HomeMy Public PortalAboutAppendixE_MuleDeerReports&References.pdf........................................................................................................................
A PPENDIX E
M ULE D EER R EPORTS AND
R EFERENCES
Prepared For:
Canyon Springs Joint Venture
Prepared By:
Heal Environmental Consulting
CEQA Significance of Mule Deer at the Canyon Springs
Site, Truckee California
July 28, 2011
July 2011 1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Regional Setting .............................................................................................................................. 1-2
1.3 Local Setting .................................................................................................................................... 1-2
Chapter 2: Methodology ........................................................................................................... 2-6
Chapter 3: Results ..................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Regulatory Background ................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1.1 CEQA Standards of Significance ....................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan ................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Wildlife Movement Corridors ...................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Remote Sensing .............................................................................................................................. 3-3
3.3.1 Photographs and Observations ......................................................................................... 3-3
3.3.2 Interpretation of Results ..................................................................................................... 3-8
3.4 California Department of Fish and Game Data ......................................................................... 3-8
3.4.1 Preliminary Satellite Data .................................................................................................. 3-8
3.4.2 Population and Hunting Data ........................................................................................... 3-8
Chapter 4: Impact Analysis and Discussion .......................................................................... 4-10
4.1 Mule Deer Status .......................................................................................................................... 4-10
4.2 Mule Deer Use at Canyon Springs ............................................................................................. 4-10
4.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 4-10
4.3.1 California Environmental Quality Act ........................................................................... 4-11
4.3.2 Town of Truckee General Plan ........................................................................................ 4-11
4.4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................... 4-12
4.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 4-13
4.6 References ...................................................................................................................................... 4-15
Appendix A Photographs........................................................................................................ 4-17
Appendix B 2004 Tahoe Boca EIR Biological Resources Section ....................................... 4-20
Appendix C 2008 Foothill Associates Report ........................................................................ 4-21
Appendix D 2009 RMT, Inc. Report ........................................................................................ 4-22
Appendix E Preliminary Data from CDF & G and NDOW Deer Studies ............................... 4-23
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
2 July 2011
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Location ..................................................................................................................... 1-4
Figure 2: Topography in the Project Area ......................................................................................... 1-5
Figure 3: Canyon Springs Deer Survey June 2009 ............................................................................ 2-7
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
July 2011 3
Executive Summary
This study evaluates the significance of potential impacts from the proposed Canyon Springs
project to mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The basis of this analysis includes a review of relevant state and local policies and a
review of studies of mule deer that have been conducted at and near the site over a period of more
than 20 years. The methodology used for this analysis is found in Chapter 2 and the data and
results are presented in Chapter 3. Conclusions on the results of the study and impact analysis are
found in Chapter 4.
Previous studies have been conducted at the site by the author and were included in this impact
analysis. These include site surveys and a literature review for the Tahoe Boca Environmental
Impact Report conducted for the site in 2004 (Quad Knopf, 2004), and the studies conducted in the
autumn of 2008 for Foothill Associates (Foothill Associates, 2009) and June of 2009 for RMT
(RMT, 2009). These studies examined the use of the site by mule deer at different times of the
year.
The most recent studies of mule deer at the site were conducted during the fall of 2010 and the
spring of 2011. The results of these studies are also presented in this report. These observations
were made directly and with the aid of remote sensing equipment on the site from October 13 to
December 16, 2010 and again from May 3 to July 6, 2011. A total of 12 cameras located at 4
stations continuously monitored the site for a period of 65 days during the fall of 2010 and 65 days
during the spring and early summer of 2011. Approximately 25,000 photographs were taken and
reviewed. Additional information was acquired from the California Department of Fish and Game
and was reviewed for this report.
Based on a literature review, extensive site visits conducted during 1987, 1988, 1990, May 5th , 28th,
and June 4th, 2004, November 4th and 5th, 2008, June 18th and 19th 2009, remote sensing from
October 13th to December 16th, 2010, and from May 4th to July 6th, 2011, interviews of CDF & G
and NDOW staff, remote sensing, the Canyon Springs site plan dated January, 2011, and
interpretation of aerial photographs and topographic maps, the following conclusions have been
made:
It is clear that mule deer utilize habitat on the Canyon Springs site. Although mule deer use the site
for movement, browsing, and cover, there is no direct evidence that deer use the site for critical
winter habitat, critical fawning habitat, or migration in substantial numbers. Mule deer are known to
fawn near Dry Lake, near Lookout Mountain, and near the Truckee River, but not at the Canyon
Springs site.
Mule deer have been photographed on the site in small numbers during the time periods of fall and
spring migration, often browsing and returning to the same locations repeatedly. Given the size of
the population of mule deer in the region, very few of them utilize the Canyon Springs site during
the time period when migration is expected to occur.
Although the general level of population is below levels that occurred prior to the severe winter of
1992/1993, the population in the region numbers several hundred individuals. This population is of
sufficient strength that the CDF & G allows hunting of these mule deer on an annual basis. In the
author’s opinion, with the employment of reasonable mitigation measures, the proposed Canyon
Springs project does not have the potential to significantly impact mule deer.
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
4 July 2011
This page is intentionally left blank
July 2011 1-1
Chapter 1:
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
This study of deer movement and migration at the Canyon Springs site evaluates recent and
potential use of the site by mule deer, (Odocoileus hemionus), and the potential for the proposed
Canyon Springs project to significantly impact mule deer. The information contained in this
analysis is based on a review of studies conducted on mule deer at the Canyon Springs site since
1987. These studies include data collected by the author during field surveys of the Canyon
Springs site during the time period of October 13 to December 16, 2010, and from May 3 to July 6,
2011. Additional information was acquired through interviews of resource professionals, from the
Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW), and a review of existing information received from the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDF & G).
Under CEQA, standards of significance for potential impacts to mule deer include having a
“substantial adverse affect” on:
Critical deer ranges (winter and summer), migratory routes, and fawning habitat;
Obstruct wildlife movement zones, including but not limited to, non-fragmented stream
environment zones, avian and mammalian routes;
Conflict with local, state, or federal resource conservation plans, goals, or regulations that
would result in a physical impact on the environment.
The Town of Truckee General Plan (Truckee, 2006) notes that wildlife movement corridors
and deer migration routes are noted as important habitats and the General Plan requires the
Town to “provide for the integrity and continuity of wildlife movement….”
These are the standards with which this impact analysis is conducted.
The author has written summaries of data collected during previous field surveys of the Canyon
Springs site, interviews of resource professionals, and a review of existing literature, maps, and
aerial photography pertaining to the biological resources of the project area. The conclusions from
these previous studies are:
It is clear that mule deer utilize habitat on the Canyon Springs site. Although
mule deer use the site for movement, browsing, and cover, there is no known
direct evidence that substantial numbers of mule deer use the site for migration.
Evidence of the presence of mule deer on the site was found in 2004, 2008,
2009, and 2010.
Mule deer sign (tracks and scat) were observed throughout the site, and sightings
of deer occurred in the eastern portion of the site, including the observation of a
fawn in June 2009.
The evidence shows that mule deer consistently cross the panhandle of the site
near Martis Peak Road. Mule deer sign were also observed less than 200 feet
from existing homes, and mule deer are known to move around Glenshire, cross
roads, and local residential neighborhoods.
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
1-2 July 2011
The Loyalton-Truckee deer herd uses Section 3 and the juniper Creek corridor as
a migratory route. Section 3 includes the Canyon Springs site and additional
areas to the east. This conclusion is based on CDF & G documentation; the
presence of perennial water in Section 3, both to the east and south of the site;
the proximity of critical fawning habitat to the south; the proximity of the
Truckee River corridor to the north; and the topography of Section 3. The
limitations of use of Section 3 as a mule deer migration route are most likely due
to the reduced population of the Loyalton-Truckee herd, lack of dense cover, and
frequent disturbances in the area.
The mere presence of houses and roads does not preclude use of an area by mule
deer. In addition, the absence of buildings and roads does not ensure that a
particular area of potential habitat will function as a corridor if it is not managed
as a corridor.
The value of the site as habitat for mule deer is severely limited by the presence
of dogs, motorcycles, and other disturbances.
There is the potential for conflict between mule deer and development in their
migration corridors. Blockage or partial blockage of major migration corridors
may be a significant impact under CEQA.
The implementation of reasonable mitigation measures would likely reduce
potential impacts of the proposed project to below the level of significance.
Although the potential for conflicts between changes in land use and deer migration does exist, the
proposed Canyon Springs project has been designed to avoid and minimize this potential.
Moreover, recent site-specific studies indicate that mule deer do not migrate across the Canyon
Springs site in substantial numbers. The primary conclusion of this study is that, in the author’s
opinion, with the employment of reasonable mitigation measures, the proposed Canyon Springs
project does not have the potential to significantly impact mule deer. All of the conclusions are
found below in Section 4.5.
1.2 Regional Setting
The project site is located in the Town of Truckee in eastern Nevada County, California (Figure 1).
The Town of Truckee is located in the Sierra Nevada, a north-south oriented mountain range in
eastern California. Elevations in the Sierra Nevada range from approximately 1,650 to 14,440 feet
above mean sea level (MSL). Biological communities in the Sierra Nevada vary with elevation,
with the lower montane region supporting forests of giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum),
ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and white fir (Abies concolor). The upper montane region
supports forests of Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and red fir (Abies
magnifica). Communities of montane chaparral and meadow, open water, riparian scrub, and
riverine additionally occur in the Sierra Nevada (Quad Knopf 2004).
1.3 Local Setting
The Canyon Springs site covers approximately 284 acres in the eastern portion of the Town of
Truckee and 5 acres in unincorporated Nevada County. It lies within the western half of Section 3,
Township 17 North, Range 17 East and the Southwest 1/4 of Section 34, Township 18 North,
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
July 2011 1-3
Range 17 East. The site is located on the USGS 7.5-minute Martis Peak, CA-NV quadrangle.
Elevations on the site range from approximately 5,900 to 6,100 feet above MSL, with rolling
topography and some deeply incised channels (Figure 2).
Except for a power line corridor, the site is currently undeveloped. Numerous informal trails
traverse the site and it was partially logged some years ago, with many if not most of the larger
trees removed. Biological communities occurring on the site include Jeffrey pine forest, riverine,
sagebrush scrub, ephemeral drainages, and seasonal wetlands (Heal Environmental Consulting,
2010). There are also several disturbed areas. Land use surrounding the site includes recreational,
forested open space, medium density residential, and light commercial.
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
1-4 July 2011
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
July 2011 1-5
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
2-6 July 2011
Chapter 2:
Methodology
This analysis of the CEQA significance of potential impacts of the Canyon Springs site to mule
deer is based on a review of numerous studies of mule deer at the Canyon Springs site, the proposed
project and mitigation measures, and the existing regulations. These studies include those
conducted at the site (then called Tahoe Boca Estates) in 1987 and 1988 by Jones and Stokes
Associates, in 1990 by Albert Beck, PhD., and preliminary data collected by the CDF & G and
NDOW in 2009 and 2010.
A recent study of the presence of mule deer at the site during the fall migration, spring migration,
and fawning season was conducted by John Heal of Heal Environmental Consulting in 2010 and
2011. Mr. Heal was the author of the biological resources section of the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) conducted for the site in 2004 (Quad Knopf, 2004), and has been studying the
presence of mule deer at the Canyon Springs site and vicinity over the past seven years, including
the studies conducted in the autumn of 2008 for Foothill Associates (Foothill Associates, 2009) and
June of 2009 for RMT (RMT, 2009).
These previous studies included assessments of the habitat on the site, a literature review on the
needs of mule deer and their known occurrence in the vicinity, and the development of mitigation
measures in consultation with the Town of Truckee and the applicant (Quad Knopf, 2004). The
studies conducted in 2008 and 2009 focused on the actual use of the Canyon Springs site by mule
deer. The locations of mule deer tracks, scat, and sightings that were mapped in June, 2009 are
presented in Figure 3.
During the fall of 2010, remote sensing cameras were deployed at the site in four locations known
to be frequented by mule deer. The four camera stations are in the southwest, northwest, northeast,
and southeast portions of the Canyon Springs site. Three cameras were deployed at each station,
for a total of 12 cameras. Cameras were deployed at the same locations during the spring of 2011.
The cameras are Bushnell Trophy Cam digital scouting cameras. They are triggered by any
movement of wildlife in a location, detected by a highly sensitive Passive Infra-Red motion sensor,
taking high quality pictures. Prior to deployment, each of the cameras were outfitted with long-
lasting lithium batteries and memory cards that can typically hold approximately 4,500
photographs. Each camera was mounted in a metal box known as a “bear box” for protection. The
cameras were deployed on the site on October 13th, 2010 and retrieved on December 16th, 2010,
with periodic checks to download the photographs. They were deployed again on May 3, 2011 and
retrieved on July 6, 2011.
Staff at the CDF & G and NDOW were contacted for any updates on radio-collar studies they are
conducting on mule deer migration corridors in the region. Staff were also interviewed for
information on mule deer population and trends and hunting activity, and the language of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan EIR
(Town of Truckee, 2006) were reviewed. Data from current studies of mule deer in the vicinity
were also received from CDF & G and reviewed for this report. All these data were analyzed to
form an opinion of the potential for the proposed project to have a significant impact on the mule
deer herd.
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
July 2011 2-7
Photographs of the site are found in Appendix A. Appendix B is the Biological Resources Section
of the Tahoe Boca Estates EIR (Quad Knopf, 2004), Appendix C is the 2008 Foothill Associates
report (Foothill Associates, 2009), Appendix D is the 2009 RMT Inc. report (RMT, Inc, 2009), and
Appendix E is a map of the preliminary data from CDF & G and NDOW.
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
2-8 July 2011
July 2011 3-1
Chapter 3:
Results
The results of reviews of the regulatory framework and the recent field work are presented below.
3.1 Regulatory Background
3.1.1 CEQA STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Under CEQA, a biological resource impact is considered significant if implementation of the
project would:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as an endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited
to, plants, fish, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals).
Have a substantial adverse effect on any natural communities identified as sensitive in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Have a substantial adverse effect on significant ecological resources including:
a. Wetland areas including vernal pools;
b. Stream environment zones;
c. Critical deer ranges (winter and summer), migratory routes, and fawning habitat;
d. Large areas of non-fragmented natural communities that support endangered,
threatened, or rare species;
e. Obstruct wildlife movement zones, including but not limited to, non-fragmented
stream environment zones, avian and mammalian routes, and known
concentration areas of waterfowl within the Pacific Flyway;
Conflict with local, state, or federal resource conservation plans, goals, or regulations that would
result in a physical impact on the environment.
An evaluation of whether or not an impact on biological resources would be substantial must
consider both the resource itself and how that resource fits into a regional or local context.
Substantial impacts would be those that would diminish, or result in the loss of, an important
biological resource, or those that would obviously conflict with local, state, or federal resource
conservation plans, goals, or regulations.
Impacts are sometimes locally important, but not significant according to CEQA. The reason for
this is that, although the impacts would result in an adverse alteration of existing conditions, they
would not substantially diminish, or result in the permanent loss of, a defined important resource on
a population-wide or region-wide basis.
3.1.2 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan EIR includes a section on Biological Resources (Town of
Truckee, 2006). This document analyzes the potential for impacts from projects that are consistent
with the plan. Wildlife movement corridors and deer migration routes are noted as important
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
3-2 July 2011
habitats within the Town, and the report documents that the deer migration routes that have been
mapped have likely changed due to construction of Highway 267 and construction of new
undercrossings of I-80. The EIR is quoted below:
“Policy 4.1 requires the Town to provide for the integrity and continuity of wildlife movement
corridors and support the permanent protection and restoration of these areas, particularly those
identified as sensitive resources. Policy 4.2 calls for protection of sensitive wildlife habitat from
destruction and intrusion by incompatible land uses where appropriate. The policy says that all
efforts to protect sensitive habitats should consider sensitive habitat and movement corridors in the
areas adjacent to development sites, as well as on the development site itself.”
“These polices would ensure that implementation of the 2025 General Plan would result in less than
significant impacts to wildlife movement in Truckee.” (Town of Truckee, 2006).
The Canyon Springs project has been designed to be consistent with these policies, including the
Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. The Town of Truckee has zoned portions of the Canyon
Springs site as open space, which allows for and protects wildlife movement corridors.
3.2 Wildlife Movement Corridors
Wildlife movement corridors are traditional routes used by wildlife to travel within their home
range, and allow them to access food, cover, and water on a daily and seasonal basis. Movement
corridors typically provide wildlife with undisturbed cover and foraging habitat and are generally
composed of several trails following topographic features such as drainages, ridgelines, and the
bases of major topographic slopes or prominent hills in contiguous spans of forested, riparian,
riverine, and woodland communities. The width of movement corridors varies depending on the
topography. Movement corridors are an essential element of home ranges of a wide variety of
wildlife, including mule deer, black bear (Ursus americanus), grey fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus), and mountain lion (Felis concolor). Wildlife movement corridors are considered
a sensitive habitat by the Town of Truckee and by CDF & G.
Wildlife movement corridors also function as migration corridors for wildlife that migrate between
their summer and winter ranges. The Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee deer herd migrates
annually from Nevada along the Truckee River and disperses into the Martis Valley, located
southeast of the Town of Truckee, in the spring. Critical fawning habitat for this herd occurs near
Dry Lake, located approximately 1.5 miles south of the Canyon Springs site, and near Lookout
Mountain, located approximately 7 miles southwest of the site (CDFG 1988). The herd leaves the
fawning habitat after fawning and disperses into the Martis Valley to forage prior to migrating back
into Nevada. Portions of the herd must cross the Truckee River and Interstate 80 in order to
disperse into the Martis Valley in the spring and migrate back to Nevada in the autumn.
Mule deer tend to confine their daily movements to discrete home ranges, using the same winter
and summer home ranges in consecutive years. Mule deer disperse by moving beyond the home
range to distances of up to 5 miles. This movement results in the establishment of a new home
range. Seasonal migrations from higher elevations (summer ranges) to lower elevations (winter
ranges) are associated in part with decreasing temperatures, severe snowstorms, and snow depths
that reduce mobility and food supply. Deep snows ultimately limit useable range to a fraction of the
total range.
Land use practices and weather conditions are major influences on the range of the Loyalton-
Truckee deer herd. Adverse weather conditions can affect the herd more dramatically since their
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
July 2011 3-3
movement patterns are becoming increasingly limited as residential development, recreation and
other land uses decrease the value of the habitat (Quad Knopf 2004).
To be effective, wildlife corridors must be managed to meet specific goals and the sensitivity of the
species to disturbance must be considered. Some land use actions can be compatible with wildlife
corridors. In particular, wildlife corridors for mule deer can be more effective when combined with
buffers, habitat enhancements, and seasonal restrictions on disturbances.
The Canyon Springs site is currently unmanaged as a wildlife corridor. The habitat value of the
Canyon Springs site for mule deer is generally limited by a lack of cover and frequent disturbance
by motorcycles, all terrain vehicles (ATVs), people running and walking dogs, and other activities.
Disturbances in the form of off-road vehicles and other recreational uses (i.e., dog walking) have
resulted in both a direct loss of vegetation and disturbance to mule deer and other wildlife. On the
other hand, deer tracks were observed less than 200 feet of existing residences along the western
perimeter of the site, and mule deer have also been observed and photographed in the vicinity of
existing roads and houses within Glenshire.
Disruptions to mule deer migration in the Truckee region include Interstate 80, other roadways,
reservoirs and dams, fencing, and developments, including Glenshire. These developments in the
area typically include the use of motorized vehicles and the presence of dogs. The Martis Creek fire
that occurred in 2001 also altered wildlife habitat. The areas burned by this fire are located as close
as 2 miles to the east of the Canyon Springs site. As this area re-vegetates, it may provide
important browse for the mule deer in the area.
A substantial adverse affect to migratory routes can and does occur if mule deer are prevented from
moving in the direction they require to complete their seasonal migration. Examples of this type of
blockage of migration are fences designed to prevent mule deer from entering airport runways, the
dams found at Prosser Lake and Boca Reservoir, and roadways such as portions of I-80 and the
Highway 267 bypass.
3.3 Remote Sensing
3.3.1 PHOTOGRAPHS AND OBSERVATIONS
A total of 19,095 photographs were taken by remote sensing cameras at the Canyon Springs site
between October 13 and December 16, 2010. An additional 5,819 photographs were taken between
May 3 and July 6, 2011. The photographs were triggered by mule deer, common wildlife, people,
dogs, precipitation or the wind blowing vegetation. More photographs were taken during the fall
because the cameras are triggered by any movement detected, including falling snow.
Fall of 2010. A small number of deer were photographed at all four camera stations, generally one
or two or three at a time. Approximately 38 observations of deer were made, and almost 60% of
these observations were in the dark. No mule deer were photographed nor were any mule deer
tracks observed after the first relatively heavy snowfall on the night of November 19th and 20th.
The largest number of deer observed at the site during this study were six (1 buck, 2 does, and 3
fawns). These deer were observed near the camera station in the northeast by the author while
checking the cameras on October 20th. Most of the mule deer were observed at the northwest and
northeast camera stations.
A total of 61 mule deer were observed on the Canyon Springs site over a period of 65 days during
the period when the fall migration is expected to occur. It is highly likely that many of these
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
3-4 July 2011
observations were of the same animals multiple times. It is also highly likely that other deer were
on the site and were not observed. However, the results are a representative sample of the
movement of mule deer on the Canyon Springs site.
Other wildlife photographed at the site include one coyote (Canis latrans), one raccoon (Procyon
lotor), plus numerous common western gray squirrels (Sciurus griseus). Birds may have also
triggered the cameras, but were not visible or identifiable. Other photographs show people on foot,
on horseback, on a snowmobile, and unleashed dogs on the site.
A summary of the remote sensing results are presented below in a calendar format with the number
of deer observed and the camera station locations noted (Table 1).
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
July 2011 3-5
Table 1 Summary of Mule Deer Observations at Canyon Springs, Fall 2010
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
October 13
None
14
2 does SE
15
None
16
None
17
None
18
4 does NE
19
None
20
1 buck, 2
does, 3 fawns
NE*
21
None
22
2 does NW
23
None
24
None
25
1 buck, 1 doe
NW
1 buck NW
1 buck, 2
does NW
26
1 doe SE
27
1 deer NE
28
None
29
1 doe SE
30
1 buck, 1 doe
NE
November 31
1 fawn NE; 2
does NW
1
1 fawn NW
2
1 doe NW
1 doe NW
3
None
4
1 doe SE
5
3 does NW
1 doe SW
6
None
7
None
8
1 buck NE
1 buck, 3
does NW
1 buck NW
9
1 buck, 1 doe
NE
1 buck NE
10
1 buck, 1
doe, NE
3 does NW
11
1 buck NE
1 buck, 2
does NW
12
1 deer NE
13
1 buck NE
1 buck NW
14
None
15
None
16
1 buck NE
1 doe, 1 fawn
NW
17
2 does NW
18
1 buck NE
19
1 buck NW
20
None
21
None
22
None
23
None
24
None
25
None
26
None
27
None
28
None
29
None
30
None
1
None
2
None
3
None
4
None
December 5
None
6
None
7
None
8
None
9
None
10
None
11
None
12
None
13
None
14
None
15
None
16
None
*Observed by the author, not photographed.
SW = Southwest camera station NW = Northwest camera station
NE = Northeast camera station SE = Southeast camera station
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
3-6 July 2011
Spring of 2011. Similar to the fall, a number of deer were photographed at all four camera
stations, generally one or two or three at a time. The largest number of deer observed at the site
during this study was four. Again, as in the fall, most of the mule deer were observed at the
northwest and northeast camera stations.
A total of 90 mule deer were observed on the Canyon Springs site over a period of 65 days during
the period when the spring migration is expected to occur. In general, the mule deer appeared to be
forging on the site.
It is highly likely that many of these observations were of the same animals multiple times. It is
also highly likely that other deer were on the site and were not observed. However, the results are a
representative sample of the movement of mule deer on the Canyon Springs site. In addition to the
other wildlife photographed at the site during the fall, bear (Ursus americanus) and bobcat (Felis
rufus) were also photographed.
A summary of the remote sensing results are presented below in a calendar format with the number
of deer observed and the camera station locations noted (Table 2).
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
July 2011 3-7
Table 2 Summary of Mule Deer Observations at Canyon Springs, Spring 2011
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
May 4
None
5
None
6
None
7
1 doe NE
8
None
9
1 doe NE
10
None
11
None
12
1 doe NE
13
None
14
2 does NE
15
1 doe NW
3 does 1 fawn
NE
16
None
17
1 doe NW
1 fawn NE
18
None
19
None
20
2 does 1 fawn
NE
21
None
22
None
23
2 does 1 fawn
NE
24
None
25
1 doe SW
26
1 doe 1 fawn
NW
4 does NE
27
1 doe NW
28
None
June 29
1 buck 2 does
NE
30
1 doe SW
1 doe NE
31
1 buck NE
1 doe SE
1
1 fawn NW
1 buck NE
2
1 doe NE
3
2 deer NW
1 deer SE
4
1 doe NW
5
1 doe NW 1
doe 1 buck
NE
1 doe SE
6
None
7
1 doe NW
1 doe NE
8
1 deer NW
1 doe NE
4 deer SE
9
1 fawn SW@
10
1 doe NW
1 deer SE
11
1 doe NE
1 deer SE
12
None
13
2 deer NW
1 doe NE
1 buck SE
14
1 doe SW
1 deer NW
1 deer SE
15
None
16
1 doe NE
1 deer SE
17
1 doe NE
18
1 deer NW
1 doe NE
19
1 deer NW
20
1 deer NW
1 deer SE
21
1 doe NE
22
1 deer SE
23
2 deer SW
1 buck SE
24
None
25
1 doe NE
July 26
1 doe NE
27
1 doe NE
28
1 deer SE
29
1 deer NW
30
2 does 1 fawn
NE
1
1 doe NE
2
1 deer NW
3
None
4
1 doe NE
5
1 deer NW
1 deer NE
6
None
@ time estimate since the photograph was not date stamped
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
3-8 July 2011
3.3.2 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
Several of the mule deer photographed and observed by the author were photographed multiple
times. The mule deer observed by the author on October 20th were observed browsing and then
moving in a southeast direction, which is not the direction they would be expected to move if they
were migrating to winter habitat.
Mule deer were photographed both during daylight hours and at night. If the mule deer are more
active at night, that may help them avoid conflicts with people and, possibly, their dogs.
Based on the number of mule deer observed at the most remote locations (the northwest and
northeast camera stations), and the number of observations made at night, it appears the mule deer
prefer to frequent locations and times at the Canyon Springs site with less disturbance by humans
and dogs. It also appears that mule deer are using the site for browsing and that they do not migrate
through the site during the fall or spring in large numbers. Fawns were observed in the spring,
particularly at the NE station, but only in single numbers.
3.4 California Department of Fish and Game Data
3.4.1 PRELIMINARY SATELLITE DATA
The CDF & G are currently conducting a radio telemetry study of mule deer in the region (Sommer
pers. comm. 2009). The author was able to acquire preliminary radio telemetry studies data from
combined CDF & G and NDOW studies of mule deer in the project vicinity. Data from studies
using remote sensing of mule deer on adjacent properties were not made available for this analysis.
Mike Cox, Big Game Staff Biologist with NDOW, explained that satellite collars were deployed on
five does that were initially captured east of Hirschdale. Data were collected while they were in the
area from October 2009 to August 2010. Mr. Cox cautioned that these data are preliminary, from a
small sample size, and not representative of a majority of the animals in the deer herd. More data
will be available in 2011 (Cox, pers. comm. 2011).
A map depicting the geographic range of the five does during the fall of 2009 and spring and
summer of 2010 was created from these preliminary data. A color polygon shows these ranges for
each doe, and the map is found in Appendix E.
With these preliminary data, we can make the following observations:
These particular deer use extensive habitat areas exclusive of the Canyon Springs
site. The Canyon Springs site is primarily in the western half of Section 3 (see
Figure 2 for comparison).
Deer move through existing residential neighborhoods (blue polygon, Appendix
E).
Deer can move up and down the Juniper Creek drainage, approximately one mile
east of the Canyon Springs site (magenta polygon, Appendix E).
3.4.2 POPULATION AND HUNTING DATA
To understand the context of an impact analysis, Mary Sommer at CDF & G was interviewed again
and asked questions about the general status and population trends of the Loyalton-Truckee mule
deer herd. She indicated that the California Fish and Game Commission Deer Data Supplement
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
July 2011 3-9
(unpublished) is used to estimate the populations of mule deer and to assign tag numbers for
hunting pressure management (Sommer, pers. comm. 2010). Deer hunt zones may not be
synonymous with a particular herd, but are useful for estimating populations and trends.
The X7-B mule deer hunt zone is a management unit includes the portions of California east of the
Sierra summit, south of interstate 80 and north of Lake Tahoe. North of interstate 80, it includes
areas east of Highway 89 and south and east of Henness Pass Road to the Nevada state line. This
mule deer hunt zone includes Truckee and the Canyon Springs site.
Many populations of the mule deer herds that occur at higher elevations in California were hit hard
by a severe winter in 1992 -1993. Over the past 10 years, the estimated population of the mule deer
in the X7-B hunt zone has ranged from approximately 600 to 940 individuals. In 2009, the
population was estimated at 815 and estimated hunter kills were 73 (Sommer, pers. comm. 2010).
Not all hunters are successful, but in 2010, the deer tags issued for this management unit were 120,
plus 25 for archery and 20 for the apprentice either sex hunt. The vast majority of deer taken by
hunters are bucks; however, a few does may be taken each year in the either sex hunt of this
management unit.
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
4-10 July 2011
Chapter 4:Impact Analysis and Discussion
4.1 Mule Deer Status
Although mule deer are protected by law, they are not listed as endangered, threatened, or rare
species and do not enjoy those legal protections. Species that are listed as endangered, threatened,
or rare are typically managed so that they will not become extinct, or their individual populations
are managed for recovery. By contrast, mule deer in California and Nevada are a game species and
can be legally hunted. The promulgation and enforcement of mule deer hunting regulations in
California is managed by the California Fish and Game Commission and the CDF & G.
4.2 Mule Deer Use at Canyon Springs
The literature review and field studies indicate that mule deer use the Canyon Springs site. The
Loyalton-Truckee deer herd uses the general vicinity of the Canyon Springs site and other areas in
the vicinity during migrations.
The studies of mule deer conducted at the site by Jones and Stokes Associates concluded that a few
mule deer use the site, and it is not a major migration route (JSA, 1987, JSA, 1988). Albert Beck,
PhD., concluded that there is no evidence the site is part of a major migration mule deer corridor.
Migration occurs in a diffuse pattern because the topography does not restrict mule deer movement
(Beck, 1990).
These findings are consistent with more recent studies conducted in 2004, 2008, and 2009, in which
it was found that small numbers of mule deer use the site. During surveys conducted on May 5th
and 28th, 2004, June 4th, 2004, and June 18th and 19th 2009, fawning activity was not observed at the
site. One fawn was observed on June of 2009 (see Figure 3), but it was 2 to 3 weeks old and the
doe was not in the area, and likely foraging further east. There is no known evidence that the
Canyon Springs site has critical fawning habitat. Critical fawning habitat for this herd occurs near
Dry Lake, located approximately 1.5 miles south of the Canyon Springs site, and near Lookout
Mountain, located approximately 7 miles southwest of the site (CDFG 1988). Mule deer are also
known to fawn north of the Canyon Springs site near the Truckee River (CDFG 2010).
Additional detailed focused surveys conducted during the fall of 2010 and spring of 2011 show that
the Canyon Springs site is not a major deer migration corridor. Small numbers of mule deer were
observed foraging and moving back and forth in their home ranges, consistent with the literature.
4.3 Impact Analysis
The construction and use of residences at the Canyon Springs site does entail the potential for
impacts to mule deer and other wildlife. These potential impacts may include:
The direct loss of habitat as it is converted to other land uses;
Temporary disturbances in the form of noise, dust, etc. during the construction
process;
Long-term disturbances in the form of increased human activity, vehicle traffic,
and the presence of dogs.
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
July 2011 4-11
Local governments typically require mitigation of potential disturbances during construction for a
number of reasons. These measures might include mufflers on construction equipment, restrictions
on operating hours for construction activities, and dust control measures.
Long term disturbances from residential development at the site have the most potential to limit the
functionality of the site as a wildlife corridor for mule deer. On the other hand, the potential for the
loss of wildlife corridor functions can be mitigated, and in some cases, these functions can even be
enhanced over current conditions. Reducing the current disturbance regime and increasing the
quality of the habitat has the potential to at least partially offset the loss of the quantity of the
habitat for mule deer.
4.3.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
“Substantial adverse affects” to mule deer critical winter range, critical summer range, migratory
routes, or fawning habitat would be considered significant under CEQA, as would obstruction of
wildlife movement zones. The seasonal presence of small numbers of mule deer on the Canyon
Springs site and the inclusion of portions of home ranges on the site do not necessarily mean that
the proposed project has the potential to significantly impact mule deer and their habitats.
Critical Winter Range. The Canyon Springs project will not affect critical winter range, which is
generally found at lower elevations in Nevada or the Loyalton area.
Critical Summer Range. Given the facts that extensive areas of summer range habitat exist in the
vicinity and that deer are capable of dispersing, the direct loss of circa 150 acres of summer range
habitat would be considered an incremental impact and not a significant impact. Nevertheless, these
potential impacts can be mitigated by making improvements to the quality of the remaining habitat
on the site, and suggestions for doing so are found below.
Migratory Routes. Clustering of the developed areas and retention of open spaces, such as
wetlands and riparian areas, will allow mule deer to continue to move across the site. In addition,
mule deer will be able to move across areas further east, such as the Juniper Creek corridor, as they
currently do (see Appendix E). They will not be substantially blocked from moving to and from
fawning areas to the north or south and to migration corridors along the Truckee River to the north
and east.
Critical Fawning Habitat. The Canyon Springs project will not affect critical fawning habitat,
which is generally found further south near Dry Lake and near Lookout Mountain, and further north
near the Truckee River.
Obstruction of Wildlife Movement Zones. As noted above, clustering of the developed areas and
retention of open spaces on the Canyon Springs site, such as wetlands and riparian areas, will allow
mule deer to continue to move across the site. In addition, mule deer will be able to move across
areas further east, such as the Juniper Creek corridor, as they currently do. They will not be
substantially blocked from moving to and from fawning areas to the south and migration corridors
along the Truckee River to the north and east. Although the impacts of the proposed project would
result in an adverse alteration of existing conditions, they would not substantially diminish, or result
in the permanent loss of, a defined important resource on a population-wide or region-wide basis.
4.3.2 TOWN OF TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN
Protection of the Integrity and Continuity of Wildlife Movement Corridors. Retention of open
space and wildlife corridors on the Canyon Springs site will provide permanent protection and
restoration of these areas, consistent with this policy. The current layout of the Canyon Springs
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
4-12 July 2011
proposal submitted to the Town of Truckee has been designed to accommodate and protect deer and
wildlife movement corridors. Wetlands and streams on the site, which are defined as sensitive
resources, will be protected and will provide habitats for mule deer.
Just as mule deer move through open space corridors in existing residential areas (see Appendix
E), retention of open space and wildlife corridors on the Canyon Springs site will avoid blocking
movement of mule deer through the area. In addition, existing habitats on the site will be enhanced
with re-planting of native vegetation, particularly the area that was burned in the southeast of the
Canyon Springs site, and a water source (“guzzler”) will be added to the southeast area of the site.
Protection of Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from Destruction and Intrusion by Incompatible
Land Uses where Appropriate. The Town of Truckee Open Space / Cluster Requirements require
the protection of sensitive habitats. The Canyon Springs proposal has been designed to be in
compliance with these policies, and includes both the clustering of development and protection of a
large percentage of the site as open space, including all the areas of wetlands and stream corridors.
These areas will continue to be utilized by mule deer for movement.
The General Plan policy says that all efforts to protect sensitive habitats should consider sensitive
habitat and movement corridors in the areas adjacent to development sites, as well as on the
development site itself. The proposed Canyon Springs project has been designed to provide buffers
near the important water sources located off site to the east and south (Buck Springs). The proposal
also allows for movement of deer across the site to adjacent parcels through protected open space
wetland and stream corridors.
4.4 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following measures will reduce the current disturbance regime:
1. Eliminate the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATV’s), motorcycles, and other off-
road vehicles. An exception would be the use of snowmobiles during December,
January, and February of each year.
2. Control dogs on leashes on the soft surface trails that traverse habitat areas
during the months of May through October of each year.
Implementation of the following measures will increase the current habitat value
of the site for mule deer:
3. Create a wildlife water source (such as a “guzzler”) in the southeast area of the
site.
4. Revegetate areas to enhance cover. Potential re-vegetation sites might include
the burned area in the southeast of the site and also along trails. The placement
of slash piles and downed logs in open areas would also enhance cover for mule
deer and other wildlife.
Implementation of the following measures will reduce the potential for impacts
to mule deer from the Canyon Springs project:
5. Design the building envelopes for each lot in a manner that maximizes open
space and minimizes the loss of native vegetation. Locate pet and human
recreation areas such as patios and decks within the envelopes to create a larger
open space buffer, especially at the rear of the lots.
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
July 2011 4-13
6. Provide setbacks of at least 400 feet from the springs located to the east and
south of the site.
7. Orient and/or shield outdoor lighting to minimize glare.
8. Post interpretive signs at trailheads and include information on sensitive
biological resources, including mule deer, and methods of minimizing conflicts.
9. Post “Deer Crossing” signs at the location of the deer crossing of the access road.
Limit vehicle speeds to 25 miles per hour.
4.5 Conclusions
Based on a literature review, extensive site visits conducted during 1987, 1988, 1990, May 5th , 28th,
and June 4th, 2004, November 4th and 5th, 2008, June 18th and 19th 2009, remote sensing from
October 13th to December 16th, 2010, and from May 4th to July 6th, 2011, interviews of CDF & G
and NDOW staff, remote sensing, the Canyon Springs site plan dated January, 2011, and
interpretation of aerial photographs and topographic maps, the following conclusions have been
made:
It is clear that mule deer utilize habitat on the Canyon Springs site. Although mule deer use the site
for movement, browsing, and cover, there is no direct evidence that deer use the site for critical
winter habitat, critical fawning habitat, or migration in substantial numbers. Mule deer have been
photographed on the site in small numbers during the time periods of fall and spring migration,
often browsing and returning to the same locations repeatedly. Given the size of the population of
mule deer in the region, very few of them utilize the Canyon Springs site during the time period
when migration is expected to occur.
Although the general level of population is below levels that occurred prior to the severe winter of
1992/1993, the population in the region numbers several hundred individuals. This population is of
sufficient strength that the CDF & G allows hunting of these mule deer on an annual basis.
The Loyalton-Truckee deer herd uses Section 3 as a migratory route. This conclusion is based on
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) documentation; the presence of perennial water
in Section 3, both on site and to the east and south; the proximity of critical fawning habitat to the
south and north; the proximity of the Truckee River corridor to the north; and the topography of
Section 3. The limitations of use of Section 3 as a migration route by mule deer is most likely due
to the reduced population of the Loyalton-Truckee herd, lack of dense cover, and frequent
disturbances in the area.
The mere presence of houses and roads does not preclude use of an area by mule deer. Anecdotal
accounts indicate that mule deer have been observed in residential areas in the vicinity of Glenshire.
In addition, the absence of buildings and roads (i.e., “undeveloped area”) does not ensure that a
particular area of potential habitat will function as a corridor if it is not managed as a corridor.
The value of the Canyon Springs site as habitat for mule deer is limited by the presence of dogs and
other disturbances.
In the author’s opinion, with the employment of reasonable mitigation measures, the proposed
Canyon Springs project will not result in a substantial adverse affect to mule deer and will be in
compliance with the Town of Truckee General Plan as it pertains to this resource. The proposed
project would not substantially diminish, or result in the permanent loss of, mule deer on a
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
4-14 July 2011
population-wide or region-wide basis by substantially impacting critical habitats or migration. This
conclusion is based on the following facts:
Mule deer use the site in very small numbers relative to the overall population in the region;
This population is stable enough that harvesting of several dozen mule deer is allowed each
year;
In addition to the Canyon Springs site, mule deer can utilize undeveloped areas to the east of
Canyon Springs and developed areas to the west for migration;
The proposed Canyon Springs project includes mitigation measures that will reduce the
potential for impacts to the migrating mule deer, including habitat enhancements, control of
fences and dogs, and maintenance of wildlife movement corridors in the form of open
space.
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
July 2011 4-15
4.6 References
Beck, Albert, PhD., 1990. Wildlife Biologist’s Report in FEIR Tahoe-Boca Estates Subdivision.
Beier, Paul and Steve Loe. 1992. A Checklist for Evaluating Impacts to Wildlife Movement
Corridors. Wildl. Soc. Bull. Vol 20. pp.434-440.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1988. Loyalton Truckee Deer Herd Plan,
Update. California Department of Fish and Game, Region II, Rancho Cordova, CA.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Nevada Division of Wildlife. 2010. Interstate
Deer Project: Loyalton Truckee Deer Herd Report and Management Plan Update (Habitat
Sections Only).
Cox, Mike. 2011. Big Game Staff Biologist, NDOW. Personal communication with John Heal of
Heal Environmental Consulting on January 18, 2011.
Foothill Associates. 2009. Analysis of Deer Migration for the Canyon Springs Site.
Heal Environmental Consulting, 2010. Delineation of Waters of the U.S., Canyon Springs, Town of
Truckee.
Jones and Stokes Associates, 1987. Letter report to Michael Sullivan, regarding the results of deer
surveys conducted at the Tahoe Boca Estates site.
Jones and Stokes Associates, 1988. Subsequent letter report to Michael Sullivan, regarding the
results of deer surveys conducted at the Tahoe Boca Estates site.
Mayer, K. E. and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento, CA.
Placer County, 2002. Martis Valley Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Quad Knopf, 2004. Tahoe Boca EIR. Produced for the Town of Truckee Dept. of, Community
Development.
RMT, Inc., 2009. Movement and Migration of Mule Deer at the Canyon Springs Site, Truckee
California.
Sommer, Mary. 2009. Wildlife Biologist, California Dept. of Fish and Game. Personal
communication with John Heal of RMT, Inc. July 7, 2009.
Sommer, Mary. 2010. Wildlife Biologist, California Dept. of Fish and Game. Personal
communication with John Heal of Heal Environmental Consulting, December 16, 2010.
Town of Truckee, 2006. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Environmental Impact Report.
Zeiner D. C., W. F., Laudenslayer Jr., K.E., Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990b. California's Wildlife
Vol. III: Mammals. State of California: The Resource Agency, Department of Fish and Game,
Sacramento, CA.
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
4-16 July 2011
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
July 2011 4-17
Appendix A Photographs
Hikers on site, SW camera station, Canyon Springs site.
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
4-18 July 2011
Hiker and dog on site (right side of photo), SE camera station, Canyon Springs site.
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
July 2011 4-19
Unleashed dog on site, SW camera station, Canyon Springs site.
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
4-20 July 2011
Appendix B 2004 Tahoe Boca EIR Biological
Resources Section
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
July 2011 4-21
Appendix C 2008 Foothill Associates Report
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE OF MULE DEER AT THE CANYON SPRINGS SITE, TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA
July 2011 4-23
Appendix E Preliminary Data from CDF & G and
NDOW Deer Studies