Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutCanyon Springs DEIR Public Comment #27 (Stock - Addendum to Public Comment #1)March 2, 2013 To: Denyelle Nishimori Town of Truckee, Planning Committee From: Pam Stock Glenshire Resident Re: Addendum to Canyon Springs DEIR, letter of 2/18/2013, Biological Resources 4.4 -1 of the DEIR outlines the following federal and California laws concerning the endangered and special status species of birds at risk. The laws state as follows: 1. Federal Endangered Species Act: it is unlawful to "take" any threatened or endan gered species. "Take" means to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, kill, wound, trap, capture, collect, disturb , or attempt to engage in any such conduct" even if it is unintentional. "Consultation with USFWS or NMFS is required if a project 'may affect' or result in 'take' of a listed species." Has the Federal Endangered Species act been consulted, and if not , why not? 2. The California Endangered Species Act: includes the Migratory Bird Treat Act and the Lacey Act. The California Act, section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code, prohibits the "take of migratory birds, eggs, feathers or nests." "Take" is def ined the same as in the Federal Endangered Act, and includes any activity occurring in areas that support a listed species. Has California Fish and Game been consulted in relation to the endangered and special status species biological resources on Cany on Springs? If not, why not? 4.4 -2 of the DEIR outlines the provisions of the California Endangered Species Act. It also defines jurisdictional waters which include drainages, and water features: rivers, lakes, ponds, wetlands, marshes and seeps. Plea se see 4.4 -2a for government regulatory agencies and definitions of non -tidal waters which affect this project. The State Water Resources Control Board must certify all activities requiring a 404 permit. Does Canyon Springs have this permit, and if not, why not? COS-P1.5 of the Town General Plan provides for maximum benefit in terms of habitat preservation. The General Plan also states that the Town wants to "enhance the overall character of Truckee as a scenic mountain community. COS-4 and COS-P4,2 st ate that areas of significant wildlife habitat and biological resources must be protected. With this understanding and intension of the Town Plan, the following remarks have to do with the endangered and special status species of birds found on the Canyon Springs project. 4.4 -8 of the DEIR used the 2004 biological resources analysis as their base. A newer analysis needs to be done before the project goes forward, as there could be significant changes in the past 8 years. Is this slated to be done, and i f not, why not? 4.4 -11 of the DEIR states that the bald eagle has no suitable nesting wintering habitat or wetlands on Canyon Springs, and that there is no record of the species being in the area. For the past 20 years, residents have routinely seen bald eagles over the Glenshire are and east, down the upper I -80 corridor. As soon as last summer a family of bald eagles, 4 smaller birds and 2 larger birds were seen soaring over the Martis Peak road and the Canyon Springs area. As of the January 2013, the California List of Endangered Species states that the bald eagle is an endangered species and is "fully protected." "Fully protected" is d efined in the California Fish and Game Code, 3500 -3516. Though the DEIR (4.4 -29) only states that the bald eagle has been delisted in the Federal Endangered Species Act, it does not mention anything about bald eagles being fully protected under Californi a law. Also, 4.4 -29 states there is a potential for the bald eagle to forage on the CS land. Special consideration must be taken to include the foraging habits and available wetlands for this eagle (Truckee River and Boca, as well as the Glenshire Pond a nd CS wetlands) going forward. Another in -depth study must be made of the Canyon Springs project area to ensure that the habitat and environment around the project will in no way disturb this bird. Is this slated toe done, and if not, why not? 4.4 -11 of the DEIR also states that the northern goshawk, a bird listed as a bird of special concern in California, is not threatened by the CS project because the project lacks north facing slopes for nesting, Jeffrey pines and water resources. However, the DEIR admits that Jeffrey pines are the predominate tree in the upper canopy of the project, but 4.4 -43 states the northern goshawk, due to a lack of nesting area, has a "less than significant" impact. Since there are significant numbers of Jeffrey pines on CS, there is a potential for northern goshawk foraging. Northern goshawks are routinely seen soaring in the east Glenshire area and a juvenile has been hunting on the Elkhorn Ridge project and east Glenshire almost daily. Bucks Ridge just south of the CS pr oject is a north facing slope and provides sufficient nesting area for these birds. In addition, a large nest on the west CS boundary (but north facing to the drainage) has been used for years by a large bird. The DEIR must do a study of this nesting are a in breeding time, to determine what bird is using it. The DEIR must be amended to include mitigation that satisfies the California laws governing this bird. 4.4 -30 of the DEIR states that the willow flycatcher could potentially be located in the CS proj ect, but "has no federal status." The DEIR fails to state that this bird is protected under the California Endangered Species Act of 2013. The DEIR must be amended to include mitigation that satisfies the California laws governing this bird. 4.4 -31 of t he DEIR states that the yellow warbler has marginal nesting areas in the CS project and loss of said nesting area could have significant impact on the bird (4.4 -43). However, since there are "significant Jeffrey pines on CS" (for nesting) the CS project i mpact would be less than significant. The yellow warbler is a special concern species, priority 2, on the California special species list, the DEIR must be amended to include mitigation that satisfies the California laws governing this bird. Three other bird species, the tri -colored blackbird (whose migratory routes include the Truckee area), the black capped chickadee, and the northern (gilded) flicker are listed on the California list of endangered species and special concern species. None of these bi rds are listed in the DEIR, despite the fact that all have been seen routinely in the area. Another DEIR study of the area must be made during nesting and migration times to include these birds, and the DEIR amended to include mitigation that satisfies th e California laws. 4.4 -39 states that removal of 76.68 acres of Jeffrey pines, the placement of housing lots, and the indirect impacts imposed by increased human presence will decrease the overall value of the wildlife habitats and discourage the use by w ildlife. The DEIR must be amended to include mitigation that satisfies the Truckee General Plan (as noted above) and the California laws. The number of Jeffrey pines lost is different in the different DEIR biological resources analysis sections. What is the true number and why is the Jeffrey pines noted as being sufficient in numbers in some sections and deficient in numbers in others? The DEIR needs to be amended to reflect the true number of Jeffrey pines lost on this project and the true number that w ill remain for wildlife, and how this will affect the wildlife. 4.4 -40 of the DEIR states that the loss of red fox denning is less than significant. What evidence was used to justify this "less than significant" finding? The DEIR must do an in -depth st udy of the red fox in the area and their denning habits and then comply with the Truckee General Plan and California laws, as the current classification for the red fox is threatened. 4.4 -46 of the DEIR states that the loss of Jeffrey pines, sagebrush (re ally bitterbrush), and snags, due to the project, would be significant for the nesting bird species and the bats. While the DEIR states that bats will not be impacted because they will still have the wetlands (though this is a significantly smaller roosti ng area for them), there is no mitigation listed for the nesting birds. The DEIR must be amended to include mitigations for the nesting birds listed above, and for those not endangered or of special concern, but that use the area year around. 4.4 -51 of t he DEIR states that CS, when considered with the Boca Quarry project and the town build out identified in the Truckee General Plan, could have significant cumulative impact to biological resources, and that the CS project "would contribute to the ongoing l oss of natural, undisturbed open space in the region, resulting in a decline of biological resources and species diversity." The DEIR further states that the CS project's mitigation measures and design features "would ensure the project related impacts to the natural habitats that have an exceptionally high value for wildlife species would be less than significant." How is this possible, given the concerns in this letter and the species that have been incorrectly excluded and the inaccurate mitigation mea sures for those species included? What will be done to correct the DEIR to accurately reflect the bird species of the area and the overall wildlife impact?