HomeMy Public PortalAboutCanyon Springs DEIR Public Comment #26 (Dept of Fish and Wildlife)California Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G.BROWN,Jr..Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE charlton h.bonham,Director
North Central Region
1701 Nimbus Road
Rancho Cordova,CA 95670
(916)358-2900
www.wildlife.ca.gov
March 1,2013
Truckee Community Development Department
Attn:Denyelle Nishimori,Senior Planner
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee,CA 96161
dnishimorifStown oftruckee.com
Subject:DEIR for the Canyon Springs Subdivision,(SCH#2004052060),County of
Nevada,CA
Dear Ms,Nishimori:
On December,2012,the Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)received a Notice of Availability
from the Town of Truckee Community Planning Department regarding the draft Environmental
impactReport (DEiR)for the Canyon Springs Subdivision (Project).The CDFW appreciates the
Lead Agency's willingness to accept comments on the Project until March 6,2013.The comments
provided hereinare based on ourreview of the DEIR.
As a trustee for California's fish and wildlife resources,the CDFW has jurisdiction over the
conservation,protection,and management offish,wildlife,native plants,and their habitat.As a
responsible agency,the CDFW administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA),the
Native Plant Protection Act,and otherprovisions of the Fish and Game Code (FGC)that conserve
the State's fish and wildlife pubic trust resources.The CDFW offers the following comments and
recommendations on the proposed Project in our role as a trustee and responsible agency pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),California Public Resource Code §21000 et seq.
The CDFW's primary concerns relate to how the Project will have significant effects to the mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus)of the Verdisubunit of the Loyalton-Truckee deer herd and how the Project
may lead to an increase in edge effects.
The comments provided herein are based on the information provided in the DEIR,the CDFW's
knowledge of sensitive and declining vegetative communities and wildlife species in the area.
Comments herein are limited to the likely biological resource impacts from the proposed Project.
Project Description
The Project is located at the far eastern end of the Town of Truckee in the Canyon Springs area,
immediately east of the denshire subdivision and approximately 1 mile south of Interstate 80.The
Project would include 177 market-rate singlefamily lots ranging in size from 14,000 to 31,000square
feet.The Project includes 100-foot to 300-foot visual buffers along the westerly border near the area
of Edinburgh Drive and the northwest corner of the Project site.Approximately 176 acres will be
dedicated to public open space and be permanently reserved by a conservation easement or
dedication to the Town of Truckee/Truckee Donner Land Trust.The Project will require the
construction of aroad network with primary access from Martis Peak Road,and a secondary access
(torn Edinburgh Drive.The road network will require two vehicular access points,four bridges and
Conserving California '$'WiWfc Since 1870
Ms.Nishimori
March 1,2013
Page 2 of 7
other utilities related infrastructure.The Project also proposes a multi-use recreation area,along
with a pedestrian and bicycle trail system.
Impacts to the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd
Movement.Migration and Foraging
The Verdi sub-unit (VSU)of the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd (LTDH)are known to seasonally
migrate duringthe spring and fall along the Truckee River Canyon through public and private
properties,including the proposed Project site,(CDFG 1982,2010),and the prime summer range of
the VSU includes the remaining undeveloped portionsof Martis Valley along with adjacent natural
habitat in the greater Truckee area.CDFG's LTDH management plans (1982 and 2010)state that
developments such as Glenshire and Martis Valley "removed many thousands of acres of high
quality habitat from deer production"and that "mitigation measures recommended duringthe
planning process for these developments have been generally inadequate,not truly meaningful and
not complied with."
Contrary to the conclusion of the DEIR,the CDFW believes that the Project will significantly impact
foraging habitat and the migration corridor of the VSU LTDH.The DEIR does not provide adequate
mitigation to reduce impacts to less-than-significant.
In 2009,a joint effort to better understand the current activities of VSU deer began between the
CDFW,the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW),and local partners.This was initiated asa
sister-project to work being done on the Sierra Valley sub-unit of the LTDH,and also in response to
concerns about the proposed Project,its effect on deer,and joint agency concern about the
sustainability of the VSU in both California and Nevada.Since that time,there has been ongoing
monitoring around the Project site.Late in 2012,a fixed-wing telemetry point and satellite points
from two different collared deer indicated the herd is using the Project site during migration.
Surveys done through independent contracts have continuously verified deer presence within the
area surrounding the Project site.From fall of 2010 to fall of 2012 apassive array of sixteen trail
cameras was spread among fourlocations along the west and south side of Canyon Springs.
Hundreds of deer,including fawns,does,and bucks were photographed by these cameras and this
information indicates that deer use of Project site is very active,contrary to statements made in the
DEIR.The preliminary data has shown that deer seem to have small summer home ranges,
meaning that the deer photographed within the Project site will likely remain in the area for the
duration of the summer before migrating to Nevada.Because of high site fidelity,deer that return to
the area from the northeast along historical migration routes will find their path impeded and
introduce high levels of ongoing disturbance by the Project.
The open space areas proposed to minimize the impacts of the Project on deer habitat occur
generally around the outside of the clustered development.CDFW acknowledges the efforts taken
to cluster development and limit the footprint of the lots.However,the remaining open space areas
will be cut by interior roads,pedestrian trails and footbridges,limiting deer movement and use of the
site for foraging.This design makes it unlikely that wildlife would use this open space.A
compilation of studies suggest that edge effects may influence mammal behavior and reproductive
success an average of 300 feet from alteredhabitat (Bentrup 2008).Geographical Positioning
System (GPS)data shows deer using virtually the same path during spring and fall migration and
returning to the same areas for fawning and summer range.Having to travel farther (ie.around the
Project)to get to summer or fawning areas impacts their energetics at a time when body conditions
are depleted from the winter and females are pregnant.Thisdata indicates that deer rely on the
Project site for foraging and migration and will be displaced regardless of the 176 discontinuous
acres designated as open space.
Ms.Nishimori
March 1,2013
Page 3 of 7
Conflict with the Town of Truckee General Plan
Data from the collared deer and trail cameras is still actively being collected;final interpretation and
management recommendations will be made in the near future.This information should be included
in the Town of Truckee's comprehensive plan for the management and protection of sensitive
biological resources as stated in Action A4.1 of the General Plan (Town of Truckee 2005).The
Project conflicts with the current General Plan as this area is used as a migratory corridor and
providesvaluable foraging habitat to the VSU.Although goal COS-4 states the Town will strive to
"protect areas of significant wildlife habitat and sensitive biological resources",this Project is likely a
significant effect on the VSU given the information provided in this letter.In addition,goal COS-5
states the Town will strive to "maintain biodiversity among plant and animal species in the Town of
Truckee and the surrounding areas,with special consideration of species identified as sensitive,
rare,declining,unique or representing valuable biological resources (Town of Truckee 2005)."The
VSU is a declining and valuable biological resource.
Human Wildlife Interactions
Direct mortality to deer is anticipated from increased traffic volume along Glenshire Road and newly
created roads within the Project site.Although the Project proposes to install permanent signage
indicating the presence of deer,these signs are used so commonly that most drivers fail to notice
them or ignore them all together (Hughes et al.1996).The CDFW recommends installing temporary
signs during the deer's migration season (May 1st to June 30th and October 15th to November 30th)
informing drivers they have entered a deer migration corridor,as well as,enforcing a 20 mile per
hour speed limit and installing speed bumps.
Many free roaming dogswere captured on the trail cameras set up to monitor deer activity,
indicating that deer presence could potentially be impacted by uncontrolled dogs.The DEIR
proposes to implement a seasonal leash restriction that conflicts with the known migration timing and
dogs will be allowed to roam under voice and visual control.These methods will not effectively
minimize harassment by dogs that are not well trained to respond to these controls.Harassment of
wildlife in this manner is a violation of Title 14 CCR Section 251.2 (Barclays 2013).The CDFW
recommends including in the DEIR a measure for leash control of dogs enforced year-round within
the Project site by including them in CC&Rs.
Habitat Modification
The DEIR proposes planting Jeffery pine saplings on approximately seven acres of the Project site.
Tree planting is unlikely to improve deer foraging habitat.Quality foraging flora,particularly the
highly nutritious fall bitterbrush,benefits from post-fire early successional conditions and open
canopy.Planting trees would be a contradictory practice to mitigating for lost deer habitat.
Conclusion
The CDFW believes that further development in the Mart is and Glenshire areas,including but not
limited to the Project,will lead to further significant decreases in the VSU population due to direct
and indirect effects.Deer have been documented as using the Project site for foraging and
migration.Deer movements will be limited and forced to use the remaining open space areas,
increasing browsing pressure,leading to habitat degradation,resulting in decreased fawn
survivorship and general adult deer body condition (Chad et al.2009).Concentrating deer numbers
onto smaller areas makes them more vulnerable to disease and predation (McLeod 1997).In turn,
this could increase the presence of predators in the community and the Project site including
mountain lion (Puma concolor),American black bear (Ursus americanus)and coyote (Canis latrans),
as predators tend to target deer with decreased body conditions (McLeod 1997).Additionally,the
disturbance of Project construction,routine maintenance,noise,domestic pets (dogs),and habitat
loss may have long-term population effects including the potential for the VSU to cease migrating
into California from their winter range in Nevada.Due to the likely significant adverse effects to the
Ms.Nishimori
March 1,2013
Page 4 of 7
VSU LTDH the CDFW recommends acre for acre habitat replacement in the form of a conservation
easement or fee tUle acquisition to protect foraging and migration habitat with.n the remaining
migration corridor if the Project alternative is adopted.
?n?DXo^biologica,impacts from edge effects;resultingfromtheProjectWhennaturalhabitatisfragmented,it is concurrently reducedma rea.^dispe reed inLTatrixofhuman-modified habitat,and exposed to that matrix along its edges (Wilcox and Murphy1StoThi^P^ecS have indirect effects in Canyon Springs where they either do not currently
exist or ex st to a lesser degree thanthey would with the Project.The area des.gnated as openso2esd^continuousacross the Project site and is bisected by roadways and pedestrian trails.Idge effec^such as disturbance by human caused noise and lighting,decreases in av.anS'Xd and Angelstam 1988),line-of sight disturbances,air and wate^b°rne
propose mitigation measures to reduce any to a level
j^c^tt^ZT^er (Picoides acrticus)inhabits boreal and montane forests of northernNorthAmericawhereSifstronglyassociatedwithburnedforests.In California,the spec.es .sfoundaArSSl^S^000 feet middle to higher elevations in inland mountains from the Oregon bordertothesouthernSierraNevada.The black-backed woodpecker occurs infrequently m most unburnedforestLpesbutoccursinthegreatestdensityinrecentlyburned(1-8 years post fire)forests w.thf°L kHIedSes Bond et al.2012).The DEIR disclosed the Project site has a history of fire andcontainssS"snags"which indicates potentially suitable habitat may be Present for the black-backeS woodpecker.Additionally,several sightings have been documented within 1.5 miles of the
Project site (ebird.org,2013).
On Januarv 6 2012 the black-backed woodpecker was designated a "candidate for listing"under
Endangered Species Act (CESA)take authorization,should be obta.ned if the Project has the
potential to result in take of a State-listed plant or wildlife species.
The DEIR does not analyze the potential impacts to black-backed woodpecker TheiBmoval of the26snagsfromwithintheProjectsitemaycauseas.gn.ficant impact to the habrfat for thewoodoeckerTheCDFWrecommendsprovidingananalysisofimpactstotheback"back^dwoodSeckeand!ncluding appropriate mitigation measures to reduce any impacts to a les>-than-^SSSZS.At a minimSm,mitigation measures shou.d include focused surveys and the
retention of snags within the Project site.
^.t iil t the Project has relied Ue^on^a%S^^^^part of deve.opments similarto the Project has relied ^exotfc non native plant species for decoration.However,some of these spec.es can spread tonaturala°eascausing native plant life to be replaced by exotic spec.es.As development occurs,
Ms.Nishimori
March 1,2013
Page 5 of 7
native plants may be replaced by exotic species,resulting in indirect impacts to the habitat of listed
species such as modification or degradation of habitat.
Trash Receptacles
Any "covenants,codes and restriction"for this Project should include language regarding trash
maintenance.Bears and other wildlife are often attracted to trash cans left out leading to a
concentration of predators.All trash should be kept out of sight until immediately before trash
pickup.It would benefit residents of the development to install bear proof trash receptacles to
eliminate this potential problem.Taking steps to eliminate trash in rural residential areas with bear
habitat is a dead bear as a result of property damage or harm to humans.
Jurisdictional Riparian Habitat
The DEIR does not state which features of the Project are under the jurisdiction of the CDFW,nor
does it state that a Lake or Streambed Alteration (LSA)Agreement is needed.Notification to the
CDFW is required,pursuant to FGC §1600 et seq.,for proposed projects that may:divert,obstruct,
or change the natural flow or the bed,channel or bank of any river,stream,or lake;use material
from a streambed;or result in the disposal or deposition of debris,waste,or other material where it
may pass into any river stream,or lake.The proposed Project will result in alterations to the riparian
habitat of Buck Creekand the unnamed creek when constructing all crossings proposed for the
Project,including pedestrian footbridges.In issuing a LSA Agreement,the CDFW will be acting as a
Responsible Agency pursuant to CEQA.The CDFW is required by California Code of Regulations
Title 14 Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines)§15096 to review the CEQA document certified by the Lead
Agency approving the Project and,from that review,to make certain findings concerning the
activities'potential to cause significant,adverse environmental effects.Therefore,it is important that
the DEIR address all of the potential biological streambed alteration impacts and propose feasible
mitigation.This will reduce the need for the CDFW to require additional environmental review for
preparation of the LSA Agreement.
The impacts from the installation of thebridge include but are not limited to:soil compaction or other
disturbance,loss or decline of in stream channel habitat,disruption to nesting birds,reptiles and
other wildlife.The DEIR should include specific,enforceable measures to be carried out onsite or
within the same stream system that will avoid,minimize and/or mitigate for Project impacts to the
natural resources.These measures may include,but are not limited to,the following:
1.Protection and maintenance of the riparian,wetland,stream orlake systems to ensure a
"no-net-loss"of habitat value and acreage.Vegetation removal should not exceed the
minimum necessary to complete operations;
2.Cover Excavations and open pipes.Unattended,open excavations shall be properly
covered to prevent wildlife entrapment.Open ends of pipes,conduits and similar
materials shall be covered to exclude wildlife.Such materials shall be checked for signs
of wildlife prior to disturbance;
3.Delineation of buffers along streams and wetlands to provided adequate protection to the
aquatic resource.No grading or construction activities should be allowed within these
buffers;
4.Placement of construction materials,spoils or fill,so that they cannot be washed into a
stream or lake;
Ms.Nishimori
March 1,2013
Page 6 of 7
5 Prevention of downstream sedimentation and pollution.Provisions may include butnot
be limited to oil/grit separators,detention ponds,buffering filter strips,silt barriers,etc.,to
prevent downstream sedimentation and pollution;and
6 Restoration plans must include quantifiable performance standards and pertinent
information such as the types of vegetation to be planted,the timing of implementation,
and contingency plans if the replanting is not successful.Restoration of disturbed areas
should utilize native vegetation.
The use of products with plastic monofilament or cross joints in the nettingthat are bound/stitched
(such as found in straw wattles/fiber rolls and some erosion control blankets)which may cause
entrapment of wildlife,should not be used for erosion control.Additionally,any non-biodegradable
materials used for erosion control,such as silt fencing,should be removed upon Project completion.
The prop'oTed Project will have an impact to fish and/or wildlife habitat and should be evaluated in
such a manner to reduce its impacts to biological resources.Assessment of fees under Public
Resources Code §21089 and as definedby FGC §711A is necessary.Fees are payable by the
project applicant upon filing of theNotice of Determination by the lead agency.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code §21092 and §21092.2,the CDFW requests written notification
of proposed actions and pending decisions regarding the Project.Written notifications shall be
directed to:California Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 2,1701 Nimbus Road,Rancho
Cordova,CA 95670.
Thank you for considering our concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR.The CDFW personnel are
available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to minimize impacts.If you
have questions please contact Tanya Sheya,Environmental Scientist,by e-mail at
Tanya.Sheya@wildlife.ca.gov or by phone at (916)358-2953.
„,
Tina Bartlett
Regional Manager
ec:Jeff Drongesen
Isabel Baer
Jennifer Navicky
Tanya Sheya
Sara Holm
Department of Fish and Wildlife
State Clearinghouse
Ms.Nishimori
March 1,2013
Page 7 of 7
References
Andren,H.and Angelstam.1988 (Andren andAngelstam 1988).Elevated predation rates asan
edge effect in habitat islands:experimental evidence.Ecology 64:1057-1068.
Barclays Official California Code of Regulations.2013 (Barclays 2013).Title 14.Natural Resources
Division 1.Fish and Game Commission-Department of Fish and Game Subdivision 2.Game
and Furbearers Chapter 1.General Provisions and Definitions (Refs &Annos)§251.1.
Harassment of Animals.
Bentrup,G.2008.(Bentrup 2008)Conservation buffers:design guidelines for buffers,corridors,and
greenways.Gen.Tech.Rep.SRS-109.Asheville,NC:USDA,Forest Service,Southern
Research Station.Accessed online February 19,2013
http://nac.unl.edU/bufferquidelines/qLiidelines/2 biodiversitv/IO.html
Bond,M.L.,R.B.Siegel and,D.L Craig,editors.2012.(Bond et al.2012)A Conservation Strategy
for the Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides articus)in California.Version 1.0.The Institute
for Bird Populations and California Partners in Flight.Point Reyes Station,California.
California Department of Fish and Game.1982 (CDFG 1982).Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Plan.
California Department of Fish and Game,Sacramento,USA.
California Department of Fish &Game.2010 (CDFG 2010).INTERSTATE DEER PROJECT
Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Report and Management Plan Update (Habitat Sections Only),
Sacramento,USA.
Chad,J.B.,Gary,C.W.,David,J.F.,Bruce,E.W.,&Thomas,R.S.2009.(Chad et al.2009)Effect
of enhanced nutrition onmule deer population rateof Change/El efecto de la nutrition
aumentada en la tasa de cambio poblacional de venados bura (odocoileus hemionus)/Effet
d'un complement d'alimentation sur le taux de croissance d'une population de cerfs mulet.
Wildlife Monographs,(172),1-28.
Dixon,R.D.,and V.A.Saab.2000.(Dixon and Saab 2000)Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides
arcticus).The Birds of North America Online (A.Poole,editor).Available:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/509.(Accessed:February 27,2013).
eBird.2013.(eBird.org 2013)eBird:An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web
application].eBird,Ithaca,New York.Available:http://www.ebird.org.(Accessed:February
27,2013).
Hughes,W E.,A.R.Saremi and J.P Paniati.1996 (Hughes et al.1996)Vehicle animal crashes:an
increasing safety problem.Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal 66:24-28.
McLeod,S.R.1997.(McLeod 1997)Is the concept of carrying capacity useful in variable
environments?Oikos 79:529-542.
Wilcox,B.A.,and D.D.Murphy.1985.(Wilcox and Murphy 1985)Conservation strategy:The
effects of fragmentation on extinction.American Naturalist 125:879-887.