7���
N rt O�' N L� 'O
ffl I-�• �' ffi O fa w O' n
� �' y �"� A C �-* �
W tn ir r- �I !� w m'Lf
fa tr � tf � �p Pv
W �3 � vQ ia. rs
R' k• � ft '"..! W tD
�'�?mh'OtvC1�K
w �r �p m m �
fA U� t'W � N �
rt w G'C :-�- 1D 9� 4+-
w� C r-� .`7 ti� rt
�u F+- ¢► 7� It C!, (D
N-'J n'J' A'• n
ofiaO�m �r
t�- O i7'a �-' a�l � �
tD fA f�'tf" �D A
f'►' ct 07 rt Q� q► SD S8 Oe
rf � ID m d2 � OJ �
crn�,rrcnc�d�a
� E � O rt �o iM-r'd �.
h'- �' � "..3� � JU M 7
N A� 0� ID W O n
n. oa . m iv '+0 uo �
�D �? fL M rt
�m�3w�.m�a
iL !?�'J''' Q au bo 7
fa tt ri �1-
O 7v �.y t-� � Y O .-+
O r V4 OhIC
� _] L�3 *� C7' �
ty' ;� f-� ct r� 1'f A
� ��tB�D�fb �
c» wap. �s
0� � � � i-� K
�� OWv o�a
O +
��} 1-�+ i-� M
sn cu � m o
A � �. � r-s
N- o o'
' H 1'I� � N ST
F+• o rr �
rt rc rf�.1Q
!r• O K
cu a r+� a u�
[�o r-• - �- Q H'
fA F+- H �'
sa *d tr rr f� �
r't N .Ul �
�n s� m � r
�C r�h � r�-
C• �+�KC
m r� ►.�.� ,,.
+s 1�' F-+ O �
tic n �u.m�
F--� !+• �0 y�
sa. i� / * iU V
►+- �u r+- � O fD
rn � co� a rn a►
rn w u� rtt�
fD �C n rt .s
rs �t l0 �D �+
fD tT tD W �
� �" Ff► ID cD O.
r*ro���o
f� v� r� cp
y tt� f� (0 A 0'�
aOR'4 x
[L � rlb . J
1-' W O
u. o� r- m ht rr
����7�
rP � �' 1U N
�..• o. � m ts �o
� v� w�
w o a r-t �
Q►'[7 � � t+- 1-�-
� 1'g � ft Q! W
K a+ O 1-�- r1'
ct F1s rl' w al
mr• GOw
O O c'r r-r D W
• .� "�. !D '.7'
Oo � �M�K
O CT O �
M F+• �D Q
�nwsuao
�' �" � 'L7 �'
� o �r �p
� � F�l1�j
$ � Q,
O
Li46 �0 �D As Qs] C 4 ta
1�+- ��r x�'tS rt tr-'if O
�cs���a•v�m�ao
x�om oo���w
t� 1-� G i'! 'ZS rc c�' W O
r't K S1' 1-+ t'f F� .`.3 S"f 1ti
� LL � ta ttr C 4C '� O r-
f.'ytsl n. � cy ti
�p w N n w w o�r sb
t�! � � O ��C r�'+ �N Y�
F-� ��' �+ rt C r• rr N
O A G �' A' eD t't''� tD
Oi l0 � r't 90 O Ut W� tn C'�
G SU J' S'!' ii ID !+•
•c D' �►-�- m rr C) t-� rt C
m m u� � rn� w a-- C+�-
rr �o ae ro ro�a t� e9 �
O�% rr r- rr a�
M �D �Ci !fv SI► �{7 f-�• tfi �
1'D O� A' � � � O •�CJ
Q�aIIN tLK tDrtNta
� C Y- ' b O Uo
r r*� „c O�� O A► r* O�D
�� ID M'E i� N tr� W � ft
�� � n �� mr�� �
rb tr ,�- r-- a sv ca m ra
8� �+ �t' H� iT*t� t3 A�
�R M- W K- �- O rt 11►. F+� O
tt'O rt�,l.� Q � �-ArbG'
• C b�0�Ct9rrtC+-�(�'iMtQT
f-�• W C!+ C il+�C! Aa �
fD :J' H fD Q+ 1� A►'b A�
� 4�' ON �^c � r-s � �-•- t�-
w►� m cn N-.Q cL K N n
� � �t fJ ro'i7 r• �
�a r ,-r � �+ � o rr ►,
ro�c���'�'���
c�e� � p O+C'd O tt ►m�s
�"C� .o on to G H►+r �' Li,
W ` t7o�o w��rtr�r�
�n�Drrcpw-oao
¢1D �9 � � � Mrt pl �
rr.�hmorr�� a
'J' iy' 17' � �i1 "S A M
�o �-• m w- a m
� y� w �o.�
CG t+• f*' N
!1� � +�C �
N k
t?MOA►ip
t�o+d��
'C ►� (D C
f'f' +1 �+- T�•
1�+- •'t :i1 � rs
� � �b 0
fD M• O �
�O►t�
W H � i't fa
r• se an fl► �
.c] +t � fi
G�ftO �QI
�o ►av,
�cn,m
. rt Ar ►i 'CS
µrtrro
� ro m
�t � N- U�
O � tF
M +-� �t r
::7" 7' N
it N iD •
:7�'
ID H �
� G �F;
M OR () Q?
Ar rr Q
C) w ta M
F+- 1't Ol Ib
�-�' � N lD
1�• rr F-�
rr fD O
H• M rt
� r-- �'
00 W �'Y �p
O��fD
� O
C���
�-'- p �! A
c� �f rt cr
�E 1D r- O
�+• � rt rt
� �-r s�t' �
Q O fa �
M s't W S
�' �!
R�
�� �
� �
w �
N• L],
Q
� � �
cQ � -
fD l0
Ll1 P% "J'
�J W
� F-+
oa
�O �C.
1�
�'
,,;
,
IJ' fD ��'at7 �`Li �. M A� r• LL ct 1-+
r• x t� 90 C�-s rr w A� �r' � iD �' N-
O� W fA N'+- O!-� (} f6 1'7"�[i ID �
N.z � m ct �i.? LL f+• ep ��C a•-
o m. o�! rt� n �r•� ro sr
tA ti1 rt rt f� +'t fv :70 F'- � f'r tD 01 �D
r�- U� � O b r� � w rt rr rs [�.
t'� rD c�� ta � F-• �o rr �r m
¢� t.L �+- N � • �' �D �4 O � !�+
s-� ��sv t am., w���
G' r�- rs w O. cf O A+ �'
o�C rr C n� tn � n rt o cr r-
O �' l�t fD � ID + O �C l� 'Lf i--+
� O �D 1�-� ''d N U� 5" �' ti fa
mrr GrsN Otl1100�DA�{Q
� 5" ftl A� (D ��� f--� M• �"C C!' as b3
r-� cu s� tT rn Lt.►C [a, r r- M- r.
r* rt � N'CJ N- O rt W f* A tt)
su �rnax��:���n�rr�
fim � w u�ic�b o�� rrsa��,o
v+ m :v � t0 4-� A O � rt iv iD Y�
'=f O. [1, t! Su O��� rr LL iD
rr o m ��s �� r+- .-. m sn
"J' � O► � M P► 1'�' �- Y H R QT 1'F
tD tL tA � 5�t rt w� o� ►-� a' O�
� r- � f! ti1 r• � G►--� � 1p Q rt
�70NAHO�fnt�•eo a'O�'
m w c oa +t � m t�. x cr t* �� cp
�-�► � o� re s� �n r- r��
�� rt� O�' O G� rt � tt C iY ft t-{
fD r- W►�i O� M G QI G t� � A �
ao � w>t rr �-• o m�r rt� n ro
.. �� �c�Hnco�►�ewsv�orr
O arl +�h O f1u ��D fU Z7' A µ
sr •-t . o rr r m m�s w�E t� �r � rr
��� •, rn r* cr� � rr m m a�- �-• �
t�t lB �,' �T 3V � rt � � �' Q�t fD ►C+� '.7' �
9C fD �' b G 1-+ tt K�-t SP
�''d A P� c9 �r �''Lf fD s+ K r-+ rr
�-- � tr ar � cv v- � K • � o
����moa •,,�+a� �ao�
� rr t-� � C w•rd N C r+ f1s �0 rt ta
� Vl r- h� tD c] �b fD A N-►C � i�► �+• rs
�G e9 C�- m�� fu fa. r- fl, n rt Q+
n� C r� • es w� c� � �� rr
'3' `J JO �'v � F-� � :a+1U W�'C T't' N
�'a'� r-�*3CA� � trrr�rr� �-r
w rr tv � O 1b p� +C O F-*� O'd �
rr �' o� O N- N rt � po 11A � 1D
�<9 Fi► m C k+- fL►(� f1' � tt rt
r* c7 E�� tt M�D w O tp Q rD
ti. ia K F-� F-• fG � rf' � ��'4
x ta c�. c�� � o +p
� o�o rr � � K �
Mc �a v
HN 1 �+0�
� � r� �
a►ot��s»
f'r �t' %S1 F� !-'
�• �' t-t � +C
R �8 ',if � V1
C *t N•
rr r3 a m
fD �l 40 W
• oc�o�oH
� �ffl M�
'O�rs N
�; fb r- ��S
rona ot�
r�- m f�r r• t�
MQ1 ►�� � M
r� 0 4�*�
N � y 0!
r ro o �
�'lqf rr n rt
1�fDPo�'�DN
G- rt' � fD F-H �
(7 �E i� �s Q� SU
� tD t�• rr rs
fD b .fl r- �
n��o�a�K
O � fD tfi
� F3 � � fll
q7 �' cr rt N
��bCwOW
r, r+ t0 � � O
m r�- � � �'C7
o C 9� iti a �-c
:5 N'- !D 4+- Zj' Q
aa � rs w C
� at} N �D � �
rfi7~�s47�
� �D 1� tD rt Cl
fA Cl 07 N-
s�w rov�
Hrtt't0�
u� r��5 s�
O � LL r•
0� �D 'd3 G�!
�. � Ls � ►� �
�Q+1�rH"�m
� mmmo�
OCt'µ NLI.
►S� '3' �b ...''�' F+-
n �0 b �'* �
�D th''� N tL!
Q �70 b �! !�.
�t � rs � �'
'a' p,RC
O r-
n k y
� A �
o rr H tr r-� � r
� �' :7' Pt � M- F+-
1B fL� �b (D tl� cr +�
� �-ao.� ��
tt N-�D W LL Ai W
+�- �� a
O i], oo �4 y M C1
5 tt � su m
m�fr�m.�:.Eu H..
Qr 3 r t�' �o �
rt �1 lb tf7 t� e� fD
O � �' W i7 /'1'
m�oco c�
� t-� �-s �• n r�- t�
�"f Ol O �'.y � o'! M
A Q M . �4 Sd
��o ��a� �ro
� � ►�• O N t+• h
rr �7' �p pp W N tp
� � �0'Ci �-'b
'�3 A� �C �-c rt fl►
O � .r r- aa +�e
It N � 7i` � G /p
�0�09��(]~
ct'L7 G7 £ tn cv Sv
� a E-- � m F-
(l� � � N V � 0�7 C�l
NO N �+(O wM0
�i3 (D Ij r.+
3
e����� w�
tDtD Wr�� �A
►� rt -cr _rt ff] O
o r n �n �,. �- +�
�'1 i+� !+� F'• `r :D �'7 hf
oc�m�• Wcn
Et+-rt OiJfpn
Q. � N- �� c�s a rr
NW O O no HM�N
� � N��k
Cf Hk tA
�a�iazm�cr�
� co � Cv4 �'�
►, •� r� n �u � �a
n S:' /0 r'1 C?. W 10
O H 10 t-+ rs G9
� Oo tD �D! O rt
f7. � O a� rn ut t�
W IT Q4 1-� i'h -� i^'•
r+ .� a � � .s� rt
o�r� ~ Om
�������.�
�h �- rr O � Y• �
. J p • t-• � �.
�t! �D
�
O i!. �, Ctl �.t2 M LT m r•
�0:�•N��C O[DC�
CLi ID Vl �i ['1' !D M fa �7'�ii
OmA�'�'C► �ofo
►�• � .O �T �'r c* ►�s
'� �'�' m K � Y- "'...Y � � 1'r
�aavr�cor•a�a
rr r• �� a1 M rr �
K O Ca S10 � ID +�- n
�o�.��'�snr• �my
�+ m �o m�-- o� rr �r �'
� C�h3 w�D C�� K m
Cl �D U9 � N [�
fD �' ct r't Q G'J' m F+-
�lrp�OtD�D�A�bG�
�i Go {i' x[l� �Q c] c) M
r� w f� R7 '� � N ru i] A
O f1e rt G/D Q rt 0'� R� N r+
tR �etf?�� GO A W�
�-c C n► C rt LL ►-n rr rn P�
lB Q► ('P �-"-1D N t3' G tD R
� wv tCD �'r�* rGt t�-+�rt"� o
dl, � rr �R *C !v O �
�- �• o - a tr rn
O� � t-' �' � ID x y Ul
� rr fp w o� r-• iN �'
�s�►�'mtsrrmo��
Lu p fD �'i a-• Qr fb O O
�-s a m cr rr oo a r+ rr
t--� b �E 5 � �D �D r•
0!1 ►� !-« L� O. ff- C'Zf
O' fl, 1-� rt rr 07'C Y- tt
� w• Q, ar' F-�• t7' f-�•'rf �(D
M�p .�. N� �'C � tD W�
o�mw aor�,t1�
rs �C t� t3' rh n m rn ct
� 0o r- �-t �� Cl Ot ID
rt O F-� O� t-•- fi�+
�' y � � � fA �-+ rs
�n �r m s+ b' �' ►-• rr rt
�0 N''C Q l4 fD t't' � o
�rf°o4~�a�rrr�.
fRY•HMOaO� lA�4
st �G flo N M rt$
f'�� 7 t�D �� cr H L�6 rt '�
G� rs F+ Di �' �' C!b Y
t�D C� Qt O fp tD fD �'FC
-@ tAAty+-t��
tA V1 fD F�- �i �D O rt rt
t'1 � C�' �� m fh tD
1t � � O
'�D c'r � hf '�1
oo�cn�
N GO � d?
�l C�. C r- �
wr�-o 5
�' �A f� e! !b
+-•mmca
!-+ Q� m � S1.
r-w � ctr
rr �D rn rc �
� N F-'W�
O O ►-�- (D
M h!� 1L a[?
Q.�rtoo
�-•- x m n
wt33�M
N M� O
sv r- r► r-� �
U! O tA � �
N + rt (D
�''Op�On
rsfQ� R�
Qr c? L]. �' 1-�
� Y• fD 1-+
O�l /9 O" O
�msD E�
•+- n 1�- UI
� � � Y
m w� g.y
E-- � m . �-
O �' !0 N
� r- 4S
�o�►r
tt M *S �
O Yt T'f' C
�' ct� N r-
bS lD �' �C �
.� ;� ro a,`�a
5' Go � U
O rh ►+• �D cp
n � �.n �
� �? 5' t�' N
�- o o �-c
7+- �-+ �'q �
� 1+- �'�
rr - se rt
� lD � cf �
� � � M
� �� r
f-� 'J O fa
!-�+ LL t!? QI
��n �
�' m
ra
�t7 4 3
��=�
N 1D
�U
a1 N 'aU'
v w.
. F�+
�o O
N�
a
�
. ..
�
t
�
� r-r'V rt�r y o� rs b' rs �. o�►�
�• �� 7' F�-�i3 fD Ia � N w M f0
mtn��+�'Orno�rrsuC m
� r* �* �D c� 'O t�. r• W 'O
tD1-�-W �-'tlO�tm�G O
� r? � H � f�. A� � � � tCl �'A � '�
LL � O� 7r' r- f-�-W [L rt rts ►+• m
t+- t't N�!C �0 A�' a C�;11 ID
� fa rt � fD F3 �D ►t i-+
s� � ty .�r n .c+ rr .�s � m !. :n o ►�
�- �a r• �' � � m� w+-n r-
►.�� �m � a a nma �
� c+r- �o r+. r- m t� rr a. •r� r3 sv
►� ►�- � c0 C7 � Q? 1�• - Q�� N
rA �D N.fl i�l H� fl �C v? o fa F-�
G' Si $ r'S i-1 '",� +'A �'t N• •
afl RN t�- C� fD '�1 fD iL F+- � rt (p C'� �
�?►r �iptn dt7'�Dm� r•
rD CL eL� tv *L� ►3 i'" cr �p m Q, � C t�'
�dl� �rl fD O fp N• O, G'd 90� �D E-- �'
� Rsn�a�� morrmyrn
N- rr G rt fl. �" w- rt fJ� � 1-+- �i
�OiJ. fD�� JNfQO tl t7
v0 t-f M� r-W �9 rt �D., � t�f t7 Lsf
R' �+- �t �`r n N- rt °� t-f QI 1-+
o� � � w sp t7 ►� �'� �u �n 7�t
'J' �� H p1 �(A M1 a�F�+� � Ki rS W
��o�-���o�s���Ns�r*�
►� �-+ � rr � R3 rt m c] �b � �i �
� rr ►-+ tr• ci1 'Cf tt 7c �..- � g fa ct �
r• w a m� ca eo �-- o rr � v► v sv�
ZA � m N� sQ N• rP � � H
-� ►~�c tD � � r ep /x � � rD w � �+ �C
fv A� rr Q M Cs' • N A O iT O
o� .c 5- m rr �c � t� o � c rn
y� G fD fb O! F'- M O�`S M� th
�' M/-�• H' O M M fD Q M 1�'
mort�r C��nH��a� ro�
u. �+ rD t�' O� ry �' fi Do �t �o K fD
«� m.+v' rr �- r sa m� b o
r� n F-� aE �� r• rs iL O a�• • rt �
M IT f0 IR •�` �"� ID C'+ � 0I �p Q
�D • c� w ip iD A r• ffr fa. c� rD
•�s rfi � O O C r• r-� G• O 0'�
cb 1J N n 3�+- uo � r- � c� rr
� H rt c* rh ,. 19 ���� m Q. � r-
n� � o N� w ia rr r� cn o
m m r* cv o �ts �. � r�, m n��
'.Y f-�- fT � � Y?s d 1-"� (� tia �'..3
rt �1 1D rt 1�-� J!Y SO �7► 4 Tt f» 0�
o t�s s]� aa oo rr o� w rt sb �' rr r�
H 00 W N• O[p t�• fD A� Oo 1D t�- ti
rt xl r• �- tn , o rs o o<o
� w �u cr � rr t3' rt H��
�u
�mvo�Q* ��-nfD�w�--
W r't rt (] M N 0!
o ���a� m ta
O rs
iT A� 6 H*tI !b �' tst
C ft 1r• � ►'S �'C !�-
M N fi! O iT �G
rn fu � 'a � tt �
en r-� F-- r o a, .� o
►,i �-• � r•• m r- cd ti
ae+om �
M 80 � t-� � d
��E�ap.o�.aG
lC? Y- H 'J{j r!1 S'.
rr �D cr ty it Q. rr rD
�' m �' �D W c� 't7 r..
ID I: Y- (A � 1'h K f't �!
� lD r- (D tt! G Q
!)0 R ►� r`t � �! t7'
1-�- �' O ct fle � N lA ri-
aD �r � �• h1 «J'
:J' fT t-+ �''�f � N M �9
n��f►�NO � �<SS.L
� G W U- ¢1 �t F�- t�-
�•ao ro w �rn
x�' R7 O� w r-rn
m rh m r* ta rr �D
'�s nr ro � o � +-� �
rt (0 0� fi1► <D �- f0 �H
a rr cr � an m av �
flr r• � Q, UQ ►-+ A
�W OLl. W �ptD
ft M sr rt flt � t�
tt 9� S �'�G CL �t
"'.l J ft k+• W t+• N LT
N S! �' ct C7' .� F+- fa
al � N- � "J' th� SD �.'
mo�`�°����''a
e�r � t� g r• es 0. sL �
r-1-� r• W tt O'
rra���mmo*3
C s,' ' Ct" N' � 'C "�'
rr�otUm�o�cD
A /0 ht A • <0 G .
. � 1"1' H r
�R !+• D' � CI F+-
�Z7aH�e oC
Na �p JW :3' rt � F-'•
M � 1'r �D � 'K7 �
+-- : �c ro s» �
C! f!s SD. F1
Fw. .� 1L '.�" . �' t+� C�
N 9yi) 10N�D
� ���� 7 �
N rr .� c7 m *�
�p�f�u ��rr
� Irt �r w a �
���
N H rr t7' t? 90 r3.i2, t�' rr � m ib dy w CT Ot !b
Cti'�'Q►O�I�'faWO�t�Q'� �-�r*iT
W iD fD �A �''t A► iD Cf Ci A1 r'1 F+• �C1 � fT Y• 1�
1-• tD rt 1-� •ti r- W h- m r• r- � �D
� l7 � fi�C n r- rt � m 1+• rt m�
0� r� �' iv t] Ct r• � F Q�n o'� rt'i! N ft- Y rt
t-r rr N� rt r• ct tD W�' tr M*C lv !]. r• r�. O
Fy�C �-' O" ad *C � ct w� W !-�
O r�- � r- � tt' t+- ao $ 1-+ tt W� N r!' C!
� oa rr te a o m po � rr �• o �. �' o p
. rT�`G HI �'11 i-+ ".3 � F-+ W(�s zi tD i iL
O N rr ' CI A1 a- K tiD � r8 Q.
� O r� �"' rt 1-�- �'t' ►�- U� H fi •� n 07 �e r-
t�t+, cD. �'O O tn tn E�� � O�"Wrt
� iL f+-1D 1-� O 1-+• O �13 � fD (!1 r�
�s-r•n�lOtD��-s N�CyrcmtDrtO
Sv � m tD tf� e�t, O oo Y iL N�' cP �L3 �
9+ iD rt Q w rn rt i�, r�� iL �' E flr
O N O t! (] O A M• (7 Uf H• t-'� K r• N
'LS Uc1 �� O� r� A� b' iv rt � l] � tD R' N
�* Y- o t� �►--• rr cu c�• � sr n- � o�' �C
wcoMa tn��'000��'u,r�a .
rr ,5' G fD !] G W�D � 0� ta !T'C r� �'
� O L], iA rt O rt' iL C � fD O F� C G 1�•
Y•nm�-�ao•,�-�c Ynrom�c�rr
N�oomm n�o�r�i��c rr m
t+• � � � rt � r� rs [D fD C] �'s f1D 5�?
n t'* � ►-+ N ft (]� f9 O U1 w O �D +^e �'
O O 1+- A' r+ �' F+�-1p 1-+ N�j o0 � Oo N tb O
� c� �' t7 w� ru tn s--� re� rr rr, t� �
n ��mc��crtzw m�soowmror+-�
Y� rr ra r* r� � r- O� n. Q. n r�+- A.
� m*n ;� �n o�cs a� �� m cr �o c
ta Ci O►�• I]. rt !b O On rr �. �- O'
t�- w+� cr �1'tJ C O't3 b0 � tn 5' r•- rr cp
O r+ . rs o O�' r• � 1-�• iT W�-s h"C
>cr+��to�ra�c�ocr�►�ocr �
v�► �- o• c m w� rr c m_ a��u rt o
p► �7' t3 C � Od fn r- O ib � �A {7' O rt'
in t9 �-+'CS L]. r- O M W rt O. C► p' N ID
��Q,�io�nQ►��nN- rr �msa.
�rro�s�nmoo.�°a�����x�r�rr
rs O'O �D rs r- O �"'� W G�p � �D t7'
rs� O t+� �� w- A�-t fb rr t-+ O Q� W
f}+ !10 !-� �D fD Dl Q► f'► c'r .7 �-'�- �1 Si� 1'1'
OwNr��rN- NrrmS'cD• c�co
tA a/ � i-� � N��' "' �' N• N r'S O� 1x!
rr r+ r- • �D �C `c od tu � t+ t-�
w��f � ro►�s O �cl r- ao rr �n �st
Tt K+t fl. � fD '3' �-1 � MIC1 fD ft' �r fD �'
v�o'oaas�rr� +onr--�roon o
fvv�.w m�'�C r�maG tD�n
� fi m 1� O 1� 'L3 Q Q► rs d t-+ sv �" �
�omry� o�. �t�m�r�
eb cr ti, �D q E a► C� � r-+ � m n a�
m Ll► r• 0� Tt 00 ;� ��(D '+re
• � O �1+ � � tt �
� �m
� c�n �c]
F�' 1-� O
o� C �
r r•
�� n
. m
C7
f0 �
fD tt-
n
i't' (i1
_�
m N•
(t
K m
SD C3"
N H
�D N
�
o� rh
�D O
rt
�
� rs
O N
te �D
� W
m
'� cD
R3 �
�
r�i N
m c�
O Csi
� �
�
� :�a
U ',�7
n
rr
f'�' 1�
��
i+� fp
�
�
c�.
.
�Q��
fD 10 �
�d N br
�.1 1-•-
. F+
r•ca
wo
. � "C
H
...
. . . \1�
Y;
Mr. Phfl Joy
June 27r 1991
P�ge 8
foot dig�ance should be dele�ed. so tha� no decision—maker is
mi.sled into u�sing this informat�.on aa a besi� iar any
deci�ion reqarding bufier size or othex mitiqatian measures.
�. Potet�tial zmpacts of the Project on Sighorn
a. zmpac�s on the gighorn he�d at the In$titute
. W� concur with the st�tements af the biologica3
Cansultant that indzvidual Bigho�n She�p may zeact
di�feren�ly to �iff �rent disturb$n�es and g:en�ralYy do not
taleraie unpr�edictable stimuli. The large��ca1Q proposed
A�,tamira deve�.opment pro��ct would cre�te a gr�at dea� o�
u�predictabl� dis�urbances, resulking in considerable� stress
ior the In$�itute's captive herd. Se� a�so DE2R B.R. pag�s
38 and 3�9: ("ancrea�ed human activity also increas�es the
possibility o£ unpredic�able disturban�e�"3.
As noted in the Rego�� of the City'a ca�sulting
bio].ogi&� a�d �he DEYR, the Bigborn, and esp�cially the lambs
tincluding the l�mbing pr.ocess)�are extrernely s�nsifiive to
di�turban�es and encroachmen� af �heir habi�a�. For .the moet
paxt, b�qhorn wil� avoi� developed areas and placea w�ere
human activi�ies take place. Bighorn are h�gh1y sensitive �a
en�vitvnm�ntai change. and ha�ve serong physiolac�ical r�action�
to stress caused bx, for ex�mple� intrusians 3�ntp th�ir
habitat ar�unpredic�ed environmentaZ chan�e. Theas reacta.ons
can resul� in lowered r�sistance to. dis�ase, reductior� a�
home range size into small, overczowded areas, ansi even
de��h. To tY�e extent bighorn becom� habituated �o human�.,
th�y far►d �sp�cially the� lambs) become more suscept�,bi,� to
death by prec7at i.ort.
The City's consulting biologi�st an�.the D��R refe.r
also to concerns.z�lat�ed to chronia streas situa�i.on$ laee
DEIR, �ags IQ5lr which we would'simply Zike to hiql�Yxt�ht.
The �vidence suggests that th� adverse reactio.r,s Qi ai,shozn
ta stress are par�ticulariy noted in animals wh�ch enoounter
prolonged s�r�ssful situations Prom �hich they canr��o� �ind
rel�ef. The bigho�n st�eep in the �nsti��ute's 34 �cre pen
would be Eaced with su�h a prospect if poafronte�d �wfth
continuing external s�r�ss f�c�to�s in adjacent areas, withou�
an adequat� l�uffer. Particular],y signiti�.cant to Peni�suldr
Bighorn is the.stress-rel�ted parainfluenaa-3 vi.rus whi,ch has
been an initiating facto� �in th� pneumonic pro.ce�s grea�ntl y
causing h�gh lamb mortality i� the Santa Rosa Mpuntains. See
pETR page 105.
() E
��
�l F-+
��
�
��
w rD
� �[] fL H
� �
�' rt
M- �D 0!
O c� �
+--! f'1' �
O �
tfl !b
1+• � 17
N fl. �'�'
1-T @
m �
� f'Y
�- o a
tu K C
1D O H
'tf � N
rs .
C ` 3
Q H �
Q. ro rt
H OR
� c~9 O
X � ct
m��
F~-� ��'f' �Cf
lD t�S
� � O
� c� �
fl. f-�• iL
��ro
(p � tS
1-+ tn O
� v
!D
Q
PI'
M�' �-t y�"' t? M si' f� � tZ � iT tt rP Ci fb tD M
a r•m �'�D o N �`� �m rs ��'►C �.s �e .s
f} W W(D W�r rt � LLv. C tD O ID'ti N A� O
1-'' :7' � CA f-� k-+ ffi tb lD � � tD t4 �' 9
a m�-• ro rr a� m r- c� � a� s�. ro cn x-zs
�C n tt � 'L! � iD O tY• f rt m�� R-� i�,
a v-Q.m�s�ro�M0�1DONN
� an t-�- r•'Lf A1 O A w ct �.-:. � u. pr rt �� C
►�rn�a�n �w� rara�pm m� m
a.� r.t o m bu tD W tt �� p� P �-�' sr' tv {-� �,''_
�li m*L7 � tJ' �� W N O r* t�- r'f� Q fD s'i' O fl0
fD � tb n H tt . Cr! OR �� Q R. O R7 � rt
b7 �9' K CT f!1 i�- Os 3 00 O tt2 f�. � fb �!+•
+�• rr m�(� � O�' !b � tD rt t�f� rt tt iD O
O C 1�+- � Oo 1r• fle � tD '.3 C tfl C f�- ►t rt tt .'7 �
►-e� r• c� f� 'd cD LL r- � tD O O.A� 1-�• �t o'1
rrcrnrnwna�rt'� �n,F--•���n
�t � w f11 O r-r O fa �' 'l7 n rr O • W F� O
�' W rs fD'•C ��D ri O�D fn b d rh � f-+'+' t�r
N t� n A W�O A� f't iZ �D M n F+� A► rt �'
a �-- Ar �r n- t?�o �� m re � rc ��- m
ht `C � �' fT ID !+f �`1 � � tf'L7 � rt [@ O n
� aa �v a a+ �+ o �i► fr �' sa �' o� rn n�
v� M• tL fD �17 +�A ►�- tv n tp rr f1r o rr rr
rs � tu fl, pa c2 R� 'Q v- a+ rt �-- t�t tv rt� 'C
r-.� � ►�• ti ao �1 f0 9a N M�f sl � fS► Q 0+'i3
rr � t3'� cu m• o r-N-w o O.NtD � N
G Ar tt: ��' �► O;U 1r Y• O� � A!], F-� Y• rc �7
rr �t �- O rt A• Oa �� t) Ai M+ir � f�. � tU
(D ID "3 ft' rS :6 F!- ZT �'f H� 1£1 W- iL O
- i» W�' � !!o �p t� � 0'� fD F-+ �� 00 n�D t-A
0� w �� �e rt sb O tB N�►!C O E cp fD,.Q
m ca�mrsm��n 3�0��►�—Cn
W O�'TS •�-t tL 1B fl. C� f10 C rt e'r U1 fU Ae .t
O rh fl, n[n t-�- rr tD S3. rb w a� fo �D r* ft ►�
OwOE�s�'O� rq!-+cOMO�sOmr*
m cr �'C} cb � r� w �b �� E� ro a► a-
O''.J'(9 � 0�7�• f»Q�AlUti' GO
� �o � w t7 � � w� c rr r* m o� a rr ��p�
f4 Ib tD t� O1 O 10 � N �� R. O[L !-+
� rr tL �-+ rr fi���-s A n� � 00 r•
�cs o �• 'u •�e c t�-�uQ ►-• r+- � � c � �- ►•- a� N•
fD �e C►c7 N O�+ f C O� �� O� � rr �3
d�fD � Od� �O es Oo ��D �10 rT�! O m rs Ao3
h-� v;v Q, ry 'd Rt Pt K tt n A t7' n
A�. � ID � Oi N L3� � N• Ft i-ts 'D G�. 1'1" tD 1't
�.'�C •A � C O � O rs b0 N�1 +� � �!. 0�
D. tv crhd c1..�p rl m.� � 0 1-+- rt rR cp �C
� n' � tf� �'t O 4A ►t D�? A��' �'j� hh "�.S' ' iI G Q
O ap tf A fD'i1 r! C rr e-r O O�'! n r- cs M C
rs G �;3 �-�- ��• W *t � aa O A O th t-+
�ra�.a�mcsc�saa � r����roa
�� Cl. O 1-� � Q/ !�0 � � f�' i!+ M�'1
� • [t rt' �► 1-+ ct .� t* (� • O
A� cr �• � 1A r �0 tF' � O� A
�o a' � O.OQ� b�l►CNC� Q
�1' !6 W N� � O � CL Q O et
�'s 'J' �7
Q+ Cb iT
F+• 1- % ffl
W U1 Q
- C � �
� � �
H• m �
O�ct
�.n ��
o�D�k
� W H
�l'1 "� .�'!
� � �
�r r• rr.s!
a' � �•-�
M �? c�' fD
ct0 � m
G ►t f't {t
o� ti •�D �•
f'r fa �
!-'- �? Q} �
o r-r r•
� . tA tt
QMdfl►
'30.r+ rt
'�rs�cr
m►tm�'
tf� lD e� SD
�D Or t0 t1E
m oo m
o vr
a1 � a !-'�
ca � m *d
�t. �' Su
flrwOC!
tt m � �r
a� m
� � � �
• � o- o
�� �
O � O
� �, fi
• rto
O f�
� � �
fii S�r K
QI A
'�'
n�������N
a�-t f't O►-+- O'J" +1 i+-
�IDOr� �ssNOX
w sv � rr � c* rr m
ft �A ..i '"J� � "'�' �"� 1fl
w �. f6 �-I fD � O cT
r* rn m m r. 3�r � rr a
G O� �r1 S.s' U! 1t !+�
r* ►i rr+L� rt ,.. C �'
N t--� t*' �0 r-..
fi r't Ot M a'! Ot G t�
5' rt SU r't 1-r !T C7' ;s'
N�DfDA n0[pGNOv
U1 H fL '�' � fD fiA Mt4 LZ
W� Mt� Us Ul �U �' F+-
iA f� W�-1 ft fi'
O Rfi 0! MrtC7+ t�•
Ft� *'- rt N 9' ".J' t� O
f7 '.] O �i � p► � ii1 .'7
�r c b�t3 rr rt c] ta sv
�' rr O N O *-� rr H
�m��,w�c°v�o�
N au tT �" A'+D .� p.
�-t W.�. N N N M�
m�E�i�utnr*�n,��•
n'iJ � s-� �' tt` fD 1't �.
c6 A' a•.1-� `�1 tD O C eD
OO C t0 � b7 �' Di ��' �1
1L fD W l--� p' 0� t't
Fs. A� �T7 t't� O� � ft 1-�•
K��w• w�x o
fD fD N ?3 Q.'�'f � �
M�s !v rt *tf 1-^� V 1D r-
c s3. v� c 1m ±� � A cr fu
A�a�,��ir�o�
n- � � �v �' cr �
o �'°`m oo �° �o `t�
� N N �-u_ � � N
wmq�}'.. �o�J�
� ."J � f�' �"1'tQ Sb ",,,�'
�' �+ r- O H �' �' Q, W
fs► O� K�' f.L O�D 1y'
cr � a rt �a c�*, .r�
�,,• �'�' DS tD '� � G �'
� D cp ct 4 rf' �'� cr �
rr �t iL rs o N- cQ £
sy �-+ r* r+- a
►�1 � � � " f-��- N
N 1�Z � A► � Ll,
[�G � ik
. �
�N F-�LZ��? Cf
E'• i-'- ir' fD :D M�
�Q Cl � C t-� �D M
� ��o cn o. flu rn
O� ID f-+ tt N
�s f� �-s O tb rD M
�mwro�
m�3Q.�t-+-•
p� . �i.? fa 'J' ' �
rtrrwfi�m��
"'� 'Jr �+ � 01 S! r'*' ta
[D fv rL O � �C C 'd
C Or� C Q, �ij �-c r�
H W OD F-' 1B f11 Q
� o � su r�b
rt W f1u �7 � t� A[h
►-� Y (� O �' O N
r+ r* n- � m a o,
� � O "tD tD t•� t2.
cr N r+ � rr r- b
�p v m cr �-+ c�-r Y
• M F'- � Slo fr- fT
cEam�row
� D' H rt F+- � �
n V• 1-r r+• O F�
f1' (? �t,' Ct a .� r!
r• �' c p► W
O *3 rt O �o
� � fb tD H� '�
O dl . f�. *i
fL G � <] r• O
� }- � � o� �...-
LL LT; �'t H re A fa
� O C A
rD �'t7 r• � rn cf'
Cn�'L3r•m,
tD fa �+ Q f�1
� fl, fl► rs O, �
a i�n: �rr +
c�rronnec�
p► !L � � ta i�-+ O
rr i3' fl 1-+ 00 O G
�' N fD tb. O4 � rr
� � n 4
3U ft. M� 00
� � SM !T M � N
JOtt'�" OaQ
•n iz+ f�+- W� G Ls
G O tA ►+� !-+ S10
rt o � �i �, ct
''J f8 "„s" 4a
N O O
f'h �
N � n
tt2 .'3 •
� �o
�O N '„�%
J �
. r
r c,
to O
t� �
t-�
»"
�
�
. . , . . .. _ �' 4
sT
M�c . �hil Joy
June 27, 1991
page la
cons��ered anaiys�s of tncse individ.ua� impacts o� �he
propased Praject, and ful�.y support their conciu$i�n that
"...the prapased Altafiira proj�ct wzll result a�n sa.gnifi,c�nti
adVerSe impacts to the operations a� �he �ighorn institute
throvq� �dverse impacts to the cap�ive bighorn sheep [and}...
w�ill sig�ificanti� impirrge upon both the shor�-term and long-
t�rm survival of £ree-rangin� Peninau7.ar Bighorn Sheep
papulatian5r particularly in the Santa Rosa Mountai.rts." 6ee
AEIR g.R. paqe h5. The D��R and ��e City $h0uld a�lopt �his
conclusian of its own aonsulting b�.oiogist.
Separat�ely► the DEZR does not appear to consider
cumulative impaCts of the Froject on the 8�.gharn kept at the
Tnstitu�e. There is signi�icant potential concern tha�
futare develapment activities on othe� praper�xes which
neighbox the �natitute te.g.� �he Westinghonse pro.perty to
the noXth and west; t�he C.C. Myers prop�rty to tfie sou�h)
cvuld aati significantly to an� poterttial impacts of �i�e
pr.oposed �roject.
The pubi�.c n�eds to know this Cype of in�ormation to
b� abl.e to maks a Fu�l and fair analXsis of tne po�ential
impaa�e of the pxoject�on �he Bigharn kept at the Ynatitute.
The DETR �bould have .evdlu$ted this co�►�err�.
b. Airec� rmpacts on Frse-ranq�ng B�ghorn
xhe impacts of the propoaed Fcoject, withou�
ac3equate bufF.er, on fre��-r�nging Bighorr� wauld a�ao be direct
and ex��emely adverse. The project si�� extends f�nto �he
al].uvi.a3 fan� and �ow+�r slopes of the moun�a�,ns wh�re the
B�ghorn h��vs heen ob.served �o r�nge, par�iculaXly in periods
of Iimited rainfal�, a�nd acG.ardingly contains es$e��ial an�
occupied habi�at area For the Santia Rosa wild popul�a�ion. zn
conneation with tt�e aativities Qf the In�titut�, I and otber
staif inembers have mad� a number of s.ightings oE wild, iree-
ranging bfghorn on ar adjacent to �he Al�amira pr�o�eot site.
See my questionnai.re response., and D�iR page �1�. For
example, thfs past Oc�c�b�xr �e received a zeporting o£ �a w�1.d
b.igharn ram within the po�ential buf�er area o� the praject
site.
Tbe City's cansul�ing biologist ref ers ta these
factors, an� othexs, in a�.cum�Iative context to con�clu�e tha�
the Projec�t would reaqlt in a significar�� cumnla�ive adverse
�m�act on�the Bighorn. We abso�.utely concur with thie
conclusion as �learly stated by the consulti.ng bioloqist �and
in th� �eX� of th�e D�IR) as followss "fJn �a re�ional
_ J;
�j __
.. - .. V� . , ..,. . J'. . .
; _ .. J .
yE
Mr. Phil Joy'
June 27, �991
Page 11
persp�ctive, in light of the alxeady extens�.ve and continuing
human encroaahmen� into and upon Peninsu2ar Bighorn Sheep
habitat in the santa Rosa Mountains, with the �mportanc� o�f
marginal �ress to the long,term survival ot bighorn sheep,
...we conclude that the proposed Altamiza projec�k �r�Il have a
cumulatfvely significant adverse b�ological impaa� on
penin�ular 8ighorn Sheep and their h�bit��� in the Sant�a Rosa
Moun�ainsr and that further human deve�opmen�s along the
��.ank of the 5anta Rasa Movntait�s �acing t�he Coach�lla Vall�y
wi�.l exacerbate cumulative a�verse impacts to Peninaular
$ighorn Sheep habitat." See DEIR g.R. page 35� DE�R �age 99.
The C�.ty st�ould �dopt thfs COnC1uSiOn o� i�s consviting
biologist�
In a�dition, however, I be�.ieve �h�� the propased
�rojec� wauld also have �n individu�J:�y �igni�icant adver�e
impaat on free-zanqing Highorn. Com re DEXR� pa.ge 98� xhis
conc�usibn is based on my xe�ding aE the evidence no�ed above
relating �o the ra�nge and �.ocation � of Bigk�arn on the prdpose�
�roject si�e, o�her evidence on �he recoxdr an� the
precarious COnditiOn an� h�gh vulnerability to disturbance ot
the species. See also my questionnaire xesponse di�cusging
these cohcerns �.n more deta�l. The Gity $hould adopt this
c.anclusi�ori in its analysis.
5. The Need far an Ac��quate Bnf�er
Tfie discussi�on above� and tt�e reco�d in tYcis case,
m.ake i� clear th�t the pr�posed ptoject, wi�htiut ad�quate
buffer, would harm� harass.and even ki�i� i�dividual. Dese�rt
penin�ulac Bighar�n shesp, des�roy substantial amourtts o�
tiabitat essential. t4 �h� eicistence o� this speci.es, an�
l�kely �eopard�xe their continued exisfena�. The�e impacts
wopld be magni.fied at the cumulative lev�l.
P�ccord�nglyr it is .absolut�ly esser,�ial for the
proposea Praject to incorporate an adequa�e bcaffer o�f q�tural
open space as a Condition to prajec� appr.oval,
The DEzR indicates that�the Ci�y's cansulting
bioYoqist "...r�commends tha� a bu�f�r which vari.es fzom 600
yards to 1,125 yarda, west to east, is necessary �o
adequa�ely protect aighorn Insti�nte lambing operations fn
th� adjacent 30 a�ore pen."�� See DEYR page 214. Moreover, tY�e
biolog.ist also conc'ludes that "...a Iar�er buffQr dis��nce
would be higbly benefi�ial..." 5ee DEZR page X].0.
. .._. � ;at.; �. , �
. : � ���rr:� � . - - ., . . . .
.s
Mr. Ph�l Joy
Jun� 2?r 199I
Paqe 12
ThQ cansuYting bioiogists' conalusion on this point
is extremely import�an�. These biolagists were h�red
expresslX ta sift through the volum�nous informetion on the
bu�fer issue (and ceYtain other issues), and to reevaluate
the buifer qvestion on the basis of souncl biology.
while z have expressed on reaord my v�ew that the
aptimal bui�ex wouid be 880 to 1,500 yards of natural open
�pace, i am prepaxed tv accept �he conclus�on oi tha Ci�y's
consulting bio3ogist that 600 �0 1rJ.25 yards of und�isturbed
natvral. bu�fer would be aaequate. T also a�ree with and
would lik� to underscore the conclusian ai the City'�
bxoJ.ogi,st that a larger buf�fer distance would D� highly
bene�ici.al.
in support o# this, � would like to dxaw �h� C�,�y's
8�tention ta the �ttact�e� Te�.ters signea bp a�l nine membe�rs
of tl�e 8ighorn Advisorl� Commi,ttee ► which �ndicates that tnese
m�.mbers have �urtiher reviewed t�ie reco�rd in this c.ase, and
wh�o believe also that the City should adopt aa open $pace
bu�fe� of 600 �0 1,1�5 y�ards.
More generally, ft is cl�ar �o me �hat the record in
t�i�.s case averwhelrningly supparts the adop�ion of th�.$
cot�c�ns�on by tiie City. Th�e D�YR, howeve�, fails to make a
speciff� recommend,ation an this point ant� fails to ac�apt t'he
aarefuXly cohsxdered conclnsion of its awn cprtsalting
bialogi�t for a i�uf�s� o� 600 ta 1,125 yards. Instead, the
D�iR simply et�ted th�t thi$ is one apinicn amor�� ma�ny t,@�
i��xR, page 5�4,) � and hig%light� the sta�ement tbat t�sere is
significant disag�reem�nt among exper�s t,� sam� page).
MOC•eOVeY, the DETR suqgests that ",..far the purposes o�
evaluating disagr�ementi among experta, a7.1 exper� opinions,
anc�vding the consulting biplogfs�g� have been tr�ated
equally."
Whi7�e it is impottant ioz the publ�.c to be inEormed
of the nature and extent of disa�ree.men� among eXp�x�sr t.he
C�ty cannot simply ignare the best bialogi.�a1 evidence on the
ground5 �hat some disagreement ex�sts. The�City canno� and
must no� use �.h�.s disagresment as an excuse to azlo�w an a�ation
which may jeopaxdize the survival of a species. And �he City
cannat simpiy treat all biolo�gfcal opinions eqUdl�y► wher�
they aris�e from p�rsons� of different qu�J.i.fxcations who have
devoted dif�exing l�vels of atter�ti,on to the tact� o� this
case. I am conaerned�that this i.s what is bein� done in �hQ
present case.
. � �� ;: ,
- ''i �' ; � . . . . '. .` _ y 7 . _ ' _ ) �.
! . , _ •
Mr. Phix Joy
�7t�ne 27 r 1991
Pag� 13
In thi,s la�ter regard, a numb�r of comments are in
order re]�ating ta the statements from biologists on th� D��R.
�nd �he s�mmary of these statemen�s in the DEXF�. The DEIR
clearly mi.srepresents the bu�fer recommeadations of three oE
the questionna�re r�sgonden��. Mark Jorg�nsen was
�.ncorrectiy liste� as.suggesting a buifer mini�mum af 4Q0
yazds out to 600 yards nor�heaster�y. His actual
recommendata�on concurred with that of the �ighorn Adai�$ory�
Committee of � minimum bvffer oE 900 yards (optimal 60a
yards) stret�chircg northeasterly to 1,100 yards. As discussed
ear3�ier, TMe T.iving Desert provided no bUfEer recommenda�ion,
yet the n�IR m,���esdinqly iridicates a buffer recommet�dation
oi 30 f�eet tses above discussion). Third, the DEIR wrongi.y
sugges�s that Gerry Ogniben�e made a bu�f�r recommendation of
�00 �0 304 Xards.. In factr he made ,�o bc�ffer �recammendat.ion
and sta�ed that he has no foxmal education in b�ology and is
not quali�i�d to make a buffer zecommendation.
My buffer recommendatipn af 80o to I,5Q0 yards�
discussed above, has been designa��d as ehe "Bfghozn
Yr��stitute�Prapased Buffer" in the DEZR page ?.10. However�
th�is recommendation.is n�t corr�ctly rep�esented an tihe
coxresponding 8xhibiti 35 of the DEIR pag� 21I. Thi��s mis�.�ke
in the D�fR shoul,d be corrected.
In ordex to make a f�ir �valuation O� the bu�fer
r�cammendations�, i.t is t��cessar� for the gcsbli� to b� aware
o� the background and manner in whiqh some of tY�e
questionn.�ire� respond�nts aerived their bu�Fer su�qg��etlan$.
The cieaz],y f�vored majori��y expert opinron refl,ect� and
�upport� the consulting biologist�s' bufFer re�ommendata.on of
600 �a 1�125 yarda. in additian, there are a��numb�.r a�
��ancerns regarding the opinion�e and analXsis of the f.ew
respondents who favored a much smaller bufEer.
Steven Cacothecs, far exampl.e, kas testi�fied before
the City tha� he is �t a bighorn exper�. Addit�onal].y�, h�e
is oantracted by the pxoject� develoger as a paid co�nsuitant.
�n my opinion, Caro�hers does not tiave th� bighoxn �xpezti,se
to make a sound biologacal�judgement for a bu�fer distanve.
�rherQfore, hfs recommendation of no buffer $hould be
diszegarded.
Charles DougJ,as, Pau.l Krausman at�d 3aak x'urner are
also atfiliated wi�h C.azothers' �irm, 6CWA, as pa�d
cons��ltants. �ouglas appears to base his deeisaon oi no
buffer on the zoni:ng of the propert�.es ir� q�uestion tt�he idea
tha� �he �nstitute knew the adjoining lands w�re appzoved for
� housinq developmeri�), Xather than an biological eva�,udtipn
_. .. _; .; _ _ . .
_ r .
Mr. Fhil Jay
�une 27� 19q1
Page 14
tsee Dauglas' questionnaire reeponse). The apparent bias of
Dougl.as` response and the basis of his buffer rec.ommendation
makes his opin�on unsuitabl.e tor comparison to the piol.ogical
judgmerit o£ other bighorn experts who xespon�ed ta the
�uestionnaire. ,
Addikiana�.ly, questiannaire respondenta �t.an
Cunningham, Steve Hol]. and Pau�, Krausman, have made Eheir
�uffer recommendations based on the assumption that eit��r
the Institute'g Bighprn are a�,ready habitu�ted ar will beco�,e
habi�uated to human activities. As previ.ausly disc�ussed, thi.s
is a wrang assump�ion and against the intea�ians of the
institut�'a operatians, and �ontrary t4 the �evidence tha� �he
Institu�e has successtully re�eased BSghern fr��o the w�l�i
sfnce 1985. Thereiore, these buf�er opinions are innalid in
thiS GasE.
In ac3ditiion, th� queg�iannaire did no� provide
svFficien� and ne�cessary i�Formation �elating to the
z,na�it��e and the proposed proj�ct t�o� e.x.amp�le, Ins�ftu�e
operat�.ons, project d�sf.qn �nd aativities) , on whi.ch a w�Zl
ia�formed buf�er r�cammendatiQn could be based.
On the basis of the above d�&cussiot�r �h�re is no
s:ubstantial evidence or opini.on ��r th,e smail or �eza
buf£ers discusse� in the DE.zR. Ra�her, the evidence cleariy
and strongl�► supports the recommendation oi the consul,�ing�
bialogxsts.
b. t�itiga�ion Measures
There az� a number af mitigation aotions fn add�tion
to the pr�ovision of adequate bufter �whi.ah �re aritical to
$ubstantially reduce potenti�al negative imga.c�,s. of the
Project on the fiigharn and the Inatitnte. A11 recommended
mi�igation ac�i.ons in this respect tmitigatian measuxes:
�3-lfi� 34c, and 36 an AEZR pac}es 2�4-246 and 25Q1r we feel�
are wei� thought oat and fmper�ant pr�o��ctive measares �ar
adoption. 4
A
Mitigat�,on measures 14 and 35 appear �o be
inconsistent. M�asare 35�should not be adap�ed -unZea� it a.a
made cansistent wi.th the re�trictions an grading and
construction aGtivities af ineasure 1�4.
�L Q! R7 !-� M C�
O RNCDOQ
A �-h rt � rc �
C 1-h F�-t� �
� 1�'- O ('t' ii F-�-
N i] LZ 'J' Y� 00
'J' F'- �'C K Ul
rt' fD d" Q Fi-
� �!► !b c O
h!� � ft � S-+ � H
O � O+ f1�
1'S {t :p 1'f .�J' Qf
r- fD t� t+� N�
►tf ��OOA�
Gu �D � J +t 4t
rt t-t qd rr. h-�
r� r+, ]' N o� tn
Y- O �D tD M1Ct O
Q +t ?!
�d a �D f3+ �' Sv r�
a a� � o �o �► o
wK w c aa-v�
O b0 � � [� (D 1-+
� [T fD A! H t✓ �D
A� � St7 tL fl.
a rn w rr •
rf th � � O �'
�r rr � �3 �, K
�" o �- �+ �-�c cr
� x� � �
00 [D tA 1p
s' Q. � �7 tD
iD fD iT t� C th
11r S? N ti H N o�
rt � Qr 4D ',[7 � t?
� s� h m rr
d rr �� c N- �,
w cp � s-� m � �r
, F-+t0 tt FC �'
k: � Sp {�l {�
fJo
�. � e't
rT F�- (t �7
fD Q. a' Q! rt► �t
c co x cr �-
F� J tt fD (D
fD O � 0�► +t K
E rr �' c� �d
o � rr r
tr lu rs �c � �
m1-� �►C � `�s'
b fi «� s.. -
� � Yc0
ro �
�
W
A�
� o r�• rA
+�- C � W
� RI �f1 �
•,1' rt � Q+
O�N�•
C �'0'1 �
tf' 'fD �
� � � �
� �-�- o •-�
�� �'�rD
G� Go t+• �+d
a � �:o r
iA F+- a � �
f�' �Q 111 H �
P� � M ri� �
`.3 f�' f� Y• IJ�
R • n �
r•o �.o
� t-+� a
►� ►3 c� t�
a��'° o
N f0 OJ �- �
fA a N.
r�• tfl n u�
0'1CtOK�a
• N- C� ID ►••
N � �i'f �
��m
AtDO�
ffl � rr �
wpQ rtO
� �O
�• n
cr a x cg
N �� O
1-+-
�C7 � � 1D
�b�►C�
m �r1 w L4
�8 flr K ta
�N•OZL
� � 3 Fn
� rta �
� r+ r* r-
� �� �
• /D F-► 0?
K
�►
�
f]+
��
�' r+
N• O
m �
90 1]
�'S c7'
m
� (D �
r-
dd �
r•
� �
��
O 'd
n n
� O
�
A� tl
� �
a
�
rt G
N Y�'
O �
f�D �
n �
fb
'�
0� fl►
n [L
��
fi
M� Q,
rr i...
�' M
iD
�D �D
C N
r� e�
�m
�
� fy'
� o
�
fi
r•
�
cr� 5'C fb�
"J' �'f N tb tD LL
ID dt fl► Y-0�7 Zi
iD +'S. � i7�
�Li � W W t`t ('r
Ot]�Z7'C N
�'h �G tL�" Fr t� Q.
�D tD R �
� S ".r W
cr r+• sD tL 4� H
t-�• c* C rD � fl�'
Or � �D W � �D
� � �r��
rs ao ►t Q. �. �D
F'- f�3 �' ft
� ao tu rr �, n
�'Ti 'L7 K fD '..r iD �D
�f tD � A fD 41 C]
AA1-'O F'O
P1" rt �,' H �! F-� �
Go O N• ft �
� �� � �
0 0 �D►�C �'r•�
rn +�• a � s�,
ft� Q K A�
rr �' ar rz, � w rr
D' (D ct ty
�u m rr oo as a
'd��'�*s�
'{� O t6 <p S1 O ff1
►z W i1 u-
o +�• O► :cr � o
�+D fi 3 ++ O A �-n
O N•�C �D cl`
fD�Ul.u�'��'
Q. fD fD �' fD
O y f�-
�i tn a, �3 �► n ►�
rs re � r� �' �--�
u.�0 � m i7.�
� fD M*s HO 5
rt' �i n � � tlf �
• W O G � tt2
tt � 1-� la t4
`C A t*' rt !�
fD 4� fn sD O
fD�fl �f1'�
�N 1b M � �' Ow'1
K '.3 ft t-< (b GD
a n. �� � �-•
r�, w �' � O
�C1 � �C 1� �
ii+ 1�+�
ro
(2 �. Q► ui �Q A'� f'�
O���rar�ti0
�n4.CL crp�
Y• Cf' �C �Ci �
��arn�- o�-•
IR ►f� N fl► N n rR L�l
nd nw O�N
f+• N.f0 t-� C7 G LL N-
4Wtl1fD(a� O
���nQ,6h��0
Cf OQ tD 1-�- !-� �
'J' F+-!'S S'! N F-' f'�' "J'�
�a� ��d � � Nm
rr � ts fA r-� c?,+<
F'• �, 1-� Ia �'t �-] r`S
� O rtA -�'n► � tv
uq � r• O 6� t9 E-'
. tt �Q �' �+Cf b �
� fb � �t7 'ti r'� �
0o cr (R H N O tT F-�
�-- �- � o � �. � .fl
• p {2.�• � ID fr- 1�D
� m�nnr
N .Q N- f*' �
V]� Q, ft'"�� "'�
me�a�a"Qs�ro�
O� �t' {0 {� � rt �D
nr�cON-����l�
��m���-n�+�rt
p� � � 7< <t K
n.-. M E Ol �D O
K � N• r; O
N• • o'� r't O�-c n M
'Cf �D O "� � N ID
�'• � QaM
. fD CMOF�•LU
M50.�iQ��=J
li1 � M C�� rt C?
1 A rt 9� �!L :7' 1D
N O*."s. ' H[D A� �D R►
F-� � fb i-+ "�7 �t fD
t � �' O.�C7rs
b ft �D O[� tt
+-' �'S � i1 � M
C Oo O �'�Ohi
!�-� Cf` � tf � Ct M �
f!1 1K- Or C O O�
� Q pi t-h �-!s 1^S �
� � 0} e-a {fo ct �-
f-�- r- m C�' rr �
� i� n �o ra �.a
ail � ts �fD
1l A � .. � L7` �c1 r-h �
• O N� or! Sb <D tt 4? !"•
� ct t� � tt O cD rr
O. t-�- t0 Sv �...,_ r r-
� r�•s� � cu e� .n
�' ct � fb N�0 A W tb
�D N- er (T �� R rt ct
O f-- � �D � r•
� fT � fD t't � fa �.7 µ
� O�rtO�r�Ot�rt
� fD N M A� � � Ia �'
w lv Lv rn n 1D +-� 9u O
J � U1 �D Qi'C rt� G N C
♦Q �C � H r- fD rt' F f1'
� ro w►� rc ca n
t7 hf tD � �' t--� (R �
O r� C� t? O p� �*C an ►-'-
� O iD +-+ � Oo � bJ
u- +l1 C� � C1 1-� � O
r• rn n�- a-� tb H Q
07 CI N• tL C-1 � Q G
fR �t t+- G � � �
►•• �-U W� v+ c� rr
O Q►�DH�tp u1Gr•
� ►�p r,�o � c�n w.[Z .��c o�r.�
c9 O{3''C� � Q!b � F--� P�
Q C �-' �CS rt O. ... �- �
� �� � n�i O � � m�
� • ` rs ��� O
ta Qt � fA tL c't M
Q. �. rr r�-�- m+��i Q� N-
N O s* Uo r• ��
w ���Ko��'�
� ���nm��v'
O� rt ct cr t-�- O
t3'�'µr�n rtW C
�csu�4�o�cn
cr fii � A �t
r+ �e m�r cr r�
fC � f? r• � ct N
GfD����O(D
�- w � a ar a� .�
n�D � su c rp �-s
G �-t' rt M � C!.
O r� cD �'
C► rs C � F�
m m i-• V n
(f' N '�'
91 1-�
fb H
00
w � �
tL? � •
tD iD
�d
i-� N �
N �J 1�-
. F-�
N C.1
�o O
t0 �
N
y
�
c
Mr. Phil Joy
June 27, 1991
Page 16
Qthes �r�i,�nmeUta�. � ,j��,.�s� V�lues
Finally, I would like simply to noGe mX cancern in
relati.on to patential nega�ive im�act�s of khe Pzaje�t an
other siqn�;ficant and riighly sensitiue bioloqical va��ues in
the area, and i,n particular the Dead Indian Cre+�k wash tand
its community o£ plant$ and an�.mals? and the deser� ta�taise.
while 2 am not an exper� in respect ta these issue�,
i am fam�.liar with the local ecolvgy and wasiz habita� �rea.
I can �n�orm the �ity that staff inembers af t�e Xn�t�tute
have spo�t�d signs ot the deser� to�toise �oizbin the area
recommen�ed as butfer. See DEIR B.R. page 20. T a��sa wouJ,d
r�gister my support fax th� �onGluSion of th� City's
consultinq biologist rel�►�ing �o the signi,ficanoe oi �he
a.mpacts af the pzopo�ed project on the washr and the
importance for habi�.at values of mai.ntain%�g the wash as
"dedioa�ed open space." See D�EI1� B.R. paqe 46 ancl DEZR
pag.e J.3�1.
�,�, $�mar k s
zn cl�osing, I would iike to xeit�raCe our cancezn
�ax maintair�ing �hG con�inued succ�ssful ageratian.s a£ the
Instit�ute and ultimately the �urvival oE t�e Peni�eular
8ighozn Sheep. �he uniqu�ness of t�he Bighor�n Institute
�ac�li�.ies cannot b� treat�d lightly. We are na� heze to
d�s17. ori our accompiishments nor �o downplay the quality ar�d
val�ae d€ the A�,tamira project to tlie City ot �P�a3.m De�sert.
We, as we�1. as many bigharn expertis and the City's bi.olog ical
cansuitarit� nave show�n the se��ousn�ss of the pligh� oE the
Peni.nsular B�.ghorn and the crftical need to ad�quat�Iy
protect the Institute's opera�ions on theit b�hal•i. �hese
8ighorn are the conc�rn not only of the In�stitute and its
staFf and directors, but of all the surrounding aommunifii�s,
the State of CaliEornia �nd sac�ety at larg�.
We stzongly believe tha� aevelopment of the Alt�m��a
project without an adequate buffer and additiona�. ne�easa�y
m�.tiga�ion measures, outlined above, wi3.1 ser�ausxy
jeopardize the sarvival and fueure xecovery a� ttte Peninsul.ar
Bi�ghorn Sheep. The potential impacts to the I•nst�.tute's
activities, including the.loss af the integrity of curren�
n��ural. h�abitat and enviranmen�tal p�rame�ers o;P the reBearch
�aci�itiea�, the ability of the captive Bighozn.�.o
succe�sEul.iy br�ed arrd produce viabl.e youtig, and the ability
�o successiuliy r�eleas� Bighorn i��o the wild, wauXa m�an the
destrac�ion oE this vita� ef�ort ro ensure the survival of
_ . !1 � . . . -
�: �,I�, . . . i.�'J_ .. . ."_.
t
�r. Phii Joy
June 27, 1991
Page �7
thes� animc�ls. In sumr The City's decis�ton in this case will
have a critical impact on whe.�her �uture qenerations wi3.1 bs
a�farded the opportuniey to wi�ness the majes��,c presence of
the Penins�l.ar 8ighorn in the moun�ai,�s averlookxng ihe
Coach��,la Valley and Palm Desert.
We stand fast for the needs of the Bighorn and
support the Ci�y's biological cans�ltant's recommend�ati.on of
an undis�urbed�apen space bufFer oE b00 yards fio 3r22� Xa�ds
west to east, with �he �nclusion ot t�he additional mitigat�on
measuxes note� abov�e.
Sincerely,
� ��
�
J�ames R. DeForge
Executiv,e Director
Research Bi,ologist
E�rs� � � s}Y �
L�TTERS FROM BIGHORN ADVI SfJRY COMMI�"PEE
, . _ ,. , - ;
T
R�, `���,��
„�s's q pi. .. ._. � , ,
,„���i
�Ja� ,�t9 d � Rl1 �� ��
���.�t', ��.:;;.`�:T ni���'�
�ib'��::i��E,. G�l.
June 21, ��91
Mr. Phil 3oy
Associate Plartner
C�ty o£ Palrn besert
73�514 Fred War�ng Drive
I�al.m De�erti, CA 92260
Dear Mx. 3oy:
I am � memb�r oF �he Bighorn Advisary Cammittee that me� on
December 9, 1989 �o help decide upon a�n u�ndisturbed
envfronmental buffer that woul.d protect the 8ighorn
zns.�it�ate's op�rations a�c3 the peninsular Bighoxn Shee�
fra� the patenti8l n�gative impacts o� the proposed
A]�tamira Country C3ub project.
Y have t.aken the time tv review the May 1991 Dra�t
�r�vizonmental �m.pact ��port {bEIRl for the Alta�nira
development. The bigl�orn sheep i�ssuss addressed in �h.e
Biologi�Gal R�port praduced b� P��i.fic SauthwesC �ic�s�qical
Servfces are very detailed and informative. Th� tespor►ses
�to the• questionna,i�e were alsa helpfu2 in evaluatxng the
opinions of my geers.
� bel�eye the bioiagical cansu2tants' recommendea buffer of
600 y�rds ta� ].,�.25 yards west to east (D�IR Teahnical
Appendic�s volums 1- Appendi,x Jr Figuze 4) should be
ap.proved by the Pa2m Desert Ci�y Council.
Si�ncerezy,
�
r� � % .-,�����t',ri/G'3
Dan A mentroat
cc: Bighorn Ins�itute-
� G1- {s . ,. : _ . ,.
HONOFWRY CHAIRMAN
OF FUI�ORAtS�NG
Garald R. Fad
se� �.,+aw
a! � vMw swa,
BOt1R0 OF b1RFCTORS
Keqt A� Hebart�•
PmldeN .
pme�t Nohn'
Ea.ewru� vr� Pronasa
ct�� w, ��,+��, o.v,ra.•
. yk, Dew(den�
a� s���on•
�� �� .
raar E, G1Kog, nv.M. •
S�aeeary
�w►a c, Mcc+�s �
r�„�.
c�ne�r rwan�
Wougang F. Betra'
WUOam Befw
Jatk BKttinylwm
i.awrtflce A. Coria. M.D.
Michaet De�
John E Eathvt
Sob tioward
�, Robsn McGowan
8n+c. McNa1{
l�nn N►ona
&an L� Timmins
•e��wwe coona,ti
�oMt�isnt�non
Ssmss R. DaFergv
EReavt�ve DMuw
Rt�sorcA 8bk�v
filslne �1, 8urett
AWoew. O�a«
ow+s�ae
AfnliSORS
rc�ac �,�.v
CaAJmMo 6cot• S�naa
Ffet�ltr, &raee Comri�aa on
iYcNro! R.wwr.� ane wtldirh
D�1Pid C. s�ta
M+�al.•Com�rvaaentrt
�v �, c.n�e� �vM., p�.a
cr wwawrr D�a�+e�e teeaaw�v
?�tlnChl d� Cleek
� ��
�w a ,w�y, ay.�,
Capjan�o De�r, o( Fah oee Gme
Matlj C, Jorgen�en
Anw-Be�w9e•D��as 9mr Pmt
c,�n R sc�. Pn.n.
cer �by tbr.aarr, �
Red v.�, �+.a
r�, � s�w u�,
t�..� v.t�aa
!� a wlaf sb..r &we
a u�e�
I: --
�I��or� In�t~itul�e
Dedtcated to the consartiation of rhe wor�d's witd sheep through researctt and education
June 21, 1991
Mr , Phi�. Joy
Assaciat.e Planner
City oF Fa�m Desert
73--53.0 �r�d Waring Drive
Pa1.m Deser�, CA 9226Q
Dear Mr. Joy:
I�m a member of the Bighorn Advisory Comm�t�ee that me� vn
December 9, a9$9 to help decide upon an undis�urbed
environmentaY bu£,�ez that would protec� the 8��horrt
�nstitu�e's op.erations and the Pe�ninsular BigMorn Sheep
Erom the potent�al. nega�ive impacts oi the proposed
Altamira Gountry Club projevt.
i have tak�en t�e time to review the May 1991 Draft
Envi.ronmental. Impac� Regor� tDEZR) �ot the Al�amiza
d.evelopment. xhe bighorn sheep i�sues acldressed in the
�ioloqical Report praduce� by Pac�.f�.c Snutbw�s� �ioiogia�l
Services are very de�diled and s.nforma�ive, �he resporrseS
to the questionnr+ire were a]�so h�lp£u�. in eva7.uating bhe
o�in�ort$ of m� peers.
I bel,ieve �he b�.olog.ical consul�ants' recpmmended buffer of
600. yazds to 1,125 yards west fia east tDEIR TechniC�].
Append�ces Volu�e 1- Appsnc7ix J. Fiqvre 4I �hsauid be
approved by the Pa1m Desert City Coun�il.
SinceXely�
i � . � ��
�laine M.
Associa�e
H2o�.4C� 19 t
Barrett:
Director
A Nonpro/It
7wrExe+r+p: t7rgoramtion P.Q. BQX 262' / PALir4 D�SER7, CAi.IFpRNIA 9226i•0262 / TELEPHOiVE (619) �6•7334
FAX (b19) 344�3987
, !
!
_�L� � G -
- � 1' , , - ' - . . : • � � .
' j ' _ . . \' . . . - � � • -
June 21� 199].
Mr. Phil �7oy
Assoai.�te P].anne�
City of Palm nesert
73-510 F'red Ws=ing Dx�.ve
Pa�m Degert, CA 9ZZ60
Dedr Mr. Joy,
z am a� memDer af tbe �i.ghorn Advisary Cocr�ni�tee that mefi on
pec�anb�r 9, 1989 to helF d�cid� upon an undisturbed
�nvir�nmental buffer tbat wauld protect the �,ighv=n
ir�titute�.s apera�tion and the Peninsular Bighor� Sh�ep
�zom the pat��ntfal negative impacts of the proposer!
Altamira Countrx CZub pz�oject.
I have taken the txme to revi�w the May 1991 Dr�£t
Er�vironm@ntal impact Report � DEit� )�or the A].tamiz�a
d.evelopment. The bigi�orn shesp issue�s addr�s$ed �.n, the
��.a�.ogica� Report produced by Pec�.f�.G �au�.hwe�t Bialoc�:lca�
S�.tvices are vezy detailed and �.nformative, The responses
to the questionnax•re were a�so helpfuJ. iri eval�ati�ng the
opinibns oF my peers.
r be3.ieve the biolog3,ca1 consulta�nts' x�cw�an�nded buffer o�
600 yards to l�lZ5 yards Kest to eaat (UBIR Technica�
Appendices Volum� 1- App��dix 3, Figure 4j s�hvuld be
ap��coved� by tY�e Palm Deserti Citp Crauncil.
S incerel.y ,
��/�.� �
Miehael. Dee, Cura�tor a£ Mammals
cc: Bighorn ]Cnst�,tute
5333 ?Aa DNve • l.os Mgeles, C,�liFcxnia 9(X)27 � t213) 666•4G50 FAX (213? 6b2•97R6 ..;d w.
���
J ' � �
�
T .
8i�hor�n Inst�tute
Dedicated to the conseruction of the wortd's w11d sheep through resear�h and eduaation
HOtVbRARY CHAtRMA14
OF F{JNDRhiSiNG
Gera�ld R. Fad
3Ad� Protd�m
�����
g0A[LD OF PIRECtCYR$
liait A. Reb.ro'
P�..�dn+t
Eme3t Hahn'
E�.cw1u. vKc Arcnaent
Chariq W. Jtnnai� DV.M.'
Vip Fei16�N
DA+�v Stockton'
+na P�.ad.�r
�� �. cyros, o.v.�. •
��w
R�d►e�d �G. McCIw+A•
r2�w�r
pndy AustM
Wolfgan9 F. Bae�e'
WRgem aorn
Jetk Bnh+nghem
c��ce n. co��, �.fl.
Mkhaet �es
.►ono E. Ee,na,t
6ob fiows�d
J� Robees MeGowsn
Hroce MciVaU
Finr Motivr
S��n t• T�mm��
�E.eveutive eeune+l
ADM1NiSTRATlON
James R. DeForgt
eYx�Hue vma,a
RaemcA 9�obgfx
£iaine l�A. Ba+r�A
a.�°emr' ��
AWISORS
�� ��
G`Wlorrro S�o�s Se�aa
l�Nm�eL SI� Cornmq��e on
Noraw rtwoNe4 «�at wnd�v�
Oanatd C. Bvtts
liunr.•Cb�rpvdlanat
r� �. c+«% ava�.. rn.a, "
c� tk+aaw.r �++w�e ida�eav
FilqetN & Claeic
t.pd Covnwr
d�w n. r�, nv.M.
c.ry�•� o.o�► e� fw� aw c�
t�Sork c. ,►oer9enan+
Ae.a�Bomyo p�wrs Slaw Pdk
Glsncl R. Stewmt. PiLD.
Cq Fbp (MprMaMy, Pbnwne .
� Rsut ualda:. Ph.D,
Nnv Nsaw �It ihrtnM�Y
ldkfiaei Valartd�
u.dar w wYa 8n.en 5�d�e.
4i d(�am
A NonproJtt
Thz-Exempt prganisatton
June �2, 1991
Mr . Phi1 �7oy
Associate Flanner
City o� P,�lm Deser�
73-510 Fzed Waring Driv�
Palm Desezt, CA 92260
Dear Mr. �oy:
T am a member Qf �the Bi,ghorn Advisory Committee that met� on
Aecember 9, 1989 �o help decide upo� ar� ur�di�turbed
env�ronmental buffer that wvuYd protect tiae �igho�n
Ins�itu�e's aperations and the Peninsular BigY���n Sheep
from the patantia� ne�ative impacts of th� praposed
A].��mira C�untry CJ�Ub proje��.
x have taken the time to revfew the May 199�. Dra�t
Environmen�a}. Tmpact Report (t7EiR) �or the Al�amira
c3evelopment. The b�,ghorn sheep issues addr�es.sed in the
Biolaqical Repbr� produced by Pao�i��,c Southw�sE $iologica�
Setvices are �very dQtailed and intormative. 'Th� re�ponses
��o the questionnaire were also helpfn�l i.n evaluating the
opinions of my .peers.
I believe �he binloqic�i consul��nts' xecommendec� buf�er of
500 yar�s to 1,1�5 yards west to east tDEiR Tec3�nical
Ap�en.dice5 Vo].ume 1-- Append�x J, Fi.q�re gi should be
agproved by the Palm Desert eity Counc�I.
Sincerely,
� �
J8 s R. DeForge
Re arch �iolo�ist
Ex utiv� Dzs�ctor
A.O- BOX 262 / pALM i7ESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261-42b2 / T�i,EPH01�tE (619j 346�7334
� FA)i t619} 34Q-3987
. . . .. . _ . . - . . . � . � . . _ : i' . . � . � _ . � , . . - ` � � .
June 21, 1991
Mz. Phil Joy
Associete Planner
City of Palm Desert
73-S10 Fr�d Waring Drive
Pa�1m Deser�, CA 922bd
Dear Mr. Joy:
i am a membex of ths Bighorn Advisoxy Comm�.ttee tha� met on
December 9, 1989 to help decide upon an undisturbed
environmen�a�, bufFex tha� wa�uld protect the Bighorn
Institute's operativns and the Peninsu3.az Bi�ho�n She�p
`�xom the potential n�gativ�e is�pacts af the prapased
Al:tam3.ra Ct�untry Club project.
I have taken the time to r�eview the M�y �991 Dz��t
£nvironmental Imgaet Report �DEI�t) £or t�e'Altam�.ra
"development. The bi�h�orn sheep f.ssues add�es.se.d in the
Biolo,gical Repor� praduced by Paci£i� Saut�iwest B�ological
Services �re ver�r detail�d and �nformative. The responses
to the q.uestionnai.re were also helpful i.n eval,uatin� the
opini.ons of my .peers.
T believe the bioio�a.cal consulta�ts' xecommended huffer ot
600 yar�ds �0 1,125 yards west �o �ast tDEIR Techni,cal
Appendia�s Voluine 1- AppQndix J, Figure 4) should be
appYoved by the Palm Aese�x� Gity Council.
Ss.ncexely.
C� � 4 v,,�T
Charles W. Je er, D.V.M.
cc: Bi.ghorn ZnstiCute
70832 Lo5 Aiaml[p581vC, • Los Alamit05, CBfifemld 80720 • 213(598•8b21
. � � _ � _ . . - . . � . . . . . I . . , ' J . . , � , ..
June �l, r 199].
Mr. Phi�, Joy
�Associate Plannex
Gity�af Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waz istg or ive
Palm Desert, CA 92264
A�ear Mr. Joys
� am a m�mber oE the Sighorn Advisory Committee tbat meG on
December 9, 1989 to help dec�,de upon an undigturbed
environmen�.al bu�fer th.at woeaJ.d proteat tt�e �Big�hor�
�n�titate's. opera�ion� and �hs Peninsular Biqborn 6heep
from the potentt�l .neq��tive impac�s 4f the proposed
Al�amira Country C],ub project.
� have tiaken the time to rev�iew the May 19�91 Dxafk
�n.v�rOnmenti8l Impact Repor� tI?EzR) for the Rltamixa
.�ievelopmen�. �The bighorn sheep i�sue� addre$s�d in the
,�iol,�giCal Repo�rt produced by PaaiEic 8ou�liw�ra� �it�3.ogi��1
�Ser,'vices are very detailed and informat�ve. The ses�on8es
to the questiannaiz�e wer� als0 helpfuk in e�valuat�,ng th�
opinians oi my pe�rs.
z believe �he bi.ologiaal co�sultan�s' xecomm�ndec� bu�ter o�
600 yards to �,125 yard� w�st �o east tnEYR Teohnic�l
Appendices Volame 1.� Apgendix J, Figure 4) shoul� be
a�pr�v�d by the Fa�m Desert Ci��y Counci�.
Sincetely�
�' �����c .
M k Jorg n �
ac: Bighorn Ynati�ute
.�
June 21► 1991
Mx. Ph�l Joy
Associate P�anner
City Qi �alm Deser�
73-510 Fred Warinq Drive
Pa�m Desert, CA 922b0
flear Mr. Joy:
I am a member oi the B�.ghorn Advisa.ry Comm3.ttee that�met or
December 9, 1989 to Y�elp �ecide upon an undi��arbed
environmental butf�r that wou�.d p�otec� kY,e Bighorn
Ins�t�.tute's aperations and the� Penihsul�r 6i,ghorn St�e��
£rom �he po�entiial negative impact� o� the pxopossd
Al�amira C4untry Club project�
,I hav�e �aken �he �ime to rev�ew the May 1991 Draft
Erivironmental �mpaet Report �DE�XR3 for the Al�amira
�developmen�. The bighorn sheep issues �ddreese� in the
Bio],ogi�al �eport produced by Paci�ic Sauthwes� 8iological
��Seivices are very c3e�ailed and in�armat�ive. The res�aonse�
to the qu,e�tionnai,re were a].so helpiul in evalu�tittq the
ogin.ions' oF my peer�. .
Y be�.ieve the biologiCal Co�Bult�nt8' rQcommended buffer oE
600 yards to 1,12�5 ya,cds west to east tD�IR.Teoh�ical
Append�ces Volum� J� - Appendix 3, Figuxe �) ahould be
epproved�by ths P�].m Desert City Council.
Sincerely,
,•r
Raul. Valdez, Ph.D. �-''�
cc: �iqhorn znst��ute _
. . - " '_ . - ,, i �i�� . ! v
�a�.= . . -. :- _.�.�.,. .i�:�. .. _ .. _..
•,,
June 2�, ► 1991
Mr. Phil Jpy
Associ�te Flanner
Ci�y oE �alm ne5�rt
73�510 Fred Warinq �ziv�
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mr. Joy:
I�m a m�mber ot the �ighorn Advisory Commi�tea that m�C on
December 9�, �96� to help decide upon an nndisturbed
environmental baf�er that wo�ld pxot�ct the B�,ghorn
Inst.itute's operat.ion� and �he Peninsu�ar Bighorn She�g
Erom the pv�enti.a� n�gative impacts �af ths pragosed
Pcltami,ra Country Club projec�t..
I have taken the �ime to review tihe May 1991 D�;s�f�
Envi�,�onmen�.al T�pact Repoxt fA�IR) �t�t the A].tamir�
developmenti� The bl.ghorn sheep is5ues addres$ed i.n th�
$io�ogical Report produced by Pacific Soutbwe$t $io�logicaz
S�tv.ices are vexy da�ai].ed an.d in�armative. fihe responses
to �he questio.nr►air� were aiso help£ul in evaivati,ng the
opinlons of my peers.
x bel.�eve the biol.ogical cot�su].�anta' �ecomm�nded bu�Fer oF
600 yarde to 1,12� yarda west �a e�at (D�Itt T�chnicdl
�ppendi�e�� Volume 1� Appendix J, �i�gure 4) ahould be
aQprov�d by the Palm Desert Ci�y C�uncil.
Sincerely,.
/` `� �� / � /
.��- .G•��
ichard Weav�r
cc; Bighorn Insti�tu�e
. . � . . � . . • - . . � � � ! ' . � _ � V� 1 . . � ` ' -
'.i
June 2�► 1991
Mx. Ph#.1 Joy
Ass�Cidte Pianner
City ot Palm Desert
73�-53.0 Fred WaF�ng Drive
�a],m Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mx. Jay:
2 am a memb.�r of the Bighorn Advisory Committe� t}�at me� on
Decsmbe�:r 9, 198Q �.o help decide upon�an undia�urbed
env�tonmer►ta�, �uffeL tt��t would proteat �he.8fghortt
Institu��'� operation$ and the Pe�insular �ighatn sh�ee�
�rom th�e potential hegative impa�ts o£ Che pzppose�
Altamira Country Club project.
X hav� taken the �ime �.o review th� May 1391 Dra��
Envi�onmen�al z�mpact Report lDEIR? �ar the Ait�mira
developinent. mhe bighorrr sh�ep issues addr�ssed �.n the
B�olo�ical Report produced by Pacifi� �outhwest 8iologS.aa1
8ervices are vety det�►iled and in�ormative. The �espon$es
to the questionnaire w�ere �1so help�cal in evalu�ting the
Qp�n;lons of my peers.
i be�.ieve the. biological e�nsu2tants' reoommertdvd buf�er ��
600 yards �0 1,�.25 yards wes� to east (DEZR xeGhn:lcal.
Appendic�s Volume 1- Appendix J, Figure 4) shauld be
ap�roved by the Falm Deaext Ci.tx C.ouncil.
Sincerely,
�
-� ��z /r
George Wels�h
cc: Sighorn Ins�itute
. . _ �l'I.
''` • . ,. . . _ 1iVl �- ...
� _,� _ •� � - = s _;l ,
_ �i
�� - _ �- � ,.�'� 'y. --
- : � : � _ v .�. 1'- � •' �' .����'
; � �_y" ,
� � , , _ _ _,
_, _.., . � ' .r:� �,; � �_ r�v.►� • .�#�
• �y��_ � �,� .K , � � � . � 1;��,�_^
.� �i :�
��_
:� ,
��
Fe�berway 1, �oal
Q�-0zi
CO�L:' Pete Sqce�tso�, �en COi+ey. 5txdt M,cCart�► Or 7ame �� Carls�d. �- 760/431-94W
. � �.7 . z �E � ` � t + ' -� � 1 �« : i_i � 7 c� � � �`.
__`•� ,L�_i ; :'� � � s _ �.
� ; 'I^a�l�).'d4 `�:1J�11
Re�oac�g to i cou�t aa�deS ��I.S. lzish apd W�di� Servic� toda! de�ed 8et�89T acres af
1a� in pp�rdcl�s a�San D3�q Im�aiat� �od R�v�ide c�ier� C�a as ui�ral hebit�t fi�t�e
����•
� than bl�lf o�t�e �ea dapgs�bd as tritioei beb�i�s is w�der �e je� aud "$�o�des
poctioas afd�o Ana�Sarre�o D�t S�ca�ar�C. �ch oith�rac ofth� laod is �d b�' Fedesal a�es.
ioo�'mg t�a Bwe�u ad"�.amd Ma�an�ot aad s�e U 5. Fo�+e�t $s�vic� or is m�ed by uiod �-
Ap� � ��:� �� � �t.13 I3D,Q40 sts�s af prevffi,e ledd is mc3itded in t�G �d c�idc� �itat d�on.
'�.'be Savioe d�ed �ly t�a la�ods ��+e e�vtwl to �e spec�es' ocn�oq 6as�ed o� tb�
be� ��e�e �u�otly s��bie," :�d �c�d l. rS�a. ', she Se�Yla.�a G�I�o�nialN�.:3iia Q, � a�o�
M� "'0� go�l ia to gat the P� bi�n �p off�a r�d �o eoodau�tion an� as�to d�e so�d to
�
• rYr� � �.rj.
Crni�l �oi�rt i� io► spep5c ��s t�act ar� �d �c t�e co�erv�tio� afa
�d aa� d�d�d spec�ies and maY � ap�q�1 � Was�deretioa�a. '�e �s da nat
necas�c�y La�re to b� oo�ed by the � at tbe tim� oaf � A criticel b� d�io�n does
not �et up a Pn�a'v� a' ��d �Y ��o �io�io� a►}�e F�e�al fim+d�g ar a Feder�i p�it is
�votved. It hes no �+e�daipry � o� ��inrat� � ta�ag saio� o� �ir �d t!� do �t invoiv�e
�rat � orpamits. •
ta tl�e �ml de�On, the �Stsvice �ms ra�rtd ��ely 3Q,700 aa� af �d inc.�ded 'm t6e
A'�P� a� ���u P� � 1� yuuat: Some ien�s c�i�y p�vpo�d �e a�
�om� tbe fiael �on b� tho Strvioe aas eWe �a � pt+eci�► t� �as t�t cb�a�c►.�
. a.rioww.+vws�tr�w •—
1 pf3 F�X TRANSYITTAL I,w�.
�..�' �'�'_
�
'�.
,�, o �i�� �
�� �.�.�,
�. �1e,�+�,, �
"••�•1(oo��t3t �`�4K0
�.
��..,�..��
;��
Q
ag r� • �
� � ''� � :�
� �,� �� `' � � -
�� ��� � �� ��
� � � � �
� �� �� �� � ��
* � � � �� '
� r� �
� �► a -� � � �
� �•�• ,� �` � � �� � .
�� � �. � .
, . � ..�
� � � �� � � � � . � �
, ���� . � � ��� �.
�. � � � � ���
$ s.,. � � � � ' . � � � .� � � � � � .
� � � � �.
� .� � � �. � "� $� '� .� . . �
�.• � � � � � � , i� � � . �
�. � � � � �
:� �. � �� ��
.� �a . _� �
� .� � � � . ,,.
� �� �:� � � d �
�-� -�. � � .� � � N
����� . � � � � � .
, ,� ,� � � � � � � � � .
�� � r �
�. �- � �� �� � ��� �� . � �
�{ . � � � �, � � .�
. �.- . '`#� � $ � u � � �' �• �� �
. ��� � � � �; � .� .. � • �
, ,.. � .�, . � � �� •
. �� �� � �.. - �� � � . �
� � .
. , y � � � � � . � � � � � � .
� 1 � � � � • � � �� ` � � ♦
._ . � � � g � �
�. � ��� �� � � � � � �
� �� ���� � �. � ��
���^ �� �, e��� �� �� � ..�
�, � � � �, � g� � , �. •�= �
` �r �' "" .'� . � �� �+ � . •g � ' '� '� �
. �
�'�;p� �• '' � � � � � ��� �
�, a ... � , � ;� � � � ,•• � �
nd' . .S�!
� � � � ' �. � -� � � � � �
� � .� � � �
� � . �� .� �
� � � � � � �`
� �� � ��. � ;�.
. a� '° .�-� � � .� � ps � ee
� � �� �. ��
.�� .��� � �. � ��� �
:�,� �� � � �� � � :�
, . g � . �� � � � � :�� � �, �
. � � �- � . �. �����
. �- � ^'� � .��'
_ � ,a. � � � . � � �
, � � � .� � � . �
�-. � . � . .� ��� �/�.�{ �
. .1 � � � � � � M�� .^
� � ` ��
e� • � ~
� �
t �
r ��
s•
n
y_ � . _ . . . . . _ . , . , �
.�
�C SElViGC 1s wOS�C'lffg V� �O�q' �OdA�, $t�tC i� IOC81 A�tL�eS 85 Wp.�I eS �AV�C �IV1�8 t0
develop th� C.w►rh�bt VaU,ey Mulqpb sPeciss Habitat Coo.�.. ���; ., �. Pua. Tlsiis Plaa a►�! pffavick for tl+o
co�vatian troeds af a varieAq af oesive speeien. ��g tba Pctiaeular bi�r� s�,,
Taday's �a� i� the reLvlt q� a�arovsuit 51ed ag�esc t� �v�e ia 1999 �y tbe Ce�er f�
�°� �tY a�d Desect 5�urvivot�, Vioda s�, of ti�t ?aarsw� t8e Se�vioe �ec$ t� de�
t�itical hab�t�t foc tbe Pmias�a�t 1�gboru s4�xP bY D�e�nber 31, 2�00. 7� oourt epprovad a�rt e�me�tsit�
csf dae ori,�mi deadtin�o �i�•;,�g the Sa�viae tm�7 Jan�uery 15. 2001 w o�tplet� its fmal data��.
'Tbe co�e tCxt of the 5sa1 mk to des�Oed� �ritical �ab�at &�r ti�e i'e�oaailar �righo� � d�aa
PaA�on s�art wt�t b� p�ished 'm �e FGderal Reg/str� aa F'ebrvary 1, 200I. Tha ruk wID beoo�e
a�%ctive on.Merh 5, ?ADI.
1"5e E1.S 1'Sslt �d OYNdti6� Bo�e i� tLe p�i�cipvt l�o�eed �na! *+apom�bya ioR oo�,�a�, , �, ' aod e�
f�1L�aadyl>pfaadihesrliabilAtsf�rtbe ' ' "•"��`, �
2�om�d�Rd�s�egy,�,a�,���moretb���S3G�n�oio�al�w�"�� ������-�oaaa�e
�at��! n�m � g�emaot �. ��o ogan006 661u�ioe�el Fuh _ �'• �oaromdcc�'s� �aad at�
amio�c TJka� e�Fb�w�tt�re �' 64 �► eoeoa:ae �s �od 7i eroto� �ic��dd
��S ��Sadsng�pad SPeGiea AcS, mts�oy aa�piy�d P�b�o�s.
re�ora��ioe�tly�Sa��,00nee�v�siad��I�a�utwr.h�swed.�,, smd1��, ��
�� dEbata.lt alsoove� tbeT�sda�d a►id� c�at ��af�af dotlasnacxp�et�son
�i� �g �t� s�e I�sadt.�ire y�ciar,
Y��
r�i.✓••%��. ..ti I�� . .
_s.YiKiii►'�(�.:1::�. .. �:�:`•T:
. . • • •-"r.•. ' ,. .. �.
7:7.'i� 'i. :it,ij..�.a,..�•. �.r.., .....��;. .,. ,.
�t. '. �p� p•�.y...i....:', ♦' ...��.�.�.w�..�.�.� �::2:•..� : i:" �'i ....
^!s*r'+���"��T.�,wY�i��'�CY�['Lrs�� ': � j :. :`w .
v ... . .1 .'.� ;.T . �.. :
S•• .,���`-:
'�R+ift�'�?�`,�q�iE D�.f��%��� A�. � : •:. • : ; :
�...''. . ...�. �.• � . �i.... ... �: � � :"`r E. :1`^' Y. .-..
3 o�f'3
�ATEq
��srRic�
� ,J
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
. ., . � � 20�6
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI�'�'��pALMDESERT�TMEN!
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (760) 398-2651 • FAX (760) 398-3711
01 RECTO R S: QFFICERS:
PETER NELSON, PRESIDENT STF/EN 8. ROBBINS,
PATRICIA A.LARSON, VICE PRESIDENT GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
TELLIS CODEKAS MARK BEUNLER,
JOHN W. McFADDEN ASST. GENERAL MANAGER
RUSSELL KITAHARA January 24�'ZOOE) DANI PARKS, ASS�TO GEN TERAL MANAGER
REbWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS
File: 1150.06
Phillip Drell
Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mr. Drell:
Subject: Cornishe of Bi�horn Proiect. Palm Desert
Thank you for affording the District the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the Cornishe of Bighora Project in Palm Desert.
After reviewing the document, the District would like to submit the following comments:
1. Pa�e 173, second para�ranh. The second to the last sentence of the paragraph should
be cited with the following reference: "100 % Design Hydraulics Report, The Canyons
at Bighorn, Tract Nos. 25296 and 28575, Dead Indian Creek Channel Improvements,
Pa1m Desert, California, prepared by ASL Consulting Engineers, November 1997."
2.
�
�Pa�e 288, Tceferences. The reference in Item No. 1 above should also be added in the
References section on Page 288.
Pa�e 176, second narasrauh. Please add "Coachella Valley Water District" to the
agencies listed in the third sentence.
If you have any questions, please call Luke Stowe, Environmental Specialst, extension 2545.
o very ,
�
Mark L. Jo�►nson
Director of.Engineering
LS:ddlb�+d�eac\06�comish of bighom TqUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
~L
�E�EI�1'E�
��B 0 2 2006
Fax n�EssAGE
COMMIINITY DEV�LOPMENI' DLPA1tTt��N'C
CI1`Y OF PALDi DE$EA'C
TO:
Mr. Philip Drell FROM:
Dir.Comm.Development
Doreen Yaeger
Richard Yaeger
City of Pafm Desert
Fax No: 341-7098 Fax No: 1-760-360-2257
Tel No: Tel No: 1-7G0-345-2254
Date: 30 January, 2006 No. of pages :
Mr. Drell -
We are full time residents of Palm Desert, and support all efforts
to preserve the continued existence of Bighorn sheep in the
area. We would hope that the Palm Desert City Council also
support these efforts.
We were therefore surprised to learn about the Cornishe project.
The Bighorn institute facilities are well known, and anyone
purchasing property in that area must have been aware of the
restrictions imposed to enable the Institute to continue its fine
work. Of course, this may not have deterred aggressive
developers.
This project abuts the lambing pen of the Blghorn Institute - a
highly sensitive area - and in your Report you admit to
"Significant Environental Effects" during construction and
beyond. You mentioned proposed mltigation measures - but you
did not disclose what they might be.
Mitigation measures or not, we are completely opposed to the
building of such a project in this highly sensftive area. I would
hope that tlme will be given for residents in the Valley to become
aware of what is happening and potential danger to the Bighorn.
Respectfully,
���� � ����
� r
� j �`�. ., � � -
Note:
Hard copy via US mail -
Doreen & R�tard Yaeger
g52 Miss�or� Creetc Drnre
Pa4m Desert, Califomia 92211
,�
e�/ Gl� �!>1���/C�('�'�1112��CzJl-
I'. �3. I3ux y.i3-�
6.i-�? Ccrlie D��1..11c��t�t�r'
Rc��7chc� .ticr���cr I�E�. C'cr. 9'1/,(>-
��ICI)?L' i�?�i .%� 1 �(i-f
.Fc�?: �'i'j,> -.; (i �11 J (1
CC'I1,�.5�� - "j 1 '(1-t
1'.-i.IkD<I:.cc�c�c,a-. r�t r
............:...................................................
January 27, 2006
Mr. Philip Drell
City of'Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Y�aring Dr.
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260-2578
Dear Mr. Dredl: Re: Cornishe of Bighorn Project
1�,ECEIV3ED
F�B 0 2 2�6
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
We are in receipt of your le�ter of December 14, 2005 and we are appalled
that the City of Palm Desert would consider an application for a building
permit at the referenced location.
The area is extremely environmentally sensitive — particularly to the
Bighorn Sheep. The im�aci is far greater then the 1 i-8 acres "Island ".
We feel that NO permits should be allowed.
Not knowing the complete history of'this land parcel it appears some
major mistakes were made in the pasi but iwo mistakes do not make a
right. Thank you.
Si ly,
�
Patricia and
cc. Charles
s
7
THE WHITEHEADS
38-661 Lobelia Circle
Palm Desert, CA. 92211
760L799-6415
City of Palm Desert, Communily Development Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Attention:
Subject:
Mr. Philip Drell,
Director of Community Development
CORIYISHE OFBIGHORNPROJECT, #2004091012
Dear Mr. DreQ:
I�,ECEIVEI�
FE� � 2 2006
COMMUNITY DEVEIAPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESEBT
We have owned a condo in Palm i�alley Country Cluh for over 17 years We recently became
aware of the subject project and are very concerned This property is adjacent to the Bighorn
Institute's property and its lambing pen.
It is our understanding that there should be a minimum environmental cushion or barrier of at
least 400 feet belween developments and these endangered newLorn lamh� A sign�ant
portion of the property rnvolved in this project is within this minimum bujj`'er zone that is so
necessary to protect these newborn lamb�
According to the Draft Environniental Impact Repor� the "undeveloped o,pen space" would be
along the western, eastern and northern periineters, leaving NO buffer on the south where it is
most needed
If this project is approved and 38 unrts are constructe� there could be over 70 persons (2 per
unit) residing there during the peak season. The continual closeness ojhuman beings and the
additional noise will cause stress on these newbarn lambs and their mothers who already have a
high mortality rat�
Those persons working for the Bighorn Institute are dedicated to by and save these lambs and
have been for over 20 years. The conshuction of this project would undermine what they are
hying to accomplish.
We sincerely request that the aforementioned issr�es be considered and that this project, as
submitte� be rejected
Thank you,
� , ,o, j �� .. -
�� /n���w= ,
�`rank D. N'hitehead Iielen R'hitehead
: �
�`� �?i\\
/�i��,;,
��`��
r ,<.: �7'�i
` �,;J;�.
Q
\�:I. �t� �'
\4� ��
amo�a
Schwazzenegger
Qavernor
STA'iE OF CALlFORNlA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
January 31, zoo6
Philip Drell •
City of Palm Desert, Community Development
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Subject: Cornishe of Bighom
SCH#: 2004091012
Dear Philip Drell:
��CEIVED
�'�� 0 s� 20Q�
���MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM&NT
�jT`7' �F PALM DESERT
o����'
� *`���o
� � �
�p
•��OfG1�
s�, waisn •
n��foT
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Dtaft EIR to selected state agencies for review. The
review period closed on January 34, 2006, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This
letter actaiowledges that yon have coaiplied with the State Clearinghouse review rec}uirements for draft
environmental docutnents, pursuant to the California Enviionmental Quality Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
ettviionmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the
ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
Sincereiy,
�"�. � 'Fi��'°•------
Terry Rob
Director, State Clearinghouse
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3Q44 SACRE,MENTO, CALIFORNiA 96812-9044
TEL (918} 446-0618 RAR (916) 823-3018 www.apr.ca.gov
Document Detaiis Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
V
7
scH# zooau��o�z
Pr%ct T►t/e Cornishe of 8ighom
Lead Agency Pafm Desert, City of
Type EIR Draft EIR
DescripUon The project applicant proposes a 38-unit residential subdivision wtth associated improvements and
amenities on approximately 11.87 acres of vacant land. The subdivision of the land would comprise 11
lots, consisting of five lots for 38 residential townhouse units, fwo lots for private streets, one lot for
aocess easements, and three fots for open space, as represented in the Tentative Tract Map 31676
Applicatlon fllings with the City of Palm Desert. Tha townhouse units would be developed as seven
cfusters of residential devetopment with centrally located recreation areas, including a park and pooi.
Parking to serve the proposed residences would also be provided.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Philip Drell
Agency City of Palm Desert, Community Development
Phone (760) 346-0611
emall
Address 73-510 Fred Waring Drtve
Clty Palm Desert
Project Location
County Riverside
Clty Palm Desert
Reglon
Cross Streets West from Indian Cove
Parce/ No. 771-030-008
TownshJp 6S Ran�e 6E
Proximity to:
Hfghways
Alrports
Ra1/ways
Waierways
Schools
Land Use
74
PR-5 and Hillside Planned Residential
Fax
State CA
Sectlon 5
Lp 92260-2578
Base SB
Project lssues AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Cumulative Effects; Drainage/Absorption; Flood
Plain/Flooding; Landuse; Noise; TrafficlCirculation; Vegeta�on; Water Quality; WeUand/Riparian;
Wildlife
Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quallty Control Board, Region 7; Department of Parics and
ABencJes Recreation; Native American He�itage Commission; Department of Health Services; Department of
Fish and Game, Regbn 6; Department of Water Resources; Deparlment of Conservatlon; Califomia
Highway Patrol; Caitrans, Distrid 8
Date Recelved 12/16/2005 Start ofRev/ew 12/t6/2005 End ofRevlew 01/30/2006
Note: Blanks in data flelds result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
�
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
�ECEI�TED
JAN 2 6 2�6
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENI' DBPARTMPNT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
ASSOCIATION Of
GOVERNMENTS
Main Office
8i8 West Seventh Street
January 23, 2006
Mr. Philip Drell, Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert, Community Development Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. I 20050825 Cornishe of Bighorn Project
Dear Mr. Drell:
12tn �°°` Thank you for submitting the Cornishe of Bighorn Project for review and
Los Angeles, California �mment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG
9o017-3435 reviews the consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional
plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning
t(�i3) z36-i800 organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regutations. Guidance
f(zi3) z36-i8z5 provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project
sponsors to take actions thai contribute to the attainment of regional goafs and
www.scag.ca.gov policies.
Officers: Preside�l: Tonl Your�g, Part Nueneme •
iast Vlce Presldent: Yvonne Burke, Los M3eles
Cd�My • Secand UKe PresidenF. Gary Ovitt, San
Bemardina Caurtty • Immediate Past PresldenC
Ron Roberts, Temewla
lmperlal Camty: Vlctor Cartillo. Imperial County
•►on Edney, EI Centro
las Angeles Caunry: Yvonne Burke, Los Angeles
Cnunty • 2ev YarosWvsky, los Mgeles Counry •
)im Nd'mger, Manhattan Beach • Harry Baldwin,
San Gabriel • Paul Bowlen, Cerritos • iodd
Campbell, Burbank • TorryCarde�as, Los Angeles
• Stan Cartd4 La Habra Heighis • MargarH Clark.
Itnsemead • Geae Daniels, Paramount • Mike
Dkpenza, Palmdale • ludy Ounlap, Inglewood •
R�e Gabelich, long Beach • David Gafin, Downey
• Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles • Wendy Greuel, los
Maeles • Frank Gurule. Cudatry • Ianice Hahn,
Ins Mgeles • Isadore Hall, Compton • Ketth W.
Hanlcs, Azusa • los� Huizar, los Mgeles • Tom
LaBange, Los Mgeles • Paula Lanh, Pomona •
Paul Nawatka. Tarrance • Pam 0'Cannor, Santa
Monica • Alex PadIIW, los Mgeles • Bemard
Paks. los Angeles • lan Perry. Los Mgeles • Ed
Reyes, Los Angeles � BIII Rosendahl, lns A�eies
• Greig Smith, los Mgeles • Tom Sykes. Walnut •
PaulTalbot, Alhamb2 • SidneyTyler, Pasadena •
Tonla Reyes Uranga, long Beach • Antonlo
lfiqara'igosa. Los Angeles • Dennh Washbum,
Glabasas • lack Weiss, Los Angeles • Herb I.
Mlesson, Ir., los A�eles • Dennis Zne, Los
Mgeles
Oqnde Cou�ty: CMis Narby, Orange Counry •
Chr(stfne Bames, W Patma • lohn Beauman,
Brea • lau Bone, Tustin • Art Brown. Buena Park
• Richard Chavez. Anahelm • Debbie Cook,
Huntingtan Beach • CaMryn DeYoung, laguna
Niguel • Rirhard Dlxon, lake Forest • Marllynr.
Poe, Los Alamitos • Tod Rldgeway. Newpart
Beach
RI�aslde County: left Stane, Riverside County •
Thomas Buckley, Lake Elsinore • Bonnie
Flickinger, Moreno Valley • Ron loveridge,
Wverzide • Greg Pettis, Cathedral City • Ron
Roberts, TemecuW
San Betnardlno County: Ga�y Ovltt, San
Bemardino County • tawrence Dale, Barstow •
Paul Earon, Nbntclair • Lee Mn Garda, Grand
Terrace • Tun lasper, Town of Apple Valley • Larry
h6cCallon, Highland • Deharah Rabertsan, Rialto
• Alan Wapner, Ontaria
Yentuta fauMy: ludy Mikels, Yentu2 Counry •
Gkn Becerra. Simi Yalley • Carl MoreAouse. San
Buenaventu�a • Toni Yau�, PoR Hueneme
Opnge [ouaty Tnnsportatbn Authoiily: La
Cnrtea, Cwnry of Orange
Abers(de Camly Tn�p�orhdo� Commission:
IOobin lowe, Nemet
Veehra County tnnsportatlon Commfssion:
Keith Millhause, Moorpark
� Rinfed on Neqd�d Pape: 557�=1�8la
Vl/e have reviewed the Cornishe of Bighorn Project, and have determined that
the proposed Project is . not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovernmental
Review (IGR) Griteria. , and California Environmental Quality Act (�EQA)
Guidelines (Section 15206}. Therefa-e, the proposed Project does not warrant
comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed
Project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time.
A descriptian of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's December 16�31,
2005 2006 Intergovemmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and
comment.
The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all
correspondence with SCAG conceming this Project. �orrespondence should be
sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions,
please contact me at (213} 236-1851. Thank you.
Sincerely,
� / /
BRIAN WALLACE
Associate Regional,Planner
Intergovernmental Review.
Doc f#1 17553/lj
��
.a
City of Palm Desert
February 1, 2006
Page 2
Inappropriate Analysis.
Page 272 of the EIR states reasons why the Project is being proposed notwithstanding significant
unavoidable impacts. The section quotes CEQA Guideline § 15126 (b), which requires that the
significant unavoidable impacts be identified. Nothing in that section required that the EIR
identify why the Project is being proposed despite its impacts. CEQA requires the Agency to
disclose, at the time of project approval, why it is approving a project despite its significant,
unavoidable impacts. This analysis at this time is premature, given the missing analysis of
altematives and mitigation explained above
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. Please add the Sierra Club to your
mailing list to receive copies of the Fina1 EIR, once it has been prepared.
Very truly yours,
WORDEN WILLIAMS, APC
G� - ��
�����
D. Wayne Brechtel
dwb@wordenwilliams.com
DWB:Ig
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: February 21, 2006
CASE NOS: GPA 6-1, CZ 6-1, TT 31676
REQUEST: Approval of a tentative tract map and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
to allow the subdivision of 11.87 acres into 7 lots to allow construction of
4 single family homes adjacent to the "Canyons at Bighorn Golf Club",
west of Indian Cove and south of Dead Indian Creek; and a request by
the City of Palm Desert on same property for a general plan amendment
from Low Density Residential (Study Zone) to Hillside Reserve and zone
change from a combination of Planned Residential, 5 units per acre and
Hillside Planned Residential, to Hillside Planned Residential on the
entire property:
APPLICANT: Comishe of Bighorn, LLC
P. O. Box 789
Ceres, CA 95307
I. BACKGROUND:
A. Site Description
City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
The 11.87-acre triangular shaped property is located between 'The Canyons at
N Bighorn" and 'The Bighorn Institute" and is characterized by a sloping plateau,
U- �,; from north to south, of roughly 5 acres in the center of the property.
0 o >_ Approximately 2 acres of the site is comprised of the slopes of a rock outcropping
at the western property comer. The balance of the site is comprised of the
c� slopes and creek bottom of Dead Indian Creek along the northern property
boundary and a tributary along the eastern property line.
-- U-
The plateau is generally 25' above Dead Indian Creek, which varies in elevation
U r` from 827' at the western boundary to 725' at the eastern end. The rock
outcropping reaches an elevation 929', the highest point on the property. The
average slope of the property is generally between 20% and 25%. Generally any
property over 10% is zoned hillside planned residential if it is adjacent to the
foothills.
B. PROPERTY HISTORY
The site is almost completely surrounded by a 400 yard no development buffer
that was placed on the Canyons project for lambing pens at the Bighorn Institute
for captive, federally listed and endangered Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, but
STAFF REPORT
TT 31676
February 21, 2006
deliberately left off the subject property since it was not. part of that project. A
chronology of The Canyons (formerly Altamira) is as follows:
1) Altamira project is submitted and eventually approved with an EIR that
incorporates a 400 to 600 yard buffer. Approximately the same time the
Bighorn Institute receives approval for a zone change and conditional use
permit from Riverside County of their captive sheep facilities finding that the
use is compatible with adjacent planned uses and city zoning of PR-5.
2) A lawsuit is filed by the County and Bighorn Institute challenging the Altamira
approval and a settlement agreement is reached with the Institute resulting in
an addendum to the Altamira eir removing the buffer and providing for
relocation of the pens.
3) The California Department of Fish and Game determines the Institute did not
have authority to enter into the agreement and the present configuration of
the pens is the only place the pens could be located resulting in a second
addendum for the project now referred to as The Canyons putting the 400
yard back on the project.
4) Subject application is made initially for 57 units and staff determines an EIR is
required.
The only portion of the property outside of this 400-yard line, if it would extend
across the property, is an approximate 10,000 sq. ft. area entirely within Dead
Indian Creek at the extreme northeast comer. The lambing pen is approximately
200 yards from the property's southerly property line at the center of the site.
C. ADJACENT ZONING / LAND USE:
North: PR-5 / Buffer Area
South N-A, county zoning / Sheep pens and undeveloped area
East: Hillside Planned Residential / Buffer area and single family homes
West: PR-5 / Buffer Area
D. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Study Zone Overlay / Low Density Residential ( Study zone was placed on the
property to analyze if it should be re -designated Hillside Reserve based on the
average slope).
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 4-unit map under consideration is revised from the initial application for 57 two-story
town homes, which was later reduced to 38 after the applicant was informed by staff that
a portion of the site was zoned hillside, and the maximum density by the current zoning
was 38 units. While the number of units (38 to 4) and height of buildings (2 stories to 1),
have been reduced, the amount of area to be developed (roughly 5 acres) remains the
same.
2
STAFF REPORT
TT 31676
February 21, 2006
Access to the 4 lots is from an easement between lots 11 and 12 on Indian Cove Dr. in
The Canyons from a 400 foot long cul-de-sac along the northern part of the plateau with
the lots facing away from the Bighorn Institute, as was stipulated in the eir.
No house plans have been submitted as of yet with the applicants intent being to create
4 lots comparable to those that are adjacent within Bighorn, with house plans to be
developed separately.
III. EIR SUMMARY
An environmental impact report was required for this project due to the probability of
impacts to The Bighorn Institute. The Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that the
Institute's work is critical to the recovery of the sheep and impacts to the captive
sheep are an impact to the species. The city can only approve a project that does not
significantly impact the environment unless it adopts a statement of overriding
considerations. This was done for The Canyons, even though impacts in the EIR
were reduced to below the level of significance, in an extreme amount of caution.
The draft EIR studied the 38-unit project as submitted, an 8-unit alternative and a 2-
unit alternative. The 2-unit alternative was the only alternative that could be
developed, according to the report, with no significant impacts after implementation of
mitigation measures (primarily a restricted grading area of roughly two acres, including
one acre of the plateau and innovative home design).
The current 4-unit application is judged to have no more impacts than the 8-unit
alternative, both of which developed the entire 5-acre plateau but would result in
significant environmental impacts after mitigation due to the potential for induced
stress and habituation of the Iambs to human activity. These impacts are both visual
and aural in nature and would occur during site preparation, the construction of the
homes and with their ongoing use. A critical mitigation measure is the halt to
construction activity during lambing season, which extends from January through
June.
EIR CONCERNS
A mitigation measure for the 2-unit alternative is a 35' high screen installed during
construction. Staff feels this would not be feasible and would create more impacts
than it would mitigate during its construction due to the construction necessary to
withstand anticipated wind loads.
A clarification is on page 261 showing a the developable area for the 2-unit project
within Dead Indian Creek and staff will work with the consultants to work out this issue.
Reaulatory Takings
With respect to inverse condemnation, the federal and state Constitutions provide that
private property not be taken for public use without the payment of just compensation.
Courts have held that a regulatory action which denies a property owner all
economically viable use of the property constitutes a compensable "regulatory
3
STAFF REPORT
TT 31676
February 21, 2006
taking". The exact standard has varied over time, and from court to court. Generally
speaking, the property owner is not guaranteed the most profitable use of the
property, as long as the property owner retains some economically viable use of the
property, no "regulatory taking". The applicant has submitted information in
conformance with our "regulatory takings" ordinance and the city attorney has
requested additional time to study this issue.
When the buffer was imposed on The Canyons it removed approximately 15% of the
land from the development. In this case the buffer would consume roughly 98% of the
property and 100% of the usable property.
The comments from the Institute and the various wildlife agencies primarily requested
the imposition of the 400 yard buffer on the project, which stated above, only leaves
the 10,000 sq. ft. area (which may also be potential tortoise habitat identified in the
Canyons EIR) that could be developed. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service
was the only agency that said a minor deviation could be made to the buffer.
IV. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
The City of Palm Desert is the applicant for the general plan amendment from Low
Density Residential to Hillside Reserve and zone change from the combination HPR and
PR-5 to HPR on the entire property. The general plan amendment was not part of the
latest general plan revision on request of the property owner and a "study zone" was
placed on the property until it could be determined whether the property had hillside
characteristics that would make a "Hillside Reserve" designation appropriate.
The applicant has submitted a slope analysis that shows an average slope in the 20-
25% range that makes the Hillside Reserve land use and HPR zoning designations
appropriate.
The Hillside Reserve designation limits development to 1-unit per 5 acres allowing only
2-units on the property making it impossible to approve the 4-units unless the Low
Density Residential designation remained on the property.
V. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The city hillside ordinance's major standards at this point of a project relate to density
and building pad areas. The ordinance dictates one unit per 5 acres while the maximum
allowable pad areas are 10,000 sq. ft. The recently adopted ordinance created an
exceptions section so that exceptions to the ordinance could be reviewed individually.
Notwithstanding impacts to the Bighorn Institute, the project is comparable with the
adjacent home sites at "The Canyons" and, together with the plateau condition, could be
eligible for the "Exception" section of the hillside ordinance relating to density and pad
area. The average slope of the property is skewed somewhat by the over 35% slopes
surrounding the plateau area which is in the 10-15% range, similar to The Canyons.
This minimizes grading by leaving the steeper portions of the property undeveloped.
4
STAFF REPORT
TT 31676
February 21, 2006
VI. CONCLUSION
CEQA dictates that cities not approve a project that, even after implementation of
mitigation measures, still has significant impacts on the environment. In this case the
only project that meets this description is the 2-unit alternative that generally
comprises the area of Lot 1 of the proposed map (roughly one acre of the plateau)
with the understanding that 1-unit in the same area would have equal or less impacts.
Staff however needs more time to work on this 2-unit alternative, to work with the city
attorney to resolve the regulatory takings aspect, and to allow the consultant more
time for a response to comments.
The findings in the EIR would be adopted by the commission/council unless it is
swayed by other expert opinions during the hearing process.
VII RECOMMENDATION:
Accept public testimony and continue matter to the meeting of March 2, 2006.
VIII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Legal notice
B Draft Environmental Impact Report
C. EIR comments
C. Tentative Tract Map 31676
Prepared by: A:�� 4�
Phil Joy '
Associate Tram
Reviewed and Approved by:
Philic
Reviewed and Approved by: _
Homer
Assista
Planner
of Co►Wnunity Development
Manager for Development Services
5