HomeMy Public PortalAboutCanyon Springs DEIR Public Comment #34 (Juncosa)16173 Lancaster Place
Truckee, CA 96161
March 4, 2013
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
Town of Truckee
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 96161
Subject: Canyon Springs Draft EIR December 2012
Dear Ms. Nishimori,
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DEIR referenced above.
I have worked in the design and environmental review of development projects, and in performing
biological consulting services, since 1988. A summary of relevant expertise is included in Attachment 1
to this letter. My experience with applicants, planners, and engineers over the years convinces me that
an environmentally sound project whose impacts could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels
might possibly have been designed for the Canyon Springs site. However, neither the present Canyon
Springs application nor any of the DEIR alternatives are that project. For a project of 185 parcels, the
planners have provided a layout that minimizes road lengths, maximizes the ratio of open space to
development area for that many units, and minimizes impact in some sensitive areas. However,
significant impacts would still result, not all of which are disclosed in the DEIR.
No
Public
Hearing
To my recollection, in my experience with multiple EIRs in the 25 years from 1988 to the present), the
decision makers of the lead agency have always held a public hearing on the DEIR. This is such a
consistent and customary practice that I was surprised to find that it is not required by CEQA guidelines.
The Town of Truckee Planning Commission itself held just such a hearing for the last Canyon Springs
DEIR, in 2007, and held three public hearings on the Railyard Master Plan DEIR in 2009. Given how
unusual it is not to have a DEIR hearing, and that no explanation of this change from former Town
practice was provided at either Canyon Springs public meeting, it is appropriate for the public record to
include the answers to these questions:
Is this the Town’s standard policy for all future EIRs, or does it apply only to the Canyon Springs project?
If the latter, who/what was the individual or entity that initiated the request, suggestion, or
recommendation (or whatever other similar noun is applicable) not to have a hearing on the 2012 DEIR?
What was the process for making this decision?
Why was it judged unimportant for the Planning Commissioners to hear public comment at any time
prior to the one and final hearing at which the decision to certify the Final EIR will be made?
Given that written comments on the DEIR are the public’s only forum for participation, those comments
must provide more detail and explanation than would normally be necessary. Absent a public hearing,
written comments must also include any relevant visual aids. If I understand the notice rules correctly,
the Commissioners could potentially have as little as 10 days to review all of the comments, responses,
and changes that the FEIR makes to the DEIR. I believe that’s not enough time for an informed decision.
General
Comments
On
Draft
EIR
The Canyon Spring DEIR provides some inadequate and/or inaccurate baseline information that is
sometimes, does not fully analyze and describe the environmental impacts that would result from
project construction and long-term occupation, and recommends many mitigation measures that are
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 2
either insufficiently specified, not adequate to reduce the project impacts to less-than-significant levels,
or are infeasible, or not effective, or combinations of those characteristics. As a consequence, if the
project were to be approved, constructed, and occupied as proposed, there will be potentially
significant residual environmental impacts which have not been accurately and fully described in the
DEIR, so it does not presently meet the requirements of CEQA.
Some of the statements regarding cumulative impact analysis seem to me to be incorrect. My
understanding is that, if a project effect is less-than-significant on a project-specific basis, but, in
combination with other less-than-significant project-specific effects, results in an impact which is
collectively significant, then a contribution to a significant cumulative impact must be identified in the
EIR. Instead, many of the EIR sections find that project-specific effects are less-than-significant and draw
the conclusion from that that the cumulative impact is therefore also less-than-significant. That doesn’t
necessary follow, and doesn’t seem to be in accordance with the text on page 4-3. Please clarify, and
correct cumulative impact findings, if any, that are not in accordance with CEQA guidelines.
Page 4-4 states that the subdivisions to the west of Canyon Springs are regarded as built out, and are
not considered in cumulative analysis. This is factually incorrect; the Elkhorn subdivision is only about 10
percent built; I believe that’s the case for the Bluffs too. Therefore, the traffic and water quality impacts
of these two areas need to be included in cumulative analysis. I believe the unbuilt portions of these
two subdivisions together total about half the number of units that are proposed for Canyon Springs.
That’s not insignificant, and probably would alter the cumulative traffic analysis.
Reasonable recommendations to achieve CEQA adequacy were made to the Town in response to the
Notices of Preparation (NOPs), not many of which were followed. At least one comment letter sent to
the Town by a trustee agency (Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board) is omitted from the
present DEIR Appendix B, which purports to include “comments received on the EIR process from 2003
to 2011…” It is my understanding that compliance with CEQA requires that the lead agency either
follow the direction of trustee agencies as provided in NOP letters, or explain in writing why that
direction was not followed. Neither occurred in the case of this letter. Additional details are provided
below under Biological Resources – Wetlands. The EIR preparers should check the withdrawn 2007 DEIR
to ensure that there aren’t other agency scoping letters which were not considered by the present DEIR.
Comments below identify substantive shortcomings in the presentation of existing conditions, which
materially affect the impact analyses. These alone are significant new information that provide cause for
recirculation of a revised DEIR. Also, if the revised DEIR either identifies any new and potentially
significant impacts, or revises the wording of any that already appear (that is, makes them into new and
different mitigation statements), or recommends any new and speculative mitigation measures, it
should be recirculated so that the public has an opportunity to evaluate the adequacy, feasibility, and
effectiveness of the new proposals. Given that so many mitigation measures in the present DEIR do not
stand the test of critical scrutiny, I think it is necessary for the revised DEIR or FEIR to include much
stronger factual basis for the opinions about impacts and mitigation effectiveness that it expresses, and
for the process to allow for public comment on new or revised mitigation measures prior to the
Planning Commission hearing at which voting on the certification of the FEIR will take place.
The DEIR does a poor job of its public information role due to unsatisfactory public circulation and poor
publication design and output, which make access to the information difficult. Admittedly, minimally
adequate under CEQA, but a poor job. The CDs that were initially provided to the public were
incomplete (did not include appendices) and included a pdf of the DEIR itself that was almost unusable
for technical review, because it had no bookmarks. To navigate, you have to scroll up and down
through the 644 page document on your computer screen, an unsatisfactory way to circulate such a
large DEIR. The version made available for download from the internet required three very slow
downloads totaling almost 272 MB, an extremely unwieldy file structure and size. There are no pdf
bookmarks in any of the files that are downloadable from the Town’s web site; for the user, this is
functionally almost as bad as a print document that doesn’t have a table of contents. Then, at some
unknown later date, and with no public notice, a perfectly good, fully bookmarked file of only 54 MB
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 3
was made available, but only on CD. Why was this useful version never provided over the internet? Why
was the public never notified it was available?
All of the appendices that were produced since about 2005 should have been provided as exported
pdfs, not scans, so that the public would be able to search them with the tools in Acrobat Reader and
find things in which they are interested, and so that the information in graphics is not degraded or lost
entirely. Providing exported pdfs instead of scans would also make it possible for the reader to enlarge
things like the wetland delineation map to a size that it is possible to see what’s on it. As it is, the small-
scale, coarse-resolution scanned delineation map included with the DEIR appendices is practically
unusable; when you enlarge it to a size on screen or paper that the labels would be big enough to read,
they become so fuzzy and pixellated that nothing is discernible. It is difficult or impossible to examine
the information it could have provided in comparison with the figures in Section 4.4. This is a failure to
fully inform the public about the existing conditions on the project site.
It is inexplicable why the DEIR page design has three-inch side margins, much wider than is standard,
resulting in so much unused white space and bloating of the document to an excessive number of
pages and consequent waste in printing. This aspect ratio of the text blocks is also undesirable on a
computer screen. So it’s not good for printing, and not good for reading on a computer. That’s very
poor publication design, environmentally insensitive, and user-unfriendly. The Railyard Master Plan EIR,
for example, was far superior in these respects. Please improve these aspects of publication and
electronic file design and circulation in the revised DEIR and FEIR.
The DEIR text sometimes refers to sources by author and date, but does not provide the complete
citation. Some of these sources are not available to the general public, and even if they were, without
complete citations, we wouldn’t be sure if we were reading the right document. One example (not the
only one) is a report mentioned as “Geocon 2007” (not 2006). What is this and what are its contents? The
DEIR seems to say that this Geocon 2007 identifies deficiencies in the drainage plan and analysis, so it is
certainly highly relevant to Section 4.9 and should have been included somewhere. It is at least
responsible, if not actually required by CEQA, for the DEIR to provide full citations for any references
cited, and to include any important documents that aren’t in the public domain in the appendices.
The map of the project’s overall proposed drainage design displayed on the environmental
background, which should have been an important one in the Project Description and Hydrology
sections, does not appear in either of them. Instead, it is effectively hidden as the very last page of
Appendix J (Geotechnical), where I would never have looked for it and never would have found it
except by coincidence. The two maps shown on pages 3-27 and 3-28, which are the drainage maps to
which the Table of Contents directs the reader, are essentially useless because they do not show any
context at all, whereas one can see in an instant from the overall figure that the sites selected for
drainage features are not suitable and will probably result in failure of the stormwater runoff system to
mitigate the project’s impacts. This can partially be discerned in one of the figures in Section 4.4 – also
not a place that someone desiring to review hydrology and water quality issues would look. There may
have been members of the public who wished to review the conceptual drainage plan, but were not
able to do so because the single most relevant page in the whole DEIR for them did not appear in any of
the logical places. This adds to the probable necessity for the revised DEIR to be recirculated before any
FEIR is completed for the project. To fully satisfy CEQA’s public information requirement for the DEIR,
key information such as this must be included in the sections to which it relates, not be lost some
1,000+ pages away and in a separate electronic file where no one would look for it.
There are many of the individual technical sections (4.x) which include descriptions of methodology of
some specific study or field action, but then the rest of the section doesn’t provide the results. Without
the results, the statements of methodology are not relevant, not verifiable, and do not provide support
for the DEIR’s presentation of existing conditions and analysis of impacts. For every place in the DEIR
where there is a statement of methodology of studies, actions, or observations, the results need to be
provided (either the full data or at least a summary; not just the conclusions). This is one of very few
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 4
ways in which the public has an opportunity to assess the adequacy of the studies performed. If the
results are not provided, the statements of methodology must also be deleted.
The Town expressed a preference against local experts being included in the EIR team (e-mail from D.
Nishimori July 12, 2010). If the Town was concerned about conflicts of interest, it should also have
ensured that technical reports from the applicant’s contractors were critically peer-reviewed by third
parties, and made the results of such review available. Perhaps this happened; but the DEIR provides no
such indication. In particular, the portions of Section 4.4 about the project’s impact on mule deer, and
the determination that there is no significant project-specific or cumulative impact, give the impression
of having adopted the opinions of the applicant’s contractor directly. The December 18 presentation
stated that Foothill Associates reviewed the deer report; this can hardly be represented as an effective
independent review, since the author formerly did all of the project’s deer work as a Foothill employee.
It is therefore appropriate that this aspect of the DEIR and appendices be scrutinized particularly closely.
General
Comments
On
Project
And
Project
Description
(Section
3)
It seems inadvisable for the community to take on the responsibility of yet another abandoned
development. Glenshire already has two developments, totaling about 90 units, that are still roughly 90
percent unbuilt after the several years that they have been in existence. Other developments in the area
are either mothballed or on a slow track; major private landowners can provide details. These
unattended developments pose risks of fires and other illegal behaviors in the unmonitored,
unpatrolled streets (see Figures 1 and 2; see Appendix A at the end of this letter). These are actual
environmental effects (public safety risks) which might reasonably be expected to result from
construction of roads way out into high fire risk areas, which then lie unattended almost all the time for
years to come. The DEIR does not discuss the actual reality of similar situations only a few hundred feet
from the edge of Canyon Springs, so its presentation of existing conditions and potential effects on
public safety and Town services is not adequate.
There are other areas designated for future development in the Town which, being near the Town and
Highway 267 centers, are much closer to services and transportation access and are therefore
environmentally more suitable for development than is the Canyon Springs site, and will be much more
attractive to potential buyers of property that is useful for recreational purposes. It seems unlikely to me
that the residential construction demand projections of the current General Plan remain valid. I doubt if
there is going to be demand for an additional 200 dwelling units at the eastern limit of Truckee during
the foreseeable future. Since narrower economic margins make the effective implementation of
mitigation measures more difficult, the Planning Commission should consider this.
The reforestation proposal for the 7-acre post-fire site is inadvisable. Artificially increasing the density of
coniferous tree cover in a perfectly good patch of early-successional habitat, as the project description
would do, is ill-advised and represents no benefit for deer; on the contrary, it is a degradation of deer
habitat value rather than a mitigation measure and should be eliminated from the project. Additional
detail and references are provided below in comments on Section 4.4.
With respect to deer, deer hunting is a major recreational activity in California and the U.S. ($61 billion in
economic activity across the country; 238,478 deer hunters in California; DFW, 2013). By any measure,
this is a major recreational activity; more locally, I believe that zone X7b is a particularly desirable one for
deer hunters. As explained below, the project might eliminate or reduce usage of migration and critical
fawning areas and could therefore affect the available deer population for hunters. CEQA guidelines do
not provide a standard of significant impact for reduction of available recreational resource, but it is
appropriate for the Town to consider this intrinsic issue as well as the potential consequences in terms
of recreational visitors, who provide the Town’s primary economic base.
Page 3-10 states that only natural materials would be allowed for fences. I think this is wrong; there are
some really nice wood substitutes available for fencing and decks, which require less maintenance, and
some of which reduce fire risks. Owners who wish to incur the added cost should be allowed to do so.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 5
Wood smoke pollution is a really significant local health issue, particularly for children who constitute a
significant portion of the population of the affected public in the Glenshire region. I commend the
Town for having acted decisively in recent years to start reducing wood smoke in our air, and it should
continue this trend by prohibiting wood burning appliances in Canyon Springs, period. Section 3 does
not mention these at all, which is an important omission, because these are a major source of health-
harmful pollutants, as is explained in detail below. The Town should not allow wood burning appliances
in any new developments or individual structures until the pollution of air in individual communities of
the Town (not just generally in the eastern NSAQMD) by wood smoke is in attainment of PM10
standards, and any future PM2.5 standards when those are established, during the typical conditions
under which a lot of wood is burned (winter, temperature inversion, no wind). PM2.5 standards are
inevitably going to be established; they are already being incorporated into revisions of the URBEMIS
model in some air basins. No projects with particulate contributions from optional amenities such as
wood burning fireplaces should be approved without thorough site-specific analysis and consideration
of the likely direction that air standards are headed.
Page 3-16 states that the parcel sizes vary from 14,000 to 31,000 square feet, but neither the average lot
size nor the whole acreage within residential parcels is stated. By my estimate, the average lot size is
about 0.35 acre or 15,300 square feet, much closer to the minimum stated size than the mean of the
range. Maybe that estimate is inaccurate; the revised DEIR or FEIR can correct it. Although those lot sizes
are consistent with the nearby Glenshire community, they are much too small for the parcels that
directly or nearly abut wetlands and other waters and must provide runoff and water quality mitigation
within the parcel. Those parcels must be relocated or eliminated. The design should keep all parcels out
of the 50-foot setback from the edge of any 100-year flood plain or any type of waters of the State.
Where the soils of the setback area cannot infiltrate additional runoff during the critical spring period,
when they are saturated or nearly so, the setback width may need to be even wider and must be
calculated quantitatively, with the assumptions and calculations provided in the revised DEIR or FEIR.
The DEIR quotes an estimated average housing footprint of 2,500. A quantitative reference for this
figure should be provided; one that is relevant to current and reasonably anticipated future trends in
residential building (most recently built houses in the Glenshire region are much larger than they used
to be in the 1970s and 1980s). Also, merely identifying the footprint of the house itself does not fully
disclose the impacts of construction on each parcel; in reality, the impervious or infiltration-impaired
footprint within each parcel will be much larger than 2,500 square feet, and will often exceed the entire
area of the building envelopes shown on the tentative map. For a project with much larger parcel sizes,
this may not matter so much, but when parcel sizes are small, the proportional impact is much greater.
The revised DEIR should address this subject.
Air
Quality
The introduction to existing conditions recognizes the importance of considering local air quality
realities, not just regional or whole-basin circumstances (e.g., entire northern Sierra district). It also
provides a good summary of the consequences of temperature inversions on page 4.3-18. But then this
is not taken into account at all in the impact analysis, which consequently is inadequate and fails to
identify significant project impacts.
One of the great things about the URBEMIS model is that you can tweak the defaults in order to
improve the accuracy of the output for the local situation in question. That said, although it is correct to
include the full URBEMIS runs in the appendix, and the output that comes out of it is relatively clear for a
complicated model, these aren’t all that easily understood by the general public. Sometimes, it’s
obvious how the defaults have been adjusted, but you have to really search diligently in all parts of all
the pages to find key details (see below regarding number of houses with wood stoves or fireplaces).
The main body of the text of Section 4.3 should include a summary of the most important input
parameters and cite appropriate sources. For example, what is the reference for the 54 percent of
houses having wood burning appliances? Is this accurate in the local context? Are the numbers for road
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 6
PM10 ones that are accurate for the road sanding and sweeping regime in Truckee? The DEIR needs to
provide a more complete and accessible description of key modeling parameters (or all of them).
The existing conditions description provides PM10 figures for a monitoring station in South Lake Tahoe.
Conditions in the communities that will be affected by the air pollutant emissions of the Canyon Springs
project may well differ greatly from those of the Sandy Way monitoring location, so this is not adequate
as baseline for the present DEIR. The affected public should be informed about existing conditions in
the air they are actually breathing and the consequences of the proposed project, not just
circumstances 30 miles away in a very different setting and climatic regime.
There are several contributors to local PM10 that should have been acknowledged and quantified or
measured, and should be analyzed in the local climatic context (namely, inversions at many times when
PM10 and other emissions are high). For example, the Town’s practice is to treat roads with slurry seal
about every two or three years. Sampling that was recently done in South Lake Tahoe and presented at
the Lake Tahoe Science Conference (I am uncertain which year) showed that neighborhoods where
slurry seal was applied had higher PM10 levels than analogous neighborhoods that were not treated
with slurry seal. It should be straightforward for the project’s air quality expert to find this information,
and possibly much more just like it. I do not know how significant the magnitude of this slurry-seal
related PM10 is in relation to other road dust, but the DEIR’s air quality section should address this.
Also, if the DEIR wishes to rely on the South Lake Tahoe PM10 data, it must determine and describe the
degree of similarity between that location and the Canyon Springs vicinity (greater Glenshire
community, especially the low-lying portions of it) in terms of wood smoke emissions. The DEIR
provides inadequate information and analysis of wood smoke effects on existing and future residents.
I comment below at length about this subject, because it is an important local environmental and
health issue, and once a project is approved which allows wood burning, the community is stuck with
the consequences forever, not just for a couple of months or years of construction. In my opinion, the
correct thing, path of least resistance for the EIR, and most cost-effective thing for the project
proponent – all at once - is simply to eliminate the entire issue by prohibiting wood burning appliances
of any kind other than zero-PM10 emissions (which may not yet exist) on all parcels in the project. That
would render most of these comments moot. Natural gas fireplaces are a perfectly satisfactory
substitute amenity and are preferred by many owners. However, if the project description is not
changed to prohibit residential wood burning appliances that have any PM10 emissions, and to make it
a prohibition to which no variances can be granted under any circumstances, then all of these
comments must be addressed in full.
The issue of wood smoke emissions, as it needs to be treated in the Canyon Springs EIR, differs
somewhere from other air pollutants. For many other pollutants and project settings, the actual
physical reality is that there is a lot of mixing over great distances in relatively short periods of time, so it
is reasonable to address them on a basin or regional basis. With residential wood smoke at the Canyon
Springs project site and areas immediately downslope to which air flows when it is cold, this mixing and
long-distance dispersal of the wood smoke pollutants often does not occur. On the contrary, as a result
of temperature inversions and windless conditions at times when residents of Glenshire do burn a lot of
wood, and residents of Canyon Springs would do in the future, there is substantial concentration of the
wood smoke PM10 in the local air, which concentration sometimes persists for prolonged periods of
time. These are the existing conditions of the site and the thousands of nearby and future residents who
will be affected by the project. Because this is a slightly unusual situation, the DEIR must provide site-
specific local analysis, and should have included some actual air quality sampling in the Glenshire area
at various relevant times of the year and climatic circumstances. The introduction to Section 4.3 does
mention the climatic realities, thus establishing that they are relevant existing conditions, but they are
completely ignored by the impact analysis. This is an obvious and important CEQA inadequacy.
The project would allow an unspecified number of wood stoves and fireplaces per unit (one per
structure? meaning two on any parcel with a secondary unit? several per structure?) as long as they are
EPA phase 2 certified. The DEIR fails to give the public the true measure of the consequences of this
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 7
project element. The DEIR (page 4.3-32) states that these models are about 68 percent cleaner than
unqualified models if properly installed and operated. Often, such as during ignition, this degree of
reduction in pollutant emissions is not achieved. As a general estimate, though, and under ideal
conditions of perfect installation and operation (which it is highly doubtful are typically achieved), it
takes only about three or fewer Phase 2 units to emit the same amount of wood smoke pollutants as
one unqualified model. Therefore, if there is only just one on each parcel, these 185 wood burning units
would emit approximately the same amount of harmful air pollutants as a project of 62 units, every one
of them with an unqualified wood burning appliance. I would hope that the Town would have found
that such a project would have a significant impact on air quality! If so, the DEIR is inaccurate and
inadequate not to identify this significant impact.
I would guess there probably would be fewer than one wood stove or fireplace per unit, but I don’t
know, and the DEIR provides no reassurance that the number of wood smoke-emitting appliances
might not be several times that high. Neither the project description nor section 4.3 is explicit in stating
how many wood burning appliances would be allowed per parcel. A large house might have more than
one; plus another one in a secondary unit. So, we could have up to two or three times as many wood
stoves and fireplaces as hypothesized above. If the number isn’t immutably limited, then the DEIR must
assume the maximum allowed and analyze the maximum potential impacts of all of them.
By extension, for all project aspects that might have environmental impacts, the DEIR should have
analyzed the maximum potential degree of impact that could reasonably be expected. There may be
other places in the DEIR where this principle should have been applied and was not; the Town and DEIR
preparers should be sure to find and address all of them in the revised DEIR or FEIR.
This is a really considerable amount of emissions of a relatively harmful type of air pollutant (not just
PM10 in general, but wood smoke in particular), which the DEIR does not come anywhere near to
documenting, quantifying, and analyzing. Although the particulate component of wood smoke has not
yet been convincingly demonstrated to be more harmful than other PM, smoke does contain additional
harmful substances (volatiles) that are not present in, say, road dust (Naeher et al., 2007). The DEIR
should have discussed this subject in detail and provided references.
The URBEMIS modeling provided in Appendix F notes, on page 7, that the percentage of residences
with wood stoves was changed from 35% to 54% (which still seems too low to me), the percentage with
wood fireplaces was changed from 10% to zero (that’s probably not correct), and the percentage with
gas fireplaces changed from 55% to zero (this is almost certainly incorrect: there will be at least a few
houses with these). No justification for these figures is provided, and I do not think it is correct for the
DEIR to analyze some hypothetical level of wood burning appliance installation that is far below the
maximum that would be permitted by the project description, and is neither stated in the main body of
the DEIR where most people would look for it, nor justified by any factual analysis that is presented.
The DEIR is deficient in finding only that the project would conflict with the Town’s particulate matter
AQMP. It should also have found that the PM10 emissions from 185 (or more or fewer?) wood burning
appliances would have a separate significant impact directly on air quality. The standards of significance
on page 4.3-27 itemize these two criteria separately; the latter is not part of the former. In fact, the
correct and complete impact analysis would include all of the following separate statements, at least:
¥ The project would conflict with the Truckee Particulate Matter AQMP.
¥ The project would contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation (non-attainment).
¥ The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criterion pollutant for
which the region is in non-attainment.
Impact AIR-1 talks about compliance with the AQMP; impact AIR-2 talks about during-construction air
impacts, but nowhere does either impact statement account for the quantities of operational emissions
from roads and wood burning appliances that the project will emit, and state that this itself is a direct
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 8
and significant environmental effect (separate and beyond impact AIR-1 which talks only about
consistency with the AQMP).
Page 4.3-27 states that a significant impact must be identified if the project would “violate any air
quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.” Table 4.3-3
on Page 4.3-14 shows that the area is in non-attainment for PM10, and, for the reasons stated above, the
project as described will potentially add substantially to this. Therefore, the DEIR is inadequate in not
identifying a separate and distinct direct impact, not merely the AQMP inconsistency impact. Following
the list of impact standards on page 4.3-27, these are two separate impacts requiring two separate
impact analyses and two separate sets of mitigation measures with quantitative justification of the
feasibility and effectiveness of each.
The omission of this second impact is an important CEQA inadequacy, because although the payment
of mitigation fees might be represented (I think inadequately and not demonstrably fully effectively) as
mitigating the AQMP conflict, it does not at all mitigate the actual smoke impact. In order for the DEIR to
find the payment of said fees to be adequate mitigation for both impacts (which is not necessarily the
same analysis), it would have to provide a logical explanation of how the fee payments and things to
which they are applied have the effect of reducing the amount of wood smoke PM10 in the air of the
project site and adjoining communities. If the impacts had been properly dissected and analyzed
separately, with proper consideration of the uncommon situation of the air of the local area (see
comments above), it would have been obvious that the supposed mitigation measure AIR-1 would do
absolutely nothing to mitigate this project impact which the DEIR does not even identify at all.
In short, we already frequently experience bad air quality from wood smoke now, Canyon Springs will
make that significantly worse, and that’s a significant air quality and health impact, for which no
realistically effective mitigation measure is provided. Therefore, the DEIR is inadequate in this respect.
Already, the Town has an ordinance prohibiting the operation of non-phase 2 stoves and fireplaces, so
presumably there are none of these left to be removed by payment of mitigation fees. The program to
remove older wood stoves was in effect for years (I took advantage of it myself), and I expect that
anyone who could and would take advantage of such a program in the future has probably already
done so. So, there’s no substantial reduction in wood smoke emissions available through that route.
The mitigation measure for AIR-1 states that PM10 emission reductions would include unspecified
“improvements to street sanding and sweeping operations.” Improving street sweeping processes in
downtown Truckee or Tahoe-Donner doesn’t do anything to mitigate the actual wood smoke impact in
Glenshire/Canyon Springs, six to ten miles to the east. In order for this to be acclaimed as a measure that
will offset 100 percent of the project’s PM10 emissions, the DEIR needs to provide a full and detailed
accounting of all project sources of PM10, the amounts of PM10 from other sources such as sweeping, the
exact measures that will be implemented to reduce those emissions, quantitative documentation of the
degree to which those measures will reduce the emissions, and how those actions will remedy the
accumulations of wood smoke emissions in the Glenshire and Canyon Springs areas that already occur
during temperature inversions and will be exacerbated by the project. The public who is breathing this
air needs to be provided with this level of detail in order to evaluate the claim that the project will offset
100 percent of its PM10 emissions. Moreover, even a 100 percent offset would only (at most) mitigate
AIR-1 (AQMP inconsistency), but not the separate direct impact on the local area’s air.
Just as justice delayed is justice denied, mitigation that is excessively delayed, or is implemented so far
from the location of impact that it does not reduce a project’s actual physical effect on the affected
environment and public, is not mitigation; the impact must be determined to be significant and
unavoidable. The present DEIR needs to be revised to demonstrate with concrete analysis the feasibility
and effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measure. Had it fully identified all of the separate air
quality impacts in accordance with the standards on page 4.3-27, this shortcoming would have been
more obvious. In any case, there is at least one significant air quality impact that will result from the
project as proposed, which is not identified and which is not reduced to a less-than-significant level by
proposed mitigation measures, therefore the DEIR is not adequate.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 9
It would be much simpler for the project description to be revised to eliminate wood burning
appliances entirely except ones that remove essentially 100 percent of the PM10 (using a principle that is
consistent with the Town’s AQMP: 100 percent offset.) I don’t believe that any such appliances exist at
present, but if they were to come on the market, owners should not be prohibited from installing them.
That said, the DEIR must still identify the impacts from PM10 emissions from roads and quantify them
even if wood burning stoves and fireplaces are prohibited. I didn’t find any quantitative discussion of
this item, including the increased PM10 from slurry-sealed roads, in the DEIR. Maybe it’s buried
somewhere in the URBEMIS modeling; it needs also to be summarized in the text of section 4.3.
Portions of mitigation measure AIR-2 are inadequate or so poorly worded that they cannot be
reasonably be expected to be effective. The “inactive” definition should be reduced from 96 hours to 72
hours (weekend plus holiday). It’s my understanding that all soil loads are required to be covered by a
tarpaulin already, and the “public nuisance” standard is not good enough for an air quality mitigation
measure. If the intent is to rigorously limit PM from loads in a simple, practical way, the measure should
require that loads including soil should first be lightly watered, then covered, before being transported
off site. That said, I thought the project was supposed to be a balanced cut/fill project. If so, why would
there ever be loads of soil being hauled around? The DEIR needs to explain more fully and clearly.
The measure states “grid power shall be used (as opposed to generators) for job site power needs
where feasible during construction. What exactly does that mean in practice? I would imagine that the
grid power will not be installed until nearly the end of infrastructure construction, so evidently it means
that grid power won’t be used at all during part? most? of the construction done by the project owners.
Page 4.3-37 goes on to state that “All self-propelled off-road diesel-powered equipment and vehicles
greater than 25 horsepower shall be equipped with an engine meeting at least Tier 2 emission
standards.” How is this going to be monitored and implemented? Presumably, for this mitigation
measure to be implemented, each contractor hired for project construction would be required to
provide documentation of all equipment to be brought to the site and confirmation that it meets this
standard. Is that what actually happens? For full public information, the DEIR must explain how
compliance is assured. If there’s no verifiable compliance system, the measure should be deleted.
Impact and mitigation measure AIR-2 seem to apply only to the construction of the project
infrastructure. Consequently, a very large project-specific source of construction emissions, namely,
from the construction of all of the individual and a few multi-family residences, which is unequivocally a
consequence of project implementation, is not accounted for; nor is realistic, feasible, effective
mitigation proposed. In this respect, Section 4.3 does not meet the requirements of CEQA.
The revision, and additional impact and mitigation statement, needs to take into account the same
ideas as expressed above. For example, if there’s a new mitigation measure for individual home
construction relating to use of grid power instead of generators, what is actually going to happen? Does
it really eliminate the use of generators to put in temporary electric? Or is this not enough and
generators are still operated? Not being a builder, I have no idea, but this could readily be ascertained
and stated. What about compressors? Is the Tier 2 emission standard applicable to individual home
construction too? Is that feasible for Truckee-area builders? How is it possible to monitor this for
individual homes? The DEIR needs to provide a lot more information and analysis of this subject.
Biological
Resources
Page 3-5 of the DEIR makes some statements which are either inaccurate or are questionable and
entirely unattributed. For example, the DEIR states that “Juniper Creek flows through the site from east
to west.” Not on my copy of the USGS map!
It also states that the project site is inhabited by northern goshawk. That’s a very concrete statement of
actual occurrence, and the word “inhabit” usually means “breed within” in wildlife biology (not “move
across” or “rarely forage within”). What is the reference for this factual statement? Based upon the
portions of the site I have seen, I would agree with the DEIR that the site itself does not appear to afford
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 10
suitable nesting habitat for this bird. (For the record, I have personally seen one in the Glenshire
neighborhood; a long and good visibility observation of a perched bird from a distance of no more than
60 or 80 feet. I’m sure they’ve been seen many other times.)
However, since Section 3 of the DEIR states that northern goshawk inhabits the site, Section 4.4 should
have provided more detail on the use of the site by this species. It’s a bird that is highly averse to human
disturbance when nesting. If there could be suitable nesting habitat within about ¼ mile of the limits of
the site (e.g., possibly on the slopes above Juniper Creek), then such nest sites could be permanently
eliminated by construction of the project, and the DEIR should have determined this. One simple way is
from aerial photographs; Forest Service publications provide methods for inferring tree diameter from
the crowns that can be seen and measured on them. If there is such nesting habitat within that
distance, then the impact analysis in the DEIR should have addressed it. I am not asserting that northern
goshawks are present or nest within or near the site; the DEIR says that, so we must assume that the
preparers had reason to make this statement. If so, the DEIR is inadequate in not following up as
suggested above.
Vegetation: The labeling, characterization, and mapping of plant communities is incorrect. I believe
some of the inaccuracy of this and other parts of Section 4.4 result from merely referring to studies
dating back to 2004 without anyone ever having verified their accuracy at all. Specifically, my subjective
observation is that the majority of the shrubland vegetative cover, and especially the pine savanna, is
dominated by bitterbrush, not sagebrush (as originally mischaracterized in 2004). This is important
because bitterbrush is an important mule deer browse species (in fact, the most preferred species in this
region during the seasons that deer occupy the site) and sagebrush is not nearly as preferred (DFG et al.,
1998; Innis, 2013). There are many areas where mountain sagebrush is present but not dominant (areas
which would correctly be mapped bitterbrush), small patches that are almost all low sagebrush, and a
few patches that are dominated by mountain sagebrush. There is much more habitat diversity than the
DEIR describes, and this habitat diversity is of significance to mule deer and other wildlife species.
Thus, throughout the DEIR, all of the places where “big sagebrush” (which is incorrect anyway; it is
mountain sagebrush) or “sagebrush” are mentioned probably need to be corrected to bitterbrush
shrubland. Thus, the text about sagebrush species is inapplicable and should not appear in the revised
DEIR. On the other hand, if the DEIR considers that greater sage-grouse (a candidate for federal listing)
and other special-status sagebrush associates might use habitat such as occurs on the project site, then
these species should have been addressed in detail.
The mapping (Figure 4.4-1) is wrong as well, and greatly under-represents the extent and continuity of
the shrubland. This is not just my interpretation: it is visible in the DEIR’s own figure. According to the
reference cited by the DEIR (Manual of California Vegetation), areas dominated by bitterbrush with <10
percent tree cover should have been mapped as bitterbrush shrubland, not forest. Given that Figure
4.4-1 shows several very narrow strips of shrubland adjacent to the wet meadow in the southwestern
corner, this same approximate minimum polygon size should have been followed throughout the site,
to show the many larger patches of bitterbrush that occur throughout the area incorrectly mapped as
unbroken Jeffrey pine. Following this approach, there may be some 50-100 percent more shrubland
within the site than the DEIR acknowledges. Once the base mapping is corrected, the statements of
areas of impact on different cover types then need to be revised.
Accurate vegetation mapping is important in providing adequate background for the evaluation of the
site’s suitability for mule deer which need a variety of different habitats but, in the project vicinity, seem
generally to prefer open shrublands over coniferous forest that has minimal or no shrub stratum.
The descriptions and mapping of wet meadows and riverine wetlands are a bit hazy. Why aren’t the
riverine wetlands shown on Figure 4.4-1? Also, the mapping in Figure 4.4-2 doesn’t seem to correspond
to the mapping in the wetland delineation appendix, but one can’t be certain because the latter figure
is so fuzzy. The maps need to be made all consistent, and sharp or large enough that we can see what
they are meant to show. Unequivocal descriptions of what is meant by the different types of wetlands
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 11
and other waters need to be provided. As explained below, the project’s delineation of jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. does not provide all the information needed for the EIR’s analysis.
It seems that the wet meadow mapping is limited to areas of dense Baltic rush turf (with other species),
but the text description would be applicable more broadly (in fact, would probably include also the
riverine wetlands). But there is no unequivocal description, and no clear characterization of what exactly
is meant by riverine wetlands. Contrary to written direction from Lahontan Regional Water Quality
Control Board, study of the riverine wetlands occurred at a time of year when much of this seasonal
vegetation has disappeared or is difficult to recognize, so it may under-represent the actual extent of
this community type. (Baltic rush meadows are easily recognizable at all times when not covered by
snow, but this is not so for all other kinds of seasonal wetlands that occur within the site.) However,
since the DEIR is being circulated at a time that it is impossible to examine the field realities, and the
wetland delineation was unavailable prior to circulation, we will not know until after the public
comment period closes whether there are inaccuracies in this part of the DEIR. The vegetative cover
threshold for wetland vegetation (vs. non-wetland waters) is 10 percent, and must be evaluated at the
peak of growth (spring or early summer). Since this did not happen, there may be significant areas that
should be characterized as some form of wetland which are instead mapped as non-wetland waters.
The sensitivity of wetlands to degradation by nutrient and sediment inflows is higher than that of
completely non-wetland waters, so accurate mapping of these features is relevant to the analysis of
indirect impacts (see comments on Hydrology).
There are some nuances about portions of the vegetation that bear comment not from a perspective of
biological resource impacts, but hydrology and water quality. In many of the flat to gently sloping areas
(where development is preferentially located to reduce the necessity for cut and fill), patches of wetland
indicator (FAC/FACW) species such as Deschampsia danthoniodes, Danthonia californica, and others
occur in isolated areas scattered around in otherwise upland areas. For one thing, these should have
been evaluated as possible isolated wetlands, which fall under State jurisdiction though they would not
be waters of the U.S. (see below). For another, they are clearly indicative of a high soil moisture regime,
or even full saturation, in the near-surface soils in the spring time. This is exactly the time when it is
necessary for detention basins to be able to lose their water contents via percolation, and when this
putative function is not going to be successful. The FAC/FACW plants are presumably only found where
the saturation is nearer to the surface than 12 inches, but seasonal saturation to 14 or 16 inches is likely
to be very widespread throughout the uplands. These are empirical facts about the site’s vegetation
that support the discussion provided below about Hydrology.
Botany: There is no plant survey report available for public review, so the DEIR fails to provide
documentation that a floristic rare plant survey has been conducted and documentation prepared
according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW; formerly Fish and Game, some
references are still properly cited as DFG) Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status
Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities dated November 24, 2009. To my knowledge, the
botanical survey was conducted by competent individuals with appropriate local knowledge, at the
right time of year. But the information presented in the DEIR fails to document that the following
requirements of the DFW Protocols were followed:
¥ Conduct surveys using systematic field techniques in all habitats of the site to ensure thorough
coverage of potential impact areas. Surveys should be comprehensive over the entire site,
including areas that will be directly or indirectly impacted by the project. (Indirect impacts might
include construction-phase impacts which almost always occur outside the parcels mapped in the
project’s proposed tentative map, and long-term impacts including but not limited to vegetation
modification to limit flammable fuels in this wildland-urban interface situation.)
¥ The Protocols provide guidelines about the amount of time that is normally required in certain
habitat settings. The information in the DEIR does not provide a basis for assessment of how likely it
is that the level of survey effort was appropriate. It may well have been very adequate; we just have
no way of knowing from the DEIR.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 12
¥ Include reports of botanical field surveys containing the following information with project
environmental documents (some items are included in the DEIR, but these two are not):
total person-hours spent on field surveys;
a list of all taxa occurring on the project site.
This last requirement is important, because the floristic plant list not only provides confirmation of
survey findings regarding presence/absence of special-status species, but, since knowledgeable
individuals may be familiar with the approximate number of plant species present on site or in similar
habitat, also provides an opportunity for the public to evaluate how thorough the survey work was.
Specifically, I have observed a mint species in the wet meadows on site (whether at a road crossing site
or not, I do not know), which was not flowering at the time that I saw it. Absent a full plant survey report
and list showing a different wetland mint, the DEIR fails to provide sufficient confirmation of the
statement that Scutellaria galericulata is not present. I am personally inclined to accept the botanist’s
statement, but the DEIR should have provided adequate documentation for others to be able to
evaluate the plant survey and (non-) impact conclusions, and it does not.
The DEIR notes that Eriogonum ovalifolium was sought and not found within the site. This is in
accordance with my cursory observations as well, but the plant in question is found immediately
adjacent to the proposed access road and would potentially be affected during construction (staging
and stockpiling often occurs outside project limits that are shown in CEQA documents).
Subsequent research reveals that the plant in question keys to E. strictum var. proliferum, but in every
respect including habit (local plant forms dense cushions vs. loose mats of var. proliferum), size of plants
(local plant 5-25 cm vs. var. proliferum 20-40 cm), size of leaves (local plant 5-9 mm vs. var. proliferum 10-
30 mm), and size of involucres (local plant 3.5-4 mm vs. var. proliferum 4-6 mm), the plant’s
characteristics lie outside the limits of the ranges for E. strictum var. proliferum stated in the authoritative
treatment in Flora North America (FNAEC, 2005), and certainly great enough to justify separation as a
distinct variety in the context of other Eriogonum taxa that have recently been published. (In habit, the
plant resembles several varieties of E. ovalifolium and does not resemble any variety of E. strictum.
FNAEC (2005) recognizes the very close affinities among E. strictum and E. ovalifolium varieties.) Also, the
degree of inflorescence branching (usually having only two to four branches) is strikingly different from
specimens of E. strictum var. proliferum that I have examined at the UC Davis herbarium (which have
many branches in several orders of branching). I know of only one other locality where this taxon is
reported (Martis Valley), so it is one of the rarest plants in the entire region; much rarer than Ivesia
sericoleuca, which is found in many localities in the area.
The occurrence of a distinct and extremely rare plant taxon, albeit as-yet not published, in a location
immediately adjacent to the project, and potentially subject to construction-phase or other impacts
related to the project, should be thoroughly addressed in the DEIR and appropriate mitigation
measures included. It’s such a rare plant, and it would be such an easy and inexpensive matter to avoid
extirpating it, that the project should do so. For example, by expanding the access easement a small
amount and signing or preferably fencing this small patch of habitat (for which outside support would
almost certainly be available), the potential risk to the species would be eliminated. Easy!
Wetlands: In a letter dated April 25, 2006, with the subject heading “COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF
PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE PROPOSED CANYON SPRINGS
SUBDIVISION, NEVADA COUNTY,” the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board stated “The draft
EIR shall include a complete wetland and flood plain delineation during the spring snowmelt and
summer growing seasons.” Inexplicably, this important NOP comment letter, and perhaps others, is not
included in the present DEIR. The first page of Appendix B states that section C includes “Letters
Received In Response To The Notice Of Preparation Of The Canyon Springs EIR Dated March 18, 2006.”
This is not true: the letter referenced above does not appear, in that or any other section that I could
find in the present 2012 DEIR. It does appear in the appendices to the withdrawn 2007 DEIR.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 13
The Lahontan direction, quoted above, states “…snowmelt and summer…” [emphasis added] which
means small drainage features and highly ephemeral candidate wetlands must be evaluated during the
snowmelt season, and other features (e.g. other wetlands) are to be studied in June or July. Examples of
surface waters that are obvious at the time of snowmelt, and may be considered to be waters of the
State, are shown in Figures 3 and 4 (Appendix A at end of letter). The Lahontan direction was not
followed: the work was done at the end of August. Without doubt, the 2012 DEIR should have
addressed all issues raised in all NOP comments going back at least as far as the 2006 Canyon Springs
project. In fact, given that the 2004 Tahoe Boca EIR is included, in part, in the 2012 DEIR, by logical
extension all of the NOP comments for that project should be addressed as well. It’s my understanding
that the lead agency cannot simply ignore this kind of important recommendation from a trustee
agency without explaining its reason for doing so in writing. Moreover, as a consequence of ignoring
the Board’s comment, it’s possible that the wetland delineator, who did not study the site at an
appropriate time of year, might not have noticed some waters of the State that occur within the site.
It’s my belief that there are some minor wetlands found within one or more of the small tributaries on
site that are mapped only as non-wetland waters. These are wetlands that may not have been mapped
because they’re not very prominent between August 30 and September 2. These particular areas are
not located where they would be subject to parcel impacts, but there may be others that are not yet
recognized by any of us because the site was not studied comprehensively at the time of snowmelt and
in late spring/early summer. There are some small spots of hydrophytic vegetation that do not appear
to have been evaluated for other criteria. If any of these are wetlands, they would be isolated waters of
the State but not a water of the U.S. (therefore, the verified delineation is of no value to the DEIR’s
analysis and conclusions). There are some wetland indicator species (FACW and OBL) that are locally
common on site but highly ephemeral and require some spots to be delineated very early.
There is no explanation in the delineation report about how such waters of the State would be, or were,
evaluated and determined in the dry season, so one can only conclude that this possibility was simply
not addressed in the delineation. Regardless, the DEIR and supporting documentation was not
prepared in accordance with the direction of a trustee agency, and no explanation is provided. I believe
this fails to comply with CEQA. There are other points of specific direction provided in the April 25, 2006,
letter from the Board which should be identified and addressed the present DEIR. Are there any other
important letters that were omitted from consideration by the present DEIR, or only this one? The DEIR
does not provide the complete regulatory record; yet another reason that the revised DEIR should be
recirculated.
The report’s explanation of how the hydric soils determinations were made is not in conformance with
the applicable Regional Supplement, contradicting the claim elsewhere that the Regional Supplement
was followed. However, since no sites were determined to be non-wetland solely by virtue of not
meeting this criterion, so far as I know, this appears not to have affected the determinations of any of
the sites documented in data sheets in the report. But it might have: areas that might have exhibited a
prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation when studied at the correct time of year might have been
determined, without full three-parameter study, as non-wetland at the end of August, just because the
vegetation looked non-hydrophytic. Had they been seen in spring time, the plant dominance might
have been different and soils investigation done actually in accordance with the Regional Supplement
might also have identified hydric soils. Consequently, it is possible that failing to follow direction from
the trustee agency resulted in failure to identify subtle wetlands that are not particularly evident at the
end of August but would still be considered to be waters of the State.
Projects often rely on a verification from the Corps as a foundation for determining that all of their
wetland issues are addressed. This is not adequate for CEQA compliance, because the Corps does not
deal with waters of the State, and in the present case the report does not provide any information about
whether all waters of the State are shown or not, or how the latter were studied and determined. Many
waters that are excluded from federal jurisdiction (for example, isolated and short-seasonal tributary
waters) still fall under California jurisdiction, and impacts on them are generally prohibited under the
Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan), a fact that should have been noted on
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 14
page 4.4-3. Fills are permitted subject to certain areal limitations and only if certain findings can be
made, which are not discussed and evaluated in the DEIR. There are no exemptions from the Basin Plan
prohibition for isolated wetlands or other waters of the State (see Lahontan comment letters).
Therefore, the DEIR and its appendices fail to provide adequate documentation of whether or not the
project has direct or indirect impacts on waters of the State. In my project experience in this area,
Lahontan staff regard some small temporary tributaries as waters of the State, which the Corps staff
never regarded as waters of the U.S. (even before Rapanos).
Given that trustee agency direction that wetland studies occur during snowmelt and summer time was
ignored, and that the DEIR review period is entirely within the winter, both regulatory agencies and the
public are deprived of the opportunity to review the adequacy of this key piece of the project setting.
The delineation should be reviewed in accordance with that direction and included in a new revised
DEIR which is then recirculated. Absent recirculation, any new comments and questions from
spring/summer observations would have to be raised during the FEIR hearing.
The project figures are not consistent in what wetland base mapping they rely on. The figures are
sometimes quite small scale so it isn’t always easy to see, but I am sure that at least one of the site maps
(drainage? tentative map?) does not show at least one of the tributaries that is shown on other maps.
The base mapping for all figures should be consistent and supplied at a sufficiently good image quality
that the public can see for itself whether the statements about project design (avoidance of wetlands
and other waters) in the EIR are accurate or not. In some cases, just enlarging the pdfs in Acrobat or
Reader doesn’t work, because the images become so fuzzy and/or pixellated that the reader cannot see
important details of the figures clearly. Comments on the mitigation measures are provided below.
The DEIR fails to adequately analyze and document the indirect impacts that can reasonably be
expected to result from the fact that many of the parcels extend fully across the 50 foot setback from
the 100-year floodplain, and apparently right up to the very edge of the mapped jurisdictional
wetlands. These issues are discussed in detail under Hydrology.
Special Status Species and General Wildlife: Yellow warbler nests about three miles due north of the
Canyon Springs site (record not yet in CNDDB but might be by completion of the EIR). As the DEIR notes,
suitable nesting habitat occurs near the Glenshire Pond and especially in the tributary from it to the
Truckee River (and also other tributaries). I agree with the DEIR that the potential for yellow warblers to
nest at nearby springs is high, but low within the site itself.
I believe that available verified information indicates that the present known range of Sierra Nevada red
fox is exclusively, or primarily, far down on the west slope of the range, so the potential for occurrence
of this species within the site is probably very low. As noted below, surveying for this species is rather
difficult. The one regional record is a visual one, and, to my knowledge, you need DNA samples to verify
that the Sierra Nevada subspecies is present.
Page 4.4-9 states that an LSA biologist surveyed the site on June 8, 2011, to verify the accuracy of
previous surveys. This verification was evidently inadequate, because it did not even correct the
obvious long-standing error of determining the project’s shrublands as sagebrush rather than
bitterbrush, which is mostly what they are. It also states that “wildlife observed on the site was identified
and recorded.” I could not find this list of wildlife anywhere in the DEIR. Please provide it. The DEIR must
provide the public an opportunity to comment on the accuracy and thoroughness of the background
site studies by inspecting the results from them. June 8 is a perfect date; there should have been many
wildlife species observed.
With regard to the previous biological studies of the site, these were occasionally not very accurate in
some ways. This never appeared in the public record because the EIR processes were always terminated
before completion, so there were never any FEIRs that corrected their errors.
The 1988 Truckee Loyalton Deer Herd Management Plan (DFG, 1988) seems to me to qualify as
“previous analysis.” Does the present 2012 DEIR confirm that the findings of that reference describe the
current conditions observed on site?
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 15
The present DEIR should have provided a full, adequate, and accurate description of what the preparers
found to be the biological resources on site. Observations made by the biologists who prepared the
DEIR should be presented as such, and facts that are being stated based upon reference to some
previous study should be clearly identified and the references provided. Blanket statements of
confirmation are legally very confusing when there are facts presented in previous analysis which differ
from those presented in the DEIR. The revised DEIR or FEIR needs to clarify.
There are definitely some special status species that are recorded from the project vicinity from habitats
similar to those of the project site, and which were noted in previous EIR sections, but which are not
addressed in the DEIR; for one example, Lewis’s woodpecker, which is a US Fish and Wildlife Service bird
of conservation concern. (This list is the partial functional replacement of the former federal species of
concern, which is now used as a designation only within the Sacramento District. Birds of conservation
concern are tracked by CNDDB and should be addressed in EIRs.) I have comprehensively surveyed
other potentially suitable habitat in the region during the nesting season, and have not seen the species
outside of eastern Truckee. Lewis’s woodpecker was considered in the Town’s EIR for the Old
Greenwood project (about three miles from Canyon Springs), and was identified as a special-status
species in the verified previous analysis for Tahoe Boca, so the Canyon Springs DEIR should also have
addressed it. The Town ought to have hard copy of documentation of occurrence of this species at the
Old Greenwood project. I did the bird survey for compliance with the Old Greenwood EIR mitigation
measure and submitted a written report to East-West Partners, so I know for a fact that this
documentation exists, and if the Town was fulfilling its responsibility to monitor the compliance of the
Old Greenwood project with the Town’s conditions of approval, it would have ensured that it received
documentation that surveys were done.
In brief, the work I did for East-West in compliance with project conditions showed that the EIR
mitigation measure was ineffective in preventing a significant CEQA impact on the species. To the best
of my knowledge (based on multiple revisits to the site during the nesting season, and discussions with
East-West staff) they never returned to nest on site despite avoidance of the nest trees during the
nesting season, so the geographic range of the species was definitely reduced. I do not know for sure
whether there are other nest territories in the region, but the Canyon Springs site includes some perfect
habitat (snags within flat, open shrubland), which is not noted in the DEIR. Ironically, the December 18
presentation included a photograph of this very bird species, but the DEIR does not mention it. If the
photo was taken on site, this should have been mentioned in the DEIR and the location mapped. Since
the data from Old Greenwood showed that the only effective mitigation for impacts on nest sites of
Lewis’s woodpeckers is avoidance, the site where that photograph was taken, if on Canyon Springs,
would need to be avoided by development. Survey for the species in suitable habitat throughout the
site, and avoidance of any nesting territories, would also be needed to prevent significant impact.
Page 4.4-27 includes a good explanation of the difference between a wildlife movement corridor
(within the animal’s home range) and a migratory corridor (between seasonal ranges that are
geographically not contiguous). Unfortunately, the subsequent discussion of the values that the
project’s residual open space areas might have for migrating mule deer loses sight of this important
biological distinction. Movement corridors for general wildlife are not necessarily of any value at all as
migratory corridors for one particular species (namely, mule deer).
MULE DEER
The DEIR’s analysis suffers from overly vague and conditional language in its presentation of the
relevant facts of the biology of Rocky Mountain mule deer (the subspecies which occurs at the site) and
makes contradictory statements. In some cases, the data in the applicant’s deer report supports the
conclusion that is the opposite of the one reached by its author. Considering the amount of academic
and agency literature on mule deer, the background literature review in the primary reference (HEC,
2011) is remarkably scanty, and the description of existing conditions is inadequate because of it. Mule
deer have a complex natural history and require a patchwork of different habitat elements. The DEIR
treatment does not recognize this complexity or its significance in evaluating the project’s impacts.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 16
Specific shortcomings in the DEIR’s description of deer biology include the following:
¥ It fails to note that, as is widely recognized in the literature, there is a lot more regional deer use in
open shrublands and savanna than there is in conifer woodlands with more closed canopy (Collins
and Urness, 1981; DFG et al., 1998; Innis, 2013; and many other references). Generally, albeit not
exclusively, our migrating deer seem to preferentially use shrublands occurring on gentler
topographic slopes, and generally avoid both high-canopy-coverage conifer forest and steep rocky
hillsides. This interpretation is supported by my empirical observation within Canyon Springs and
elsewhere in the region. The project avoids some open shrublands as open space, but locates
development squarely in other parts of it, unfortunately right where heavy deer use and migration
movement occurs. The DEIR’s deer analysis seems to have taken as an axiom that all of the
undeveloped land within and adjoining the Canyon Springs is equally used, or potentially equally
used, for deer migration. This is incorrect, and neither the DEIR nor any appendix provides any
supporting factual evidence. Moreover, the private land adjoining the site on the east is just as
susceptible to being turned into blocks of dense residential development as the site itself, so it
cannot be assumed that migration, even if it occurs there today, will be possible in the future.
¥ The DEIR and applicant’s deer reports mention “dense cover” several times, seeming to state or
imply that the project site is less suitable for deer use than it might be due to a (total? relative?) lack
of “dense cover.” What is meant by this? Deer use two main categories of cover, which are
fundamentally different both in their structural characteristics and function in deer biology: thermal
cover, and hiding (concealment) cover. Good thermal cover includes areas with sufficient tree
density or topographic roughness to attenuate winds; this is provided in many patches of
moderately dense conifer forest within the site. Hiding cover has very different characteristics: it
must be visually dense (which does not matter for thermal cover), but need be only a few feet tall,
especially in the case of suitable hiding cover for fawns, which is very important in avoiding
predation. Optimal hiding cover includes dense shrubland, such as bitterbrush, 60 cm (about two
feet) tall or taller (Leckenby et al., 1982; conventional definition of shrub height is the highest point
of live vegetative canopy). Such vegetation certainly occurs in places, and probably extensively,
throughout the project site. The DEIR should be corrected to acknowledge that both thermal and
hiding cover are probably present throughout the site, or should provide quantitative vegetation
sampling data from many randomly situated plots to evaluate the structural characteristics of the
vegetation with respect to canopy parameters.
¥ The proposal to plant additional trees in the 7-acre patch of early-successional (post-fire) habitat is
inadvisable. Landscape level biodiversity is best served by having a variety of different types of
patches of vegetation and successional stages; this is specifically beneficial for deer habitat values
(Leckenby et al., 1982, and many other sources). In particular, mule deer are known to find early and
mid-seral stage vegetation, and specifically post-fire secondary successional vegetation, to be
desirable (Innis, 2013; and the DEIR itself states this principle with respect to the Martis Fire site).
Many birds and other wildlife species require openings and woodland edges. Many California plant
species are characteristic of post-fire successional vegetation. The proposed conifer tree planting,
which is mistakenly recommended as a mitigation measure for the project’s adverse impacts on
deer, would instead have a negative impact on deer and should be eliminated from the project
proposal. According to DFG et al. (1998; executive summary), in forest-dominated areas, deer thrive
on early successional habitats that are a product of disturbances that open up the forest and shrub
canopy to allow grass/forb/shrub growth to occur. And, “as the [coniferous] stand continues to
mature and the canopy further closes, habitat quality disappears for early successional favored
species like deer” (caption to Photo 1a). In combination with ongoing natural tree regrowth, the
proposed planting will have a negative impact on deer habitat. Also, aren’t we spending millions of
dollars to thin small trees in the wildland-urban interface? There is already an ecologically adequate
amount of tree regrowth occurring naturally in the area in question without any planting. The
proposed planting of pine trees should be eliminated from the project. It is not a beneficial project
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 17
element or mitigation measure. The proportion of conifer forest on site, some of which provides
thermal cover, is already plenty high enough to satisfy the habitat requirements of mule deer.
¥ There is a lot of successional and mature native vegetation on the site, of all growth forms (forbs,
grasses, shrubs, and trees). The DEIR provides no indication, references, or factual support for a
contention that the supply of food plants is limiting the deer population and extent of use of the
site. The most recent population figures I could find (for 1996, found in DFG et al., 1998) showed
that there were only about one-quarter as many deer in the Northeastern Sierra Nevada assessment
unit as there were at the most recently known population maximum (and about one-third as many
as the consistent levels that prevailed for several years in the early 1990s). How could a population
whose numbers have declined by so much now be limited by the overall availability of food plants?
All the references and explanations provided would support a conclusion that almost everything
other than supply of edible vegetation is what adversely affects the deer on the site, especially,
residential development exactly like that which is being proposed. Discussing the NE Sierra Nevada
deer assessment unit (DAU), DFG et al. (1998) states that "The habitat issues identified in this DAU
are declining winter range conditions as affected by summer fires and grazing; development on
winter ranges from the Carson City area to Susanville, especially around Reno and on summer
ranges around Lake Tahoe/Truckee. The only one of these issues that is ongoing within California is
developments exactly like Canyon Springs. That being the case, I cannot imagine what the line of
reasoning is that somehow planting some additional vegetation is going to reduce the project’s
impacts on deer. Also, although it is true that there are some disturbed areas that should be
decompacted and revegetated for reasons unrelated to providing food for deer, virtually the
entirety of the remaining shrubland vegetation on site is mid to late seral stage, which already
supports essentially the maximum biomass of plants in the deer browse categories that the soil and
climatic conditions permit. More seeding is not going to change anything for the better, and would
not do anything at all to actually mitigate the project’s habitat-conversion impact.
¥ The interpretations about ongoing disturbance by dogs and vehicles are inadequate and incorrect
because empirical evidence (my subjective observations and GPS points) shows there is substantial
deer use (including migration) overlapping exactly the same areas that the DEIR interprets as being
of reduced value due to these disturbances. The cited disturbances are daytime ones, and the deer
are most active in evening (HEC, 2011, states that 60 percent of the deer observations made by the
automatic cameras were at night), so there isn’t as much of a conflict as is implied. One frequently
observes abundant deer tracks and scat right on exactly the same roads with dog and motorcycle
tracks. The preference of deer for crepuscular and night time activity rather than diurnal activity has
nothing to do with human and associated disturbance. Anyone who spends enough time in remote
montane Sierra habitat will see that deer are much more active at night than in the day, even in the
absence of dogs and presence of very few people.
¥ On the other hand, dogs in back yards adjacent to open space areas are unequivocally a
disturbance that greatly reduces (although doesn’t completely eliminate) deer usage within a few
hundred feet of the limit of parcels, because these dogs are present all the time, are generally not
accompanied and controlled by owners, and are much more territorial than are dogs being walked
in open spaces, so they are often highly vocal and active in the evening; and they often stray
outside parcels. It’s true that presence of houses and associated disturbances do not absolutely
exclude deer excursions to such area, but the vicinity of the developed areas experiences much
lower deer use, and my observation as well as all available factual data suggests that they definitely
do not migrate across areas of solid development of ½-acre or smaller parcels. So, the project would
definitely reduce or eliminate the currently used major migration corridor across the site.
¥ It is implausible that a nominal prohibition on dog use on trails would ever be implemented
consistently (nor would it matter: daytime dog walking use isn’t nearly as big a problem as a solid
block of houses with dogs present day and night). The only effective mitigation measure would be
to determine the deer migration and heavy use areas empirically, and to design the project with
sufficient setbacks that that use would not be affected by development and associated resident
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 18
dogs. A setback of some hundreds of feet between the outer edge of the areas used by deer and
the nearest parcel boundaries is probably the minimum that would be effective. DFW biologists
might have a more conservative opinion. It is possible to configure and condition a project that
includes very large parcel sizes, no fences, and native vegetation conservation easements, so as to
minimize impacts on deer migration, but neither the present proposed Canyon Springs project nor
any of the alternatives other than the No Project alternative achieves this.
¥ Deer usage of habitat in the greater project region is far from uniform, but instead tends to be
concentrated in specific areas (HEC, 2011). Past agency analysis and recent field data, including the
data provided in HEC (2011), suggest that the project site is one of the most important migratory
and other use areas for deer in the immediate vicinity. Unlike many other land uses, residential
development permanently converts habitat to a condition that is minimally or not usable by deer
again, and establishes a permanent regime of disturbance. As is recognized by many agency
references, on an areal basis, this is a much greater impact than are other temporary habitat effects
such as extractive activities or reversible natural events such as fires and ecological succession.
Some additional specific comments are appropriate pertaining to the report “CEQA Significance of Mule
Deer at the Canyon Springs Site, Truckee, California” (Heal Environmental Consulting [HEC], 2011). Some
of these comments duplicate those made later about portions of the DEIR Section 4.4, but this is
unavoidable since there is internal repetition within each document and much duplication between the
two, and it is not entirely clear what is being presented as the existing conditions and impact analysis
regarding mule deer. Also, although the comments about the applicant’s report are appropriate, the
same substance needs to be repeated with reference to the DEIR text itself, to ensure that response is
required under CEQA.
Quantitative and regional approach: The report is deficient in not clearly explaining what geographic
context and proportion of the herd was used to evaluate the results. It is a basic principle of any kind of
population-related biology that you first establish what the parameters of the study are, on a basis of
absolute numbers, relative numbers, density per unit area, or multi-year time span; and you define what
your terms mean. None of the reports about mule deer at Canyon Springs did this. HEC (2011) states
“there is no direct evidence that deer use the site for … migration in substantial numbers. Then it states
that deer “in small numbers” often browse and return to the same locations repeatedly during fall and
spring migration (which sounds undeniably like migratory use). What is small? What is substantial?
Without definitions that are either numbers, proportions, or some objective functional biological
thresholds that can be evaluated independently, these are meaningless words. If I were a member of a
deer herd or cohesive unit within a herd, I’d hate to have my survival extinguished on the basis of no
objective analysis at all. The term “substantial” is used to refer variously to numbers or intensity of deer
use (not exactly sure which) and to potential degree of impairment of migratory corridors. Since the
DEIR’s entire foundation of impact determination rests on the exact meaning of this word in the
different contexts, precise definition is mandatory. If such definition is not possible, then the correct
CEQA procedure would be to assume the maximum plausible degree of use and impairment.
HEC (2011) and the DEIR need to be much more specific about what they are representing to be the
correct scientific approach to addressing the Canyon Springs deer use in the context of the whole
Truckee-Loyalton herd, or subunits thereof. With respect to the herd as a whole, one might theoretically
advance the argument (which the public and DFW could then comment on) that the herd and its
geographic range are hypothetically so large that no matter how much of a hypothetical impact occurs
within 284 acres of it might be theoretically less than significant on a project-specific basis. I would not
agree with that position a priori, but let’s take it as an axiom for this paragraph only. The recent history
of decline in the herd’s population indisputably shows that a significant cumulative impact is occurring.
If the Canyon Springs project could contribute at all to this, then the DEIR must identify a significant
cumulative impact and provide feasible and effective mitigation measures to reduce the cumulative
impact as a whole to a less-than-significant level; or alternatively provide measures that would reduce
the project’s impact to zero. If there is any residual contribution, then there’s still a significant
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 19
unmitigated cumulative impact to which the project is contributing. The DEIR does none of these
things, therefore it is inadequate in addressing the impact on the herd as a whole.
Another level at which the analysis should have been carried out is the X7b zone, which includes
Canyon Springs. This zone is about 330 square miles and supports approximately 640 to 900 deer (HEC,
2011). This is still a huge region compared with the site, but provides useful context. The fact that at
least 10 percent of the X7b deer (and probably many more, as explained below) use the site during
migration shows clearly that the site is of unusually high importance for migration within the region.
In my opinion, a more biologically justifiable approach which the DEIR needed to take in addition to the
general approaches above for the herd as a whole and the X7b subunit, is to consider the portion of the
herd that may migrate via Section 3 to or from fawning areas at Dry Lake or Lookout Mountain, a
number of animals that is likely only a fraction of the X7b subunit. The reason this approach makes
biological sense is that, if the migration corridor that such animals use is partially or completely blocked,
those fawning areas might theoretically be abandoned entirely. If that were to occur, a migration
corridor would have been eliminated or significantly affected, critical fawning areas would have been
converted to an unused condition, and the geographic range of the Truckee-Loyalton herd would have
been reduced, consequently there would be multiple significant project-specific impacts under
applicable CEQA guidelines as quoted in HEC (2011) and the DEIR.
There is empirical local precedent for this interpretation. Excellent long-seasonal wetland habitats, and
some riparian thickets, occur at the Glenshire Pond and nearby tributaries, and certainly occurred there
even prior to the construction of the weir. Such habitat would have been used by deer, almost certainly
as fawning habitat. Now, with construction of the Glenshire subdivisions, migratory access to this
habitat from some directions is blocked, and it is no longer used for fawning.
Based upon the large size of the X7b zone and the tiny fraction of its available fawning habitat that
occurs at those two area, one might guess that only 5 or 10 percent of the subunit’s deer go to those
sites (say, a maximum of 90 deer). Table 2 of HEC (2011) shows that 90 deer were detected within
Canyon Springs during the spring migration period in 2011. Based upon that plausible percentage
estimate, it would appear that virtually all of the Dry Lake and Lookout Mountain deer migrate through
Canyon Springs. These are reasonable assumptions and data from the report itself that strongly indicate
that the project’s direct adverse impact on deer migration is substantial and therefore significant under
CEQA, and its potential indirect impact on two areas of critical fawning habitat (by blocking the only, or
primary, migration corridor to it) needs to be recognized by the DEIR.
HEC Executive Summary: The statement that fawning is not known to occur within the Canyon
Springs site is incorrect, because the report itself provides strong biological evidence of fawning within
the site (see explanation under “HEC impact analysis,” below). The correct statement is that, according
to Table 2, fawns only a few days or weeks old have repeatedly been observed within the site, during
May (when they are born), and that these fawns are unlikely to have been born in the known fawning
areas 1.5 and 7 miles away, and to have then been brought by their mothers from those areas to the
site. Therefore, facts presented in the report suggest that it is likely that there is fawning habitat within
the Canyon Springs site, and possibly also very nearby but outside it.
The conclusion that "very few" of the regional deer use the site during migration is incorrect. The
camera observations were of about 60 deer in fall and 90 in spring migration (and there were probably
more, as explained below). This is approximately 10 percent of the population of the X7b zone (stated in
the report to have recently been 640 to 900 animals). The Canyon Springs site is about 0.444 square
mile, which is about 0.13 percent of the area of the X7b zone (about 333 square miles). So, at least 10
percent of the animals of the X7b zone are passing through 0.13 percent of the area during migration. It
is much more reasonable to interpret this as an unusually high density of migratory use of the site by
the regional deer, than to conclude that "very few" of the X7b deer use the site. The report has both of
these conclusions exactly backward from the most scientifically sound interpretation.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 20
HEC Introduction: HEC provides no definition of what is meant by "substantial adverse effect" on
migratory routes or fawning habitat [there is no qualifier "critical" fawning habitat]. Without a stated
threshold, or at a minimum some subjective explanation, this cannot be evaluated and is meaningless. If
this use of "substantial" has no specific meaning, the word should be deleted and the standards should
merely read "adverse effect" on migratory routes or fawning habitat.
I dispute the conclusions stated in HEC Section 1.1, but some of them merit comment. First, what is the
definition of "substantial numbers of deer" with regard to migratory use within a site of only 284 acres?
Without a number, or a proportion, or density per unit area that makes sense in the context of the X7b
zone, or some other quantitative measure, this usage of "substantial numbers" also has no meaning,
and the words should be deleted from all of these sentences too. Thus, the sentence would become
"there is no known direct evidence that mule deer use the site for migration." This is incorrect.
Mule deer "consistently" crossing the northern panhandle of the site sounds exactly like migratory use
to me. The report should have explained how “consistent” is discriminated from “substantial.”
The statement about the value of the site being "severely limited" is 100 percent hypothetical; zero
evidence is provided anywhere to support it. The fact that dogs and motor vehicles are present during
the day is indisputable, but the inference that this severely limits the value of the site for migration (or
even for fawning) has no foundation at all. What does “severely” mean in this context?
It is inappropriate in a putatively scientific report to state the key conclusions in the Introduction, before
any actual data have been presented. The normal procedure for a technical report is to present the
background science, then methods, then your data, and finally the conclusions that were drawn. This
report goes exactly backwards, creating the strong impression that the conclusions had been arrived at
before any data were gathered, as indeed a reading of the author’s prior reports show they were.
HEC Methodology: The report states that the author studied the site on many dates in 2004, 2008, and
2009, and in all of that time apparently found only 53 points of deer sign. The report does not explain
what methodology was being employed to search for deer sign that the survey work was that
ineffective. These results are discussed below in comparison with other examinations of the site.
HEC camera methods: The report describes the deployment of automatically triggered cameras in sets
of three at each of four locations. Such cameras are a useful tool for certain wildlife studies, but have
serious limitations as the sole means of assessing the amount and distribution of mule deer use within
the Canyon Springs project site. In particular, they’re nearly useless for assessing comparative use areas
or the locations of migration corridors (although they’re excellent for doing year-to-year population
comparisons once the corridor has been delineated – a question that is irrelevant to the CEQA analysis).
The report states that the camera stations locations were at sites “known to be frequented by mule
deer,” but does not explain how this was known. Were the sites selected to be where sign was recorded
in 2009 and shown in HEC page 2-8? If so, that’s a pretty weak basis for determining the sites were
“frequented;” the correct wording would have been “visited at least once.” If there was some additional
data for determining one site was “frequented” and others were not, please provide this additional data.
The locations of the camera stations must be provided. Ideally, the exact GPS coordinates should have
been supplied, or at least an accurate, large-scale map, so that the public could examine the exact spots
and evaluate their biological suitability for the intended purposes. Notwithstanding the limitations of
this study approach, it provided some data that contradicts the report’s conclusions. Comment on the
camera station results is provided below.
A far superior study method would have been pellet-group surveys, which were recommended to the
project owners both by Jones & Stokes Associates and by me. This subject is discussed below.
HEC Results: Chapter 3 provides mostly background on regulatory setting and mule deer biology that
belonged in the Introduction. The only actual results are the camera station data; curiously, the 2009
figure of deer sign is included within Methodology. The first “Results” that are provided are statements
about deer biology, so I comment on those first before discussing the camera station results.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 21
To begin with, there is a significant omission in the report. HEC (2011) cites the 1988 DFG management
plan in the references, but doesn’t even mention that DFG determined that there was a major migration
corridor through most of the Canyon Springs site. Foothill [2004] – a piece of “previous analysis” which
the DEIR states it confirms? – states that it was the migration corridor at that time; my empirical data,
provided in Figure 5 of this letter, show that the corridor is still heavily used. All the report does is to
repeat the unsubstantiated opinion that such a corridor does not exist within the site. If so, is the
interpretation that the DFG map was correct at that time, but that the deer abandoned the Canyon
Springs migration corridor sometime between 2004 (when it was pronounced still to be present by
Foothill) and 2009 or 2011? I don’t think DFW believes that’s the case, and that’s a very short timeline for
such a major biological change. If all that has happened is that the population of the whole herd or the
portion of it that uses the eastern Truckee area (Dry Lake/Lookout Mtn./Canyon Springs migration
corridor) has been reduced in number, the significance of any additional impacts such as the Canyon
Springs project is even greater, not smaller, as it jeopardizes the very survival of this portion of the herd
or its use of the geographic area entirely, which would be a significant impact under CEQA.
HEC page 3-2 states that “wildlife movement corridors also function as migration corridors for wildlife
that migrate between their summer and winter ranges.” This statement is not accurate, as is explained
on page 4.4-27 of the DEIR. Some movement corridors may also function as migration corridors, but
most of them do not. Also, it is biologically incorrect to infer that a movement corridor or migration
corridor for one species must also have similar values for other species. Animal species differ in degree
of tolerance of disturbance, and in the characteristics of vegetation which they require. Analysis of
corridors (both kinds) and buffer zones must be undertaken on a species-specific biological basis.
HEC pages 3-2 to 3-3 state that “adverse weather conditions can affect the herd more dramatically since
their movement patterns are becoming increasingly limited as residential development, recreation, and
other land uses decrease the value of the habitat (Quad Knopf 2004). Does it not therefore make sense
that the proposed project would contribute to this cumulative impact?
HEC page 3-3 then states that “to be effective, wildlife corridors must be managed to meet specific
goals and the sensitivity of the species to disturbance must be considered.” I did not find anywhere in
HEC (2011) or the DEIR where these specific goals were identified, or where the sensitivity of mule deer
to disturbance was considered, or where the nexus of the unidentified specific goals to preserving the
function of the existing deer migration corridor is explained. I also did not find anywhere that the
sensitivity of migrating mule deer to disturbance was adequately considered. If “wildlife corridors for
mule deer can be more effective when combined with buffer zones,” where is the discussion of this
point? What are the buffer zones for Canyon Springs? The 50-foot setback from wetlands and 100-year
floodplains which in many cases is included entirely within a developed lot of less than 0.4 acre? What
are the references upon which HEC (2011) and the DEIR rely for the determination of how wide of a
buffer zone between development disturbances (not just the buildings) and the spots where the
migrating deer pass has been shown to be effective in preserving migration corridor function? There is
applicable scientific literature on the principles of determining buffer zone requirements; HEC (2011)
and/or the DEIR should have reviewed and discussed these references.
Here again, as in many other places, the fallacy that daytime human disturbances make the migration
corridor unsuitable is repeated, notwithstanding the report’s own findings that most of the deer activity
occurs at night, when these disturbances are not occurring. Besides, if this incorrect contention which is
made over and over again were in fact true, if Canyon Springs were built, wouldn’t this body of
disturbances just shift eastward into exactly the area where, by implication (but probably not
realistically in any case, for ecological reasons), the deer will in future have to migrate? It’s an empirical
fact that the recently erected no trespassing signs near the eastern side of Canyon Springs do not
prevent people, dogs, and so on, from going into this habitat area. For this reason, the DEIR must delete
all of the statements or hints that maybe a substitute migration corridor might be available in the
eastern half of Section 3, because the logical extension of the report’s statements is also that Canyon
Springs would result in impairment of migration in that area just as the report contends that the
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 22
Glenshire development has the effect of impairing the utility of the existing migration corridor in
Canyon Springs. You can’t have it both ways.
I disagree that “to be effective, wildlife corridors must be managed…” because four lines later, we are
told that “The Canyon Springs site is currently unmanaged as a wildlife corridor.” But deer migrate
through it anyway, and always have! The DEIR and supporting documentation should be revised to
remove these sorts of confusing and contradictory statements.
HEC camera results: The interpretation of results (pages 3-5 to -8) is an inadequate basis for impact
analysis. It is telling that HEC (2011) itemizes many observations of deer at the camera stations, but only
the cover photograph shows a deer. The three photographs included in Appendix A are of dogs and
people. Why were those included at all? Why weren’t all of the photos provided instead of many pages
of old reports? The full set of photos is necessary for the public to make its own guesses as to whether
the photos all represent different animals, or some of them are the same deer re-photographed, and
whether the whole groups of deer appear in the photos (or whether there might be additional
individuals not listed in Tables 1 and 2). The report should provide all the relevant data.
The report states that the cameras used were Bushnell Trophy Cam model, which I understand has
about a 50 foot range of motion detection. Even though three of these cameras don’t cover a full 360
degree range, for practical purposes, any deer that passed within a 50-foot radius of any of the four
three-camera stations would have triggered one of the cameras and would have been photographed.
The coverage area of each station under this assumption is about 7,854 square feet, or 0.18 acre. Since
the DEIR states that the site is about 284 acres, the camera study therefore covered only about 0.063
percent of the site. Calculating from the coverage of this proportion of the site and the note of 38
observations of a total of 61 deer observations in the fall survey period, and assuming that the stations
were placed in locations that had an amount of deer use and migratory movement that was typical
(average) for the entire site, one finds that total coverage of the site by camera stations would have
resulted in about 60,000 detections of a total of over 96,000 deer. The spring survey period resulted in
observation of 90 deer, so that would be 90,000 detections of 144,000 deer within the site in spring.
Surely, with that many cameras, most of these would have been re-detections of the same individuals,
but, relying only on the information provided in the DEIR, it is clear that the deer use of the site is much
more considerable than the evaluation of biological impacts suggests subjectively.
The report states that “it is highly likely that many of these deer observations were of the same animals
multiple times. What is the support for this statement? On the contrary, the most reasonable conclusion
is that, since the coverage area of each station is such a microscopic proportion of the site, that the
likelihood of re-detections is very low. The report also states “It is also highly likely that other deer were
on the site and were not observed.” This is far more likely than re-detections, so the numbers of deer
reported in Tables 1 and 2 are almost certainly much lower than the actual numbers present on the site
during the migratory seasons. Twice as many? Ten times? Without some kind of estimates of the
proportion of repeat detections and non-detections, I do not understand what utility the camera
surveys have either for the determination of whether “substantial numbers” of deer use the site for
migration, or for impact analysis.
The only information they provide is that the deer that were detected throughout the site, in groups of
six or fewer (larger groups have been seen by others), and that fawns are present on site during the
month in which they are born. As explained before, without quantitative, biologically reasonable
definitions of “few” or “substantial” or other such terms, the camera station observations contribute
almost nothing to objective evaluation of existing conditions or to impact analysis. Any discussion of
numbers of deer and amount of deer use should also have taken into account that, based upon the
most recent figures I could find, the regional deer population is currently only one-third or one-quarter
of what it was only a few years previous (DFG et al., 1998). Deer populations have the capacity to
rebound quickly, so, from a long-term future biological perspective, the DEIR analysis should multiply
any numerical data about deer on site by three or four.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 23
HEC impact analysis: HEC (2011) cites Beck (1990; a reference which is not provided for public review
and comment) as concluding that “there is no evidence the site is part of a major migration mule deer
corridor [sic].” Without providing the sampling methodologies and data upon which this conclusion is
based, it is of no value at all. The text further states that “migration occurs in a diffuse pattern because
the topography does not restrict mule deer movement.” This statement is false. Deer migratory
movements generally, and specifically in the project vicinity (as shown by actual field data), are not
diffuse, but instead follow relatively specific paths. Since Beck (1990) seems to be an important element
in the conclusions reached by HEC (2011), please provide this reference in the revised DEIR and/or FEIR
so that the public can review and comment on its scientific adequacy and CEQA relevance.
Given the major shortcomings in HEC (2011), the DEIR is not adequate unless it either 1) provides us
information on the number of deer that use the Dry Lake/Lookout fawning areas or any others accessed
via Section 3, and a quantitative, or at least objective, means by which the meaning of “substantial” is
determined; or 2) relies on a default position that site use by a single deer is “substantial;” or 3) provides
objective numerical justification for some intermediate position. If 70 deer go to Dry Lake and Lookout
(which would be a huge proportion – 10 percent - of the whole X7b population), and only seven of
them ever migrate through Canyon Springs, would the DEIR find that proportion (10 percent) to be
“substantial,” or not? If about 700 million people died from something (10 percent of the present
human population), I believe that this would universally be judged to have been a “substantial” loss of
life. The point is that even numbers of individuals of several, ten, a few score, can very well be
biologically substantial. For the DEIR to dismiss the current deer use as not “major” or not significant on
some numerical basis, it must have provided a very strong analytical basis for this opinion, and it does
not. Absent this kind of rigorous and objective analysis, the DEIR must default to the position that one
deer is significant, and that anything that doesn’t even sever the migration corridor but only makes it
more stressful to use has a significant project-specific impact. That’s an extreme position, but it is the
job of the DEIR to provide a strong scientific basis for picking some other position along the continuum.
Both RMT (2009) and HEC (2011) note the detection of fawns within the site in May and June, one of
them being mapped within a few hundred feet or less of one of the proposed blocks of development
(HEC, 2011, page 2-8). The camera detections of fawns might be located within proposed development
areas, but we do not know because no map was provided. Fawn photographs were obtained from three
of the four camera stations on May 15, May 17, May 26, and June 1 (and on later dates). These
observations are biologically significant. Fawns present in May and June would have been born very
recently (days or weeks), and fawns that young do not travel far, so they must have been born within or
very close to the site. The text on page 4-10 notes the presence of a fawn not accompanied by its
mother. Does habitually avoid the fawn except while nursing so as not to attract predators, so that was
a fawn that could not have been older than 2-3 weeks (as the text itself states), because after that time
the fawn begins to eat vegetation and stays with the doe (NRCS et al., 2005). Fawns in their first weeks
of life do not travel far (if at all). Therefore, the best interpretation is that the fawn in question was born
within the site or very nearby; so this constitutes evidence that fawning habitat is present within or
immediately adjacent to the site and, based solely upon facts from the report and relevant literature,
falsifies the statement in the Executive Summary that no such evidence is known.
The presence of fawning habitat on site or very nearby may have been noted by DFG in 1988 but was
not of sufficient areal extent to be recognized as “critical” fawning habitat. The DEIR provides no basis to
consider that only “critical” fawning habitat is of CEQA significance, and indeed the standards of
significance that are quoted in HEC (2011) omit the word critical. Other (probable) fawning habitat
(whether marginal, fair, good, very good, or optimal), which the report’s results indicate is present
within the site, should also be addressed in the existing conditions and impact analysis. The best
fawning habitat might be dense riparian and wetland habitat with abundant moist vegetation, but
shrublands providing hiding cover are also very suitable – exactly the sort of habitat that occurs widely
within the bitterbrush at Canyon Springs.
This subject illuminates a fundamental inadequacy and inconsistency in the assessment of deer habitat
use in HEC (2011) and the DEIR. On the one hand, without any recent data gathering, the documents
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 24
rely upon the 1988 DFG determination that critical fawning habitat is found only in locations 1.5 miles
and further from the project site, and nowhere closer, to arrive at the finding that the project will not
have any impact on such resources. Neither document provides any actual data that there isn’t fawning
habitat on site or within a few hundred feet of it. On the other hand, based upon inadequate data, they
disregard the 1988 DFG determination that a major migration corridor runs right through most of the
site. You can’t have it both ways. Either you accept the 1988 baseline in all relevant areas, or you re-
evaluate the biology thoroughly in all respects and provide a full data set for public review.
The DEIR deer discussion is also deficient in not recognizing the importance of fawn rearing habitat
(that is, not merely the exact microsites where the fawns are born, but also nearby habitat where they
spend their initial weeks or months). The standards of significance provided by the DEIR on page 4.4-38
recognize that to "impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites" is one kind of significant impact. Does
with fawns only a few days or weeks old, right within the proposed development area, would certainly
seem to be "using a native wildlife nursery site," which use would be "impeded" by building houses
right there. This is a subject that must be expanded upon in the revised DEIR and/or FEIR, by providing
some actual substantive content, not merely by dismissing it as unimportant without substantiation.
Pellet Group Surveys Would Have Been Preferable for CEQA Purposes
In a letter to Mr. Brian Olson and Mr. Gavin Ball dated October 28, 2003, Steve Henderson (Wildlife
Ecologist/Project Manager, Jones & Stokes Associates) identified significant shortcomings in both the
data and the analysis of deer impacts in the 1990 EIR for a previous project, virtually none of which have
been remedied in the nine years since the project owners received the JSA letter. Mr. Henderson states
“The lack of quantitative data on deer use of the site during the migratory periods is the primary data
gap that should be addressed before formally evaluating impacts…and developing reasonable
mitigation measures commensurate with those impacts.” As explained above, the camera study does
not remedy this data inadequacy at all. He specifically recommends that the project:
“Conduct a technical study to quantify deer use within and adjacent to the project area. Studying mule
deer use and movement…based on pellet and track count techniques…would provide a basis for
addressing direct and indirect impacts and developing mitigation or compensation strategies.
“Develop impact evaluation criteria and thresholds for determining the significance of impacts on
migratory deer.”
These were excellent recommendations, which were similar to ones made in comment letters
responding to NOPs in 2004 and subsequently (including having been incorporated by reference in
2011). Unfortunately, the owners and DEIR having ignored these recommendations, the evaluation of
impacts on deer is not adequate under applicable CEQA guidelines.
Systematic deer pellet group surveys (also referred to as pellet counts) are an extensively used
traditional technique (Neff, 1968), which are now made much more biologically powerful with the
advent of GPS units with which a waypoint may be recorded at each pellet group or track. These are a
much better means of assessing deer use for the purposes of the DEIR than are four widely spaced
camera stations. Specifically, the DEIR needed to address the levels of use and the migration corridor(s?)
in different locations within the site, so that the impacts of the project design and alternatives could be
evaluated. Mule deer are highly faithful to the same migration corridors, sometimes (often?) to exactly
the same footpaths, so the exact portions of the site which they use most heavily must be known, at
least generally, in order for the DEIR to adequately evaluate impacts on mule deer.
The locations of sign also provide general indications of what habitat types deer use most (several such
studies are reviewed briefly by Dealy et al., 1986). The arithmetic precision of the correlation between
time spent in a habitat subtype and the number of pellet groups deposited there is reasonably good for
some habitat types, but poor for other types (e.g., stagnated forest, which does not occur at Canyon
Springs; Collins and Urness, 1981). But it is almost always qualitatively useful. In particular, Collins and
Urness found that the percentage of pellet groups deposited when deer were on the move is much
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 25
higher than the percentage of time that the animals are moving; thus, pellet groups are likely to be a
particularly good indicator of areas of migratory use. The habitat use information also is important
information for project design and impact evaluation. Since information on locations of deer use is
fundamental to the DEIR’s impact assessment (how can one determine whether a migration corridor
will be substantially affected if its location is unknown?), thorough GPS pellet group surveys are a far
superior method of gathering data than are a small number of widely spaced camera stations.
RMT (2009) states that the biologist spent two days (June 16 and 17, 2009, or is it June 18 and 19 as
stated in HEC, 2011?) surveying for deer and sign and found only 33 sites of deer scat and 20
observations of tracks. In a similar amount of time walking some transects across the site at 100 meter
intervals, with the intent of demonstrating the utility of this approach to the applicants and planners, I
personally mapped about 600 points of deer sign within the site, nearly all of them discrete different
piles of scat (pellets) but including a few tracks. Neither HEC (2011) nor the DEIR provides any
explanation of how the methodology used in the survey for deer sign upon which it depends failed to
locate the many thousands of points of deer sign within the site. I tentatively estimate 35,700 points
based on extrapolation from the limited sampling area that I observed, namely, estimated 6 foot
coverage width (just rechecked in the field) times 6.5 miles of transects for a coverage area of 4.7 acres
or 1.65 percent of the site. Given the importance of the site to deer as recognized by DFG (1988), and
the project proposal which is a permanent impact right in the migration corridor, a rigorous systematic
study would have been appropriate, based upon which the data could be refined or corroborated.
Nevertheless, these empirical facts cast doubt upon the adequacy of the project’s studies and indicate
that the DEIR and supporting reports greatly underrepresent the amount of deer use on the site.
Based upon site examinations carried out with a comparable methodology for similar time periods, the
applicant’s previous surveys of deer sign had a detection efficiency of somewhere around 6-9 percent
on the basis of points of sign found per unit time, which I think is not good enough for CEQA purposes.
In the event that new studies are performed by the same individual as before, the reporting should
include an objective explanation of how the field methodology of any new studies differed from the
previous ones, in a manner that can reasonably be expected to improve the very low previous detection
efficiency of 6-9 percent at least up to somewhere above 90 or 95 percent.
The GPS locations of deer sign show that some of the areas of higher density deer use within the site fall
within the development areas. The GPS data shown in Figure 5 also include lines of deer tracks
observed in late afternoon during the first big snowstorm of November 2008 (which are the weather
and calendar circumstances under which some deer migrate), demonstrating conclusively that there is
migratory use within the site. I found several groups of migrating deer tracks (one or two were
individuals; others groups of three or more), not very closely geographically aligned, in a matter of a few
hours. These are most reasonably interpreted as representing multiple groups of migrating deer, on just
that one afternoon. A similar and more comprehensive study through the season might have found
numerous. This is factual information that indicates that there is a migratory corridor within the site,
which will be impaired or eliminated by the project’s habitat conversion, and this impact is not reduced
from “potentially significant” to less-than-significant by project design elements.
I could not find a clear and unequivocal statement in HEC (2011) regarding the author’s conclusions
about deer migration through the site. Page 4-10 states “Small number of mule deer were observed
foraging and moving back in their home [summer] ranges” and elsewhere that the herd “uses the
general vicinity of the Canyon Springs site and other areas in the vicinity during migrations.” And
elsewhere, we have repeated statements that it is “not a major migration corridor” (without any
definition of “major” ever having been provided). HEC (2011) seems to be implying that perhaps there is
no migratory use whatsoever; is that the way the public is meant to interpret the report’s text?
The report needs to provide an unequivocal statement of the findings. Either there is zero migratory use
at all, or there is some but it is not “major” or “substantial” in which case a definition and basis for the
definition must be provided, or there is quite a bit of migratory use. Please be specific. The DEIR states
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 26
that there is migratory use, but only by a “few” individuals. Given the inadequacy of the data collection,
this conclusion is not well supported.
Accordingly, since the DEIR is not specific, it falls to the public comment process to provide definite
evidence. Along with Figure 5 showing the overall deer sign data, I include in Figures 6 through 9
showing evidence that deer do migrate through the site both in spring and in fall.
The following conclusions are suggested by the data shown in Figures 5 through 9:
¥ The graphic shows substantial facts and evidence that contradict the statement in the DEIR that
"there is no evidence the site is still used as a migration corridor." All of the points shown in Figure 5
are discrete different points of deer sign (nearly all pellet groups), and Figures 6-9 provide factual
evidence of migratory use. Scores of additional similar photographs are on file.
¥ Figure 5 confirms the existence of the major migration corridor mapped by DFG for the 1988
management plan, although the data from this preliminary examination of the site indicate that its
outline may be slightly different than that mapped in 1988, and that actual migratory movements
as inferred from pellet group locations are concentrated in specific portions of the site.
¥ Deer use all of the blocks of proposed development.
¥ Some of the areas of heaviest deer use occur within proposed development areas.
¥ Consequently the only reasonable conclusion is that the project would substantially interfere with a
migration corridor, which is a significant impact not identified in the DEIR. [As an aside, there is no
feasible and effective mitigation with the proposed project design, as is explained below.]
¥ Surprisingly, deer use of the western half of area that is proposed as the main open space patch,
including the main tributary and wetlands, is relatively light: they may cross this area, but it is not
their migration corridor. Heavier use occurs in the eastern part of this open space area. So, the value
of the project's open space layout to protect the migration corridor is limited, and if the
continuation of a migratory pathway is completely blocked by houses, the fragment that is
preserved within the open space is of dubious value. There are other reasons that retaining this
particular open space area is environmentally valuable, but the actual data suggest it is not very
valuable for deer migration in the context of overall project layout.
DEIR Impact Analysis
Page 4.4-47 states that a potentially significant impact on mule deer would result from the project’s
“direct loss of habitat for movement, foraging and migration as it is converted to other land uses; and
long-term disturbances in the form of increased human activity…” Then page 4.4-48 claims that “the
proposed project includes design features that would minimize impacts to the wildlife corridors.” The
reasoning and justification behind this claim is not sound. In the text below, I examine each point raised
in support of the contention that the project’s design elements would reduce the potentially significant
impact to a less-than-significant level and show that none of the hypotheses are plausible.
Consequently, the DEIR is inadequate in not finding that there will be a significant project-specific
impact on deer migration.
It is not clear to me how a design feature minimizes impact on a piece of migration route that has been
turned into a group of houses. For deer, their migration routes and seasonal use areas are not
conceptual or vague, they are fairly specific areas on the ground, which deer prefer strongly not to alter
from year to year. HEC (2011) states that the biologist made empirical observations of this faithfulness
of deer to the same specific areas. Based upon available evidence, including that gathered by the
project owner’s biologist, the DEIR must rely primarily on the default position that our mule deer use
specific migratory routes and, if these are blocked by development, they would no longer migrate
through the site (which is a significant project-specific impact).
The project’s reports and the DEIR do not recognize that the reduction of adverse development impacts
on wildlife generally that may result from the preservation of strips of open space that are kept as native
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 27
habitat cannot be relied upon at all to reduce impacts on any one or another individual species, namely
mule deer. These sections of text should be revised in accordance with the explanation on page 4.4-27
of the fundamental difference between a within-home-range movement corridor for general wildlife
species and a migration corridor used by mule deer to move from summer to winter ranges. I have seen
over 50 vertebrate species in or from my yard and in the open space immediately adjacent to it. Yet, to
my knowledge, not one mule deer individual has ever migrated between summer and winter range via
that strip of open space; I have never seen one moving through the parcels and roads between that
open space and the general direction of their winter range. Wildlife of diverse species is nice, but the
DEIR does not identify any significant or even potentially significant impact on general wildlife. The
issue is mule deer, not all those other non-special-status species; so whatever values for those other
species that may be retained in the project’s open spaces are completely irrelevant and should not be
mentioned at all in connection with analysis of mule deer impacts and mitigation.
The DEIR hypothesizes that the dubiously named “wildlife corridor” provided by the project’s open
space would notably reduce the impact on migrating deer. There is no objective support provided for
this hypothesis, and ample reason to believe it is not so. A wildlife migration corridor that functions as
such must extend from one seasonal use area to an area used in a different season; it doesn’t extend
from undisturbed habitat right into the middle of a pervasively developed community. But that’s what
the main Canyon Springs open space area does: it extends from undisturbed areas that are located to
the southeast, in a northwesterly direction right to the Glenshire development. My observation is that
the narrow strip of habitat that might temporarily remain undeveloped to the west of the northern end
of Canyon Springs is not where the deer go; the pattern of heaviest use curves in an easterly direction,
right through the northern blocks of development of Canyon Springs. As noted above, one somewhat
unexpected conclusion that is demonstrated by the deer sign map provided in this letter is that the
heaviest deer migratory use does not occur in most of the largest piece of proposed open space within
the project’s proposed layout.
The DEIR does not explain why it is plausible that deer migrating from Dry Lake northward, and
encountering the new Canyon Springs development, will head eastward, then northwestward into
Glenshire, then somehow northward again with houses not far away on both sides, to ultimately get to
the winter range. It is all rather biologically implausible.
It does not matter at all that there may (or may not be? we are not really sure) other migration
opportunities on private land further to the east, which is itself subject to future development and the
establishment of homes with unrestrained resident dogs disturbing the migrating deer at all times of
day and night. Examination of the aerial photograph (see Figure 4.4-1) shows a big block of moderately
high canopy cover conifer forest there, which, based on pellet group frequency, the deer seem not to
use in migration, so it is not clear if they really do use much of the eastern part of Section 3 after all. And
we don’t know whether it’s plausible that deer would use routes that are located that much further east
to continue to access Dry Lake, Lookout Mountain, and/or other as yet unrecognized fawning locations
(possibly including the project site itself, as hinted by the fawn observation provided by RMT, 2009, and
HEC, 2011).
The point is that there is a migration corridor through Canyon Springs now, which has been known to
DFW since the 1980s, and the continued existence of which has been confirmed by ample empirical
data. The construction of the development would eliminate or substantially interfere with it, which is a
significant impact according to the thresholds stated on page 4.4-38. Note also that the impact
wordings provided by the DEIR state only “migration corridor” so the term “major” serves only to
emphasize DFG’s subjective impression of its importance and does not really matter for determination
of impact significance. According to the language provided in the DEIR, effects on any and all kinds of
migration corridors (major, minor, occasional, rarely used, unspecified) would be significant under
CEQA. As was explained above, depending upon the biology of the portion of the herd in question,
interference with through-migration of just a few deer might very well be “substantial.”
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 28
The paragraph in the middle of page 4.4-48 claims that the project provides minimum 50-foot setbacks
from the 100-foot floodplains. From a perspective of effects on deer migration, which is the topic at
hand at this point in the DEIR (not other unspecified general wildlife), this is simply a false statement.
Some of those 50-foot setbacks lie entirely within parcel boundaries, which may be fenced and have a
lawn, dog run, patio, outdoor grill installation. That’s not a situation that is suitable for deer migration.
My empirical observations, accumulated over the past 17+ years, are that deer do sometimes venture
partway down into the narrower strips of open space the migratory season, but that they do not use
them as migratory corridors. That is, I have seen deer and deer sign in the open space behind my house,
a few hundred feet from undeveloped land, but I have never seen a deer further west, migrating toward
winter range through the lower part of the open space, where most or all of the houses have resident
dogs that are often in the back yards, and then continuing on through the roads and yards of Regency,
Courtenay, and Glenshire Drive. Whether these open spaces are unsuitable because of the houses and
dogs, or because they do not lead anywhere that is useful to the deer, I cannot be sure; but they are not
migratory corridors for deer. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that the open space areas in the
present Canyon Springs design that are narrower than, say, 200 feet from parcel boundary to parcel
boundary, are almost certainly not going to be functional as migratory corridors. Movement and habitat
areas for other wildlife species, yes, but migratory corridors for deer, no.
The DEIR and HEC (2011) mention that deer are occasionally seen within the residential neighborhoods,
but not how often or where (relative to undisturbed habitat). This is true, but it is relatively very rare;
certainly nowhere near the frequency or number of individuals (or their sign) that are seen in an actual
migration corridor. I have driven through eastern Glenshire neighborhoods hundreds of times (maybe
1,000) in the evening, and in all that time I have seen only a few deer (fewer than five) in the solid areas
of development. But I have seen deer on the eastern segment of Glenshire Drive (Hirschdale Hill) in
groups of one to five, probably on at least 30-50 percent of the occasions when I have passed through
that area at the right time of day during migration seasons.
The DEIR needs to make concrete statements of facts and its interpretation. We are told that
“substantial numbers” of deer do not migrate through Canyon Springs. Are the scattered observations
in residential development “substantial numbers”? Are these deer supposed to be the migrating deer
which are not migrating through Canyon Springs? Does the DEIR represent that, once Canyon Springs is
built out, that the deer will in future migrate through the present Glenshire neighborhoods? Or
continue to migrate through Canyon Springs unimpeded?
In order to have adequately informed the public, provided an opportunity for meaningful public
comment on its information and interpretations, provided Planning Commissioners a full description of
the project and its consequences for an informed decision, and achieved CEQA adequacy, the DEIR
needs to be clearer and more specific about the technical issues. At present, it is not adequate at all.
The main Canyon Springs open space is only about 400 feet wide between houses at the narrowest
point, which might render it too narrow for deer to safely and relatively stresslessly use it for migration.
Some dogs resident on back decks and in back yards commonly bark at people well over 200 feet away
in open space (personal empirical observation), so they should reasonably be expected to bark at deer
at that distance, or more, and might plausibly run after them. That’s not suitable for a migration
corridor. The same thing applies to remnants of habitat west of the site which might be hypothesized to
be present or future migration corridors (data is needed); these remnants are simply not wide enough.
In summary, the claims that deer migration will continue unimpaired through the project’s open space
areas after the development areas are built out do not have sufficient logical or factual basis and should
be deleted from the DEIR.
Next, the text claims that planting on the 7-acre fire site and revegetation of a few other acres of
disturbed soils (restoration of the power line road and substation is not feasible) would improve the
open space habitat for mule deer. As explained above, food is not limiting, and even if it were,
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 29
increasing the deer food supply would do nothing at all to reduce the impact of building a 185-lot
development in the migratory corridor.
Residential speed limits are 25 mph in the Glenshire neighborhoods, but this has not created or
maintained any function of the neighborhood as a deer migration area. Deer don’t migrate through the
middle of the pervasive development area even with these low vehicle speeds, so road design provides
no reduction of the significant migratory impact that will occur at Canyon Springs. I agree that it is
desirable to reduce wildlife mortality from vehicle strikes, but the speed limit on the “Hirschdale Hill”
portion of Glenshire Drive just east of the Town line is higher than 25 mph, and deer still migrate across
those pieces of pavement; speed limit on I-80 is 65 mph and actual vehicle speeds are even higher, and
deer still try to migrate across the interstate. The point here is that the deer do not seem to differentiate
between road speed limits in deciding where to migrate. They migrate through the same places
regardless of what speed the vehicles are traveling. So, the idea that a solid block of houses with a 25-
mph road is OK for migration whereas deer would avoid that same block of houses if the road were a
30- or even 45-mph road is entirely specious.
Accordingly, the 25-mph design speeds do not remedy the impairment of migratory use posed by the
presence of solid blocks of houses. It would reduce a separate impact (vehicle strike mortality) that is
additive to the impact of building houses in the migration path, but does not materially reduce the
primary impact. The biological impact of the uncommon vehicle collision mortality by itself is
lamentable but almost certainly less than significant under applicable standards of significance; but the
primary migration corridor impact of the permanent presence of the residential development is
significant. Virtually all of the agency literature about mule deer, and even the applicant’s own reports,
supports this. (This has nothing to do with the considerable issue of higher speed highways in open
country, which is a totally separate issue that is irrelevant to Canyon Springs.)
Signage and education are laudable, but the DEIR does not explain how the signs would help the
migrating deer. I have never once seen people walking in open spaces or undeveloped land disturb the
deer. Maybe dogs sometimes chase them, but dogs that are inclined to do this are probably not going
to be under effective leash or voice control anyway, so that idea is ineffective. And besides, as we have
already seen and as indicated by the project’s own contractor’s information (HEC, 2011), the deer are
active primarily at night, and dog walking in open spaces occurs during the day.
The lighting provision is irrelevant to suitability of densely developed areas for deer migration. Doesn’t
the DEIR represent that they would be using the open spaces, where there wouldn’t be any lighting at
all? The lighting provision does nothing to preserve migration potential within the dense blocks of
parcels; all it does is reduce the degree of degradation of the suitability of the narrow open spaces.
So we have now arrived at the end of the whole DEIR discussion of how the project design elements will
somehow result in the potentially significant impact from habitat conversion (stated on page 4.4-47)
being reduced to a less-than-significant level, and we find that none of the explanations make any
scientific sense, or, at a minimum, are insufficiently supported by the material provided in the DEIR and
appendices. Therefore, based upon the information provided to the public, the DEIR must conclude that
the project will have a significant impact on deer migration.
The DEIR does not provide support for the implication that the deer will continue to migrate
unimpeded and in essentially the same numbers as presently after the designated blocks of their
habitat are converted to dense development. Please provide concrete factual evidence that Truckee-
Loyalton herd deer migrate through a distance of some 3,000 or more feet, with solid blocks of year-
round occupied houses all the way along, not more than a few hundred feet away on both sides. Absent
strong objective basis such as this, the DEIR has no justification for concluding that the present
migratory corridor will not be substantially impeded or eliminated.
Accordingly, the DEIR should delete all text that states or implies that the open space design or any
other elements will reduce the project’s impact on migrating deer, and all impact analysis, statements,
and summaries should be revised accordingly. Significant impacts on deer migration, both project-
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 30
specific and cumulative, must be identified, and feasible, effective mitigation measures that are
susceptible to objective (preferably quantitative) monitoring should be specified for both impacts. In
addition, given that there isn’t much precedent for such mitigation measures having been shown to be
effective, the CEQA documentation as a whole must identify plausible contingent remedies if
monitoring should indicate that the required standards are not being met.
Another approach would be to carry out comprehensive, preferably multi-year studies of which parts of
the site constitute the present deer migration corridor, and to design the project to avoid these. There
has been plenty of time to do this kind of straightforward, affordable study in all these years of project
redesign. This still doesn’t solve the problem of what the scientific basis is for determining how far to set
back the development areas from the deer migration paths, but it is a necessary start.
It is appropriate to reiterate here, in comments about the impact analysis, that the standards of
significance quoted on page 4.4-38 identify “imped(ing) the use of native wildlife nursery sites” as a
significant impact. Certainly, does with fawns in May and June (thus, fawns that are only a few weeks
old) within development portions of the site cannot be characterized as anything but “using a native
wildlife nursery site.” And certainly, building a block of houses there would impede this use. Therefore,
the DEIR must identify a separate and specific significant impact in this regard. There are no qualifying
words here such as critical or important, or substantially. HEC (2011) and the DEIR state that there is use,
and it will be impeded; that’s a significant impact.
DEIR Mitigation Measures
BIO-1. This mitigation measure statement should acknowledge the difficulty of surveying for Sierra
Nevada red fox, because it is not visually distinguishable from the introduced red fox; biological
samples of hair or scat must be obtained and analyzed for DNA in order to confirm which subspecies is
present.
BIO-2. There are other special-status birds (USFWS birds of conservation concern but not DFW species of
special concern) that would potentially be affected. As the discussion above about Lewis’s woodpecker
explains, mere avoidance of active nest sites during the nesting season is not adequate mitigation for
that species; even removal of nest trees during the winter could potentially result in a significant impact
on that species.
Are we to understand that this is a survey for all nesting birds of all species, as the text states? If so, the
feasibility and effectiveness of this measure is highly questionable. It is very difficult or impossible to
survey for small birds nesting high in large coniferous trees. Also, it is impossible to find every single
nest of great horned and other owls by standard daytime visual survey. You might find some, but could
not possibly be certain to have found all of them, and, for this mitigation measure as presented to be
effective, the surveyor must find every nest; not just one or another somewhere. Surveys for nest sites of
great horned and other owls are often, perhaps almost always, done by auditory means, so this measure
will not be effective for them. In the immediate Canyon Springs vicinity, great horned owls begin to
occupy their nests in February. Yet the young owlets are not fully independent of the nest site until
sometime around July or perhaps later, so it is a long nest occupation season. Very difficult nest to find.
Requirement for selection of the bird surveyor by the Town is unprecedented in my decades of
consulting experience, is technically unjustified, and should be eliminated. (If this makes sense, why not
require every parcel owner to use architects, builders, engineers, landscapers, erosion control
companies, and so on, selected by the Town too, to ensure that guidelines are followed?) If this
requirement is to be retained by the EIR, then the revised DEIR or FEIR must provide justification in the
form of documentation that biologists selected by individual project or property owners are not
qualified, but biologists selected by the Town are qualified to perform the surveys. If anything, factual
evidence in Town files and other sources probably indicates that, at best, there is no difference in
qualifications, or that owner-selected surveyors are better.
The Town indicated in writing that it intended to discriminate against residents of Glenshire and
Olympic Heights for the Canyon Springs EIR team, based on a perception of conflict of interest.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 31
(Olympic Heights, four miles away from the site? Why would those residents be presumed to have a
conflict of interest?) Whether this is standard in CEQA or irregular, at least a plausible line of reasoning
exists. However, mitigation measure BIO-2 should not risk institutionalizing the Town’s preference
based upon perception and not scientific qualifications, and imposing it on unknowing property
owners for decades into the future.
If the Town wishes to establish a pre-qualified list for biological studies general or for specific ones in
particular (bird surveys, botanical surveys, wetlands, etc., require different qualifications and/or
experience), that would be a standard way for a jurisdiction to address this subject. In that case, there
should be specification of qualifications which at a minimum must include extensive experience in the
local area with the species group in question, with appropriate survey methodologies for all species and
in relevant habitats; a straightforward and impartial process for pre-qualification, and sufficient
outreach that qualified individuals could reasonably be expected to have been apprised of the process.
All this seems like a lot of unnecessary work for Town staff, which has plenty to do already. It is much
simpler to allow owners to select qualified individuals themselves, based upon a rigorous specification
of qualifications and experience.
Back to the actual survey actions: the mitigation measure as stated will not result in effective location of
every nest. If it is represented as doing so, many specifications need to be added. To start with,
qualifications: surveyors to have experience in the local habitats and with the local bird species and
appropriate survey methodologies. The mitigation measure should also specify that the methodology
be appropriate to surveying for nesting birds (for one thing, morning survey work should begin no later
than 30-60 minutes after dawn; procedures for survey for nocturnal species; procedures for tall trees,
and so on), and that detailed and complete reporting of the survey methodology and findings to be
submitted prior to initiation of construction. This would include of times of day of survey work (some
species are active for relatively short periods in the morning and/or evening), methodology, dates, total
hours of survey time on those dates, species observed and if applicable whether pairs of both sexes or
just individuals, behavior and vocalization, how evening-active species were sought (if applicable), and
so on. Reports submitted in compliance with project conditions imposed based upon CEQA mitigation
measures should be readily and freely publicly available.
Nesting bird surveys are difficult and often are not done thoroughly and effectively. If a mitigation
measure is going to be established that is truly represented as ensuring that no active nests are
disturbed or destroyed, the details need to be rigorous and scientifically justified. The ones in the DEIR
are not.
BIO-3. The estimated 78 square feet of fill within wetlands is an extremely minor impact, but
nevertheless requires regulatory compliance. Some of the mitigation measures identified for fills within
wetlands or other waters are not feasible. The only definitively feasible and effective mitigation is to
bridge the crossings of waters of the State. Mitigation by payment of in-lieu fees is not always feasible
because the in-lieu fee program has been suspended at times for reevaluation of its effectiveness and
rates. I do not know whether it is currently in effect or not, and the DEIR provides no information.
Reliance on the Corps’s in-lieu fee program for Section 404 permits is inapplicable to waters of the State
that might not be subject to the federal Clean Water Act, though other options are available. The
Lahontan Regional Board has established a small-area exemption to the Basin Plan prohibition of fills,
but the exemption requires certain findings to be made which may not be applicable to the project. To
my knowledge, it is not feasible to mitigate direct wetland impacts in this area by purchase of credits at
a mitigation bank, because, as far as I know, there isn’t such a bank that includes the project site in its
approved service area. In order to retain this impact and mitigation option, the DEIR must include
information supporting its feasibility. Similarly, mitigating impacts by constructing compensatory
habitat within the site is also probably infeasible for the proposed project.
Regardless of mitigation options, under current Corps of Engineers regulatory procedure, the granting
of any Section 404 permit typically requires the recordation of a conservation easement over all avoided
waters and provision of a substantial endowment to fund monitoring and maintenance costs in
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 32
perpetuity. Since the DEIR seems to indicate that the project is going to need a Section 404 permit, the
actual requirements and practical consequences of getting this permit should have been fully explained
in the regulatory background. It would seem reasonable to me for exceptions to be made for very small
areas of fill, but the regulatory process does not always operate reasonably. My understanding of the
project description from Section 3 suggests that the conservation easement requirement would be
incompatible with the present project description, which includes open space ownership and
management by a homeowners’ association. The project also specifies a degree of public use, including
trails nearly right on top of existing jurisdictional waters, that is questionably compatible with such an
easement. It may be less costly for the project to install spans for the trails than to deal with the
conservation easement, if one were to be required as it normally is.
BIO-4. Although I applaud and agree with the recommendation that larger coniferous trees be removed
only at specified times of the year when bat presence and activity would be at a minimum (or none), the
mitigation measure requiring pre-removal disturbance to encourage bats to abandon a tree in which
they might be roosting is, so far as I know, entirely speculative. The DEIR cannot include a measure such
as this without providing a reference documenting that it is effective in preventing impact on any
special-status bat species. I’m not aware of any features within Canyon Springs that are suitable for bats
to hibernate in; I think tree bark and cavities are not thermally stable enough for this purpose, and there
aren’t caves, deep rock crevices, adits, or abandoned building with suitable thermal cover. The DEIR
should have discussed this subject in more detail and provided factual background or references. If
there truly aren’t any bats on the site in the winter, then there wouldn’t be special-status ones either,
therefore, at least, trees could be felled onto the snow during fall and early winter (prior to February
when great horned owls begin to occupy nests in our area), then removed the next May.
Geology
and
Soils
The DEIR shows that the great majority of the soils on site are Aldi-Kyburz complex, the majority of
which (maybe all of it on the site) is Aldi soil, with near-surface bedrock (weathered or not). The lower
parts of the topographic valleys where the wetlands and other waters are found, and where the
project’s stormwater disposal facilities are sited, are Aquolls and Borolls. These soils, have poor
infiltration capabilities and are unsuitable for the purpose. See Hydrology for more detail.
At another extreme of soils and geologic conditions, a house built on a parcel located on a Glenshire
street within a few hundred feet of the Canyon Spring project, began sliding downhill within a few years
of being completed, a consequence of the occurrence of highly plastic and/or expansive clay to a great
depth. The owner permanently remedied this problem by relatively extreme engineering methods
(installation of some 26 or 28 pilings, some or all to depths of 60 feet or more) and the house is now
totally sound. One presumes that the engineering studies and Town review of the house foundation
design conformed to existing standards, yet these were not adequate to protect the owner from highly
adverse consequences of what, so far as I know, were highly expansive clay soils. Much more detailed
information is certainly available to the applicant from at least one locally expert geotechnical engineer
who is aware of the specific soil conditions and engineering consequences at this parcel. If the DEIR
preparers wish to find out more about this potentially important project issue, I would be happy to
provide contact information verbally; it probably doesn’t belong in a written public comment.
This problem might extend into the proposed project footprint, with potentially negative effects on
unknowing purchasers of parcels. Either the project should be required to thoroughly investigate the
possibility of occurrence of soils that might be unsuitable as building foundations, throughout the
project footprint (infrastructure and parcels), or it should be required to inform prospective buyers of
this potential concern. Regardless, the occurrence of this serious engineering issue as a direct
consequence of soil conditions, on a parcel so close to the project site, unquestionably constitutes a
substantial fact that indicates that the Soils section of the DEIR is not correct in stating that there is no
reason to be concerned about expansive clays. Much more in-depth soils studies (both literally and
figuratively) should be carried out throughout the proposed development, and the EIR revised
accordingly. Alternatively, the EIR should identify a potentially significant soils/geology impact on an
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 33
unknown proportion of the proposed parcels, and should propose specific mitigation measures. At a
minimum, it would seem fair for notification to be provided prominently to all prospective buyers that
parcels might be subject to expansive or unacceptably plastic clays and require more intensive
engineering studies and more elaborate building foundations than are ordinarily the minimum required
by code.
Greenhouse
Gases
It seems incredible to me that a project sprawled this far away from any sources of employment in the
region would not result in significant GHG impacts from the vehicle miles traveled that will forever be
generated by it, but I understand that the impact thresholds are fuzzy to non-existent as of yet.
Glenshire itself was a bad enough idea in this respect (and others); let’s not compound it. At an absolute
minimum, the project contributes to a significant cumulative impact.
Hazards
Pages 4.8-2 and -3 are deficient in not mentioning the state law pertaining to defensible space (I believe
it is PRC 4291; maybe other sections?) and describing its provisions. This is an important omission from
the regulatory background of the whole DEIR, because the things that PRC 4291 requires owners of
inhabited property in California to do have potentially significant impacts on soils, hydrology, water
quality, wildlife, and so on. Please ensure that the preparers of all of those other sections describe how
the requirements of PRC 4291 (and any other relevant sections) may have direct and/or indirect
consequences for those other technical areas.
The description of local fire safety regulations and plans should provide some details, for the same
reason noted above.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a provides that “fuel modification shall include (1) underbrush, dead and
dying branches from trees shall be removed up to a minimum of 100 feet from all structures…” Those
words mean that, if any trees are present, the entirety of the bitterbrush vegetation stratum must be
removed. The wording of the mitigation measure does not limit this vegetation removal to the parcel
boundaries, but extends for 100 feet from the structure, thus into the open space parcels. My cursory
inspection of the tentative map shows that in many places, the combined 100 foot shrub stratum
elimination for structures on either side of the open space would result in removal of the native
vegetation from a lot of the open space.
This is not just hypothetical. Fuel management in open spaces near residential areas is ongoing in many
places in the Truckee – North Tahoe area. Sometimes, it is done in an ecologically protective, even
beneficial, manner. However, in other locations in Truckee, treatments have been more like total
mowing of the whole woody stratum. The DEIR should consider that the Canyon Springs Homeowners’
Association may well elect simply to do the latter – nothing in the project description prevents it from
doing so, and indeed Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a may well be taken to mean that it is required to do so.
This has significant potential impacts on biological resources, habitat value of open spaces, water
quality, and possibly other issues. If the wording of the mitigation measure is weakened in some
fashion, then the revised DEIR needs to provide adequate justification that the weakened provisions
meet the requirements of PRC 4291 and other applicable regulations and plans. The DEIR must also
note that fuel management actions tend to get more stringent over time, whether due to governmental
action or merely compelled by individuals’ insurance companies. Given that there are empirical
examples in Truckee of total vegetation removal for fire safety, the DEIR should analyze the greatest
degree of vegetation removal that might be interpreted as being required by PRC 4291.
Hydrology
and
Water
Quality
The introductory section on regulatory background doesn’t adequately explain what things like “Risk
Level 3” mean, so that the public could evaluate the project relative to these regulatory factors. Also, in
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 34
a very important omission, page 4.9-2 fails to mention that the Middle Truckee River TMDL has been
issued and would presumably apply to the project. The revised DEIR or FEIR needs to discuss the
applicable provisions of this TMDL and how the project would achieve them.
The discussion of existing conditions is inadequate, and as a consequence the hydrology section failed
to fully describe the site’s conditions and potentially significant adverse impacts of the project. There is
no discussion at all of climate change, which we understand can reasonably be expected to result in an
increased frequency of intense storms in our area. Glenshire is east of the Sierra crest and is
consequently subject to intensification of storm events by the heating of lower elevation soils to the
east. The area experienced an extremely intense rain and hail storm just last summer, with an amount of
precipitation that almost certainly totaled three to four inches all within about 40 minutes. This event
was probably somewhere between four and seven times the nominal 20-year 1-hour event. If we should
be expecting to get this kind of event more frequently in the future, this suggests that the former
standard of the 20-year 1-hour event may not really be adequate to protect against runoff quantity and
water quality impacts. Figure 10 shows the runoff and sediment flow consequences of this storm. Even
under <20-year events, Figure 11 shows that the poor permeability of the site’s soils can reasonably be
expected to result in substantial amounts of runoff from undisturbed portions of parcels, which result in
significant erosion and sourcing of sediment onto the roads, which ultimately ends up in the water. The
DEIR is inadequate in not having addressed these realities of existing conditions and the project.
Given the issues with infiltration of detained water (see below), the project’s detention facilities should
probably be up-sized to 50-year or larger. In any case, sizing needs to take into account the soil’s poor
infiltration capacity and the long detention times that are necessary to remove suspended clay particles
(multiple days; much longer than predicted by Stokes’s Law because the particles are flat rather than
spherical, thus not meeting an essential assumption necessary for the Law’s settling rate predictions to
be accurate). Also, whether you infiltrate all that clay-containing water or detain it long enough to
remove the clay from overflow water, at some point maintenance is necessary, which is not mentioned.
Maintenance of the volumetric capacity of a basin that is removing significant amounts of coarser
sediments (sands through silts) is straightforward. Maintenance of the infiltration rate when pores in the
substrate around and below the basin (which on this project site starts out with slow permeability)
become blocked by clay particles is nearly impossible without excavating and rebuilding the facility.
Given the circumstances of the site, the DEIR needs to explain precisely how maintenance will occur.
Much of the hydrology and water quality section is very vague and idealistic about the benefits of
newer runoff and water quality treatment design elements and mitigation measures, and either hints,
alludes, or imagines that somehow the relatively sophisticated and sometimes expensive design
measures it envisions will be so successfully implemented that the water quality problems created by
the project’s design and setting will be reduced. This is unrealistic, as would have been shown had the
existing conditions description within the Hydrology section been more complete. In reality, the
implementation of even the most basic sediment control measures in eastern Truckee is minimally
effective, or not done at all (see Figures 12 and 13 which show just two examples of the lack of effective
sediment BMPs on recent construction projects – both infrastructure and individual home
construction). The implication that much more difficult, expensive, and vaguely specified water and
sediment control measures might be successfully implemented, especially in single-family parcels, is
completely unrealistic and cannot be relied upon for reduction of any project impacts (whether as
design elements or mitigation measures). This reality of the project physical and regulatory setting,
namely, the very limited capacity of the Town to monitor these design features and sediment BMPs,
must be taken into account throughout the impact analysis and presentation of mitigation measures.
All measures whose implementation and effectiveness cannot be feasibly overseen by Town staff
(judged in the context of photographic evidence of the current limitations on the Town’s ability to
ensure that erosion and sediment control measures are fully and effectively implemented) must be
deleted from the DEIR, because they are fictional.
The hydrology background must thoroughly discuss nearby receiving waters and their ecology in light
of 1) the nutrients that may be added to them by the project, 2) the site’s soils and infiltration
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 35
characteristics, and 3) their content of clay which is not readily removed from stormwater runoff. Figure
14 provides visual evidence that standard infrastructure measures fail to remove this important
component of water pollution. Clay is also the soil fraction to which plant- and alga-available nutrients
are readily adsorbed, so it is particularly harmful to water quality once it arrives in the Glenshire Pond.
Section 4.9 does not even mention the mapped soil types on the site at all, a major shortcoming.
Section 4.6 notes what the names of the soil map units are, but provides no information at all on the
characteristics of these soils as they relate to hydrology and the feasibility of mitigation measures.
Natural Resources Conservation Service soil survey mapping and soil characteristics are the bare
minimum of what should have been presented and analyzed, but reliance on it alone would not be
sufficient for the present EIR, for several reasons. The main soil type mapped on site is a complex of two
main soil series, with different drainage characteristics (see additional detail below). The soil survey
doesn’t show where within Canyon Springs the two series occur, so we cannot possibly know what the
characteristics of the soils are at the spots where project elements are sited. Therefore, the analysis
cannot merely rely upon information from the soil survey, but should also have provided new
resolution of where these different series occur and how that affects the project drainage design and
likely impacts of parcel locations. Alternatively, it could use the conservative assumption that all soils of
the development and drainage facilities sites have the least capacity for infiltration and revegetation of
any of the known soils types.
In addition, soil surveys often cannot be relied upon to provide the sole basis for drainage analysis
because the stated permeability characteristics are not necessarily based upon empirical data from the
identified soil series, but instead are inferences from the general textural category of the different soil
layers. In the case of a project located where soils of impaired infiltration characteristics are prevalent
(see below for additional detail), the drainage design that is presented and analyzed in the DEIR should
have been based upon actual field permeability testing in various parts of the site and topographic
situations, and with sufficient resolution to identify the permeability characteristics of strata that 1) will
be encountered at depths of excavation that are relevant to the infrastructure and individual homes;
and 2) which underlie the proposed detention/infiltration facilities, because failure of these facilities to
rapidly infiltrate their contents will result in overflow under conditions that are much less than the
nominal design parameter (20-year, 1-hour event).
Precipitation events in both the wet season (October through May) and the dry season (summer
thunderstorms) often arrive in series of successive events. If a detention basin is already full from one
event, and the material in which it is built does not quickly infiltrate that water, then the next event,
even a much smaller one than a 20-year 1-hour event, might result in overflow when it should not, and
significant hydrologic and/or water quality impacts would result. (That is, the design feature or
mitigation measure would fail to have effectively reduced the impact to a less-than-significant level.)
The text on drainage features (Pg. 4.9-14 to -15) is inadequate because it does not note the presence of
the Glenshire Pond as a nearby receiving water of the two tributaries that drain from the site. This pond
is a local wildlife resource and is an amenity owned and maintained by Glenshire-Devonshire Residents
Association. It must be described in detail, analyzed, and considered in this section of the DEIR because
any elevation of nutrient or sediment levels in the runoff from developed areas that reaches the site
tributaries has the potential to contribute significantly to degradation or even eutrophication of the
pond. This would be a significant project-specific and/or cumulative impact, which is not analyzed in
the DEIR. Unless the project’s design and mitigation measures can ensure that it will not result in any
increase in sediment or nutrient content of the waters of the tributaries that drain from the site into
Glenshire Pond, then the DEIR needs to include a description of the ecology of the pond and the effect
that the long-term accumulation of the project’s added nutrients will have. Some processes in aquatic
ecology are not merely continua, but change process or rates suddenly when thresholds are reached.
Accordingly, this analysis needs to be quantitative.
Soils of the project site contain a sufficient proportion of clay that the runoff from disturbed soils
contains suspended sediment that is so fine that it is not readily removed by the usual means of
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 36
temporary detention basins. Also, storm events exceeding the 20-year 1-hour event would flow
unimpeded into the waters of the site, and thence downstream into the pond. The pond is relatively
shallow, so experiences high water temperatures during the warm season. Consequently, excess
contribution of nutrient rich sediment from the Canyon Springs site has the potential to cause
eutrophication of the pond and adverse impacts of various kinds (aesthetic, wildlife, and so on). The
Glenshire-Devonshire Residents Association should not be put in the position of operating the backup
sediment removal pond for the Canyon Springs project and of assuming whatever liabilities that entails.
Given this unique site specific consideration which is not mentioned in the DEIR, the Canyon Springs
project design and mitigation measures must provide for no increase in the sediment and nutrient
content of the waters that exit the project boundary. That requires baseline water quality data over a
range of conditions, a detailed long-term monitoring program, and contingent mitigation actions.
Page 4.9-15 references a 2004 study by Geocon and a Phase 1 ESA (cited as Section 12, reference 12).
What are these, and where is “Section 12”?
Page 4.9-16 (and other places in the DEIR) references a 2007 review by Geocon, which is also not
included in the appendices. All we have is a 2003 study by CFA, which was based upon what is likely to
be an inadequate level of detail on the soil infiltration rates of soil types that occur within the site.
Specifically, the mapped soil types are complexes, and in particular 80 percent of the site is mapped as
Aldi-Kyburz complex, of which the majority (Aldi) has very slow permeability in the substratum (Forest
Services, 1994), which would likely be the location of the water-soil interface of the detention basins,
and possibly also the proposed vegetated infiltration swales. (Aldi soil is 55 percent of Aldi-Kyburz over
the whole extent of the map unit, but may well be 100 percent of it within Canyon Springs.) Also, the
preliminary drainage design (included in the end of Appendix J, not anywhere else in the DEIR where it
should have been found) shows a lot of detention/infiltration basins located in or near soils mapped as
Aquolls and Borolls. These are described by NRCS as follows: permeability variable in the subsoil;
moderately slow, slow, and very slow in the substratum; drainage class: very poorly drained and poorly
drained. This map unit is subject to flooding. Aquolls have a high water table during most of the year
and are susceptible to puddling. Borolls have high water tables during part of the year and are
susceptible to puddling.
These NRCS descriptions of Aldi and Aquolls and Borolls do not sound suitable at all for
detention/infiltration basins. This fact casts substantial doubt on the efficacy of infiltrating the site’s
runoff as proposed. Given that stormwater runoff will be expected to contain suspended clay, which
does not settle out quickly, failure of the drainage system to infiltrate water quickly will then result in
overflow and sediment contamination of receiving waters, including the 303(d)-listed Truckee River,
which is a potentially significant impact.
Page 4.9-16. The discussion of the proposed drainage plan shows that the information provided in the
DEIR pertaining to site drainage does not meet CEQA requirements. The text states that “soil infiltration
rates, pond detention times, and other suggested revisions from the 2007 technical review by Geocon
would also need to be incorporated into the construction plans to illustrate the feasibility of the
proposed drainage design.” In short, Geocon (2007) does not consider that the information used for the
2003 CFA preliminary analysis is sufficient to demonstrate that the drainage design is feasible. If it is not,
then the findings of the DEIR pertaining to hydrologic impacts of the project may be inaccurate. The
Geocon 2007 review has not been provided for public review; what other deficiencies does it identify?
The text states that “the project has been configured to avoid these setback areas [50 feet from the 100-
year floodplain limit] and, in most cases, provides an additional 20-foot setback to any structure.” This
statement conflicts with Figure 3-6, which clearly shows many parcels (I count 27 of them) encroaching
on the setback. There’s even a Legend entry in that Figure identifying parcels extending within the
setback. I’m sure that the idea is that the building envelopes are set back 50 feet, so that’s good enough
on paper. But neither the “project” nor its “development” (the word used in the Town General Plan) is
limited to the buildings; in terms of actual real-world environmental impacts (which is what CEQA is
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 37
concerned with), development also includes the other disturbance and non-habitable construction that
occurs within the parcels, which is often considerable (see Figure 15, in Appendix A).
Unless the parcel map is redesigned so that a minimum separation of 50 feet is preserved between
parcel boundaries and any and all wetlands or other waters, there will certainly be significant indirect
impacts on those wetlands/waters, as explained below. In order to avoid having to weigh dueling
unsubstantiated opinions about the matter, some relevant facts need to be considered.
The footprint of a house itself is nowhere near the full extent of the surface disturbance that occurs
within any parcels, and especially in small parcels such as 14,000 or 15,000 square feet. These many
other soil disturbances are the source of sediment- and fertilizer-enriched waters which, in this
situation, will drain directly into the wetlands. As shown in Figure 15, owners of parcels in the area often
implement a significant degree of disturbance in the portions of parcels that are close to wetlands and
other waters. In part, this is the nature of the lifestyle which is sought by residents. In part, it is due to
other constraints such as Town building setbacks; the fact that these same parcels we are discussing
have no front yard space between the building envelope and the road; the desire to have space in front
to park multiple vehicles, boats, recreational vehicles; the need for snow storage; and so on. These
constraints mean that any of these wetland-abutting residents who wish to utilize the outdoor living
space of their parcels must do so in the supposed “setback” area. Sheds and/or greenhouses will be
built (and, since small ones don’t require building permits, typically won’t have roof runoff infiltration
facilities), sometimes hardscapes of various kinds, dog runs fenced, lawns installed, the spoils from
excavation of level building pads and foundations will be disposed, and vegetation will be altered for
fuel management as required by state law (potentially resulting in soil compaction or impairment of the
pre-existing vegetation’s ability to enhance water percolation).
This last issue is an important one. The existing natural bitterbrush vegetation contains a much higher
fuel load than is acceptable within the legally required 100 foot defensible space, and whether due to
the density of fine branches or the temperature of combustion of the species, bitterbrush burns quickly
with long flame lengths. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that at some point immediately or far in
the future, either the Town, or the fire department, or the individual owners’ insurance companies, are
going to require owners to remove all or nearly all of the existing natural vegetation in these very same
setback areas, which slope upwards direct to the building envelope. The homeowners’ association may
also desire, or be required, to remove substantial amounts of vegetation from open space areas well
outside parcel boundaries. In addition, flammable ground litter, which is an important element that
contributes to the maintaining the water absorbing function of the soil profile, will almost certainly be
reduced or entirely removed. Residents’ association commonly require this.
The hydrology and water quality analysis depends upon the assumption that vegetation, and the soil
conditions which the existing vegetation creates and maintains, will control sediment source and runoff
from the parcels. As just explained, a lot of that existing vegetation and natural organic mulch is going
to be gone, and will be replaced with some as yet unknown and unspecified future vegetation (native
or otherwise). Or no vegetation perhaps. The project description does not include any absolute
requirement that parcels extending all the way across the setback to the edge of wetlands maintain
some character of vegetation which will be equal to the pre-existing vegetation in its capacity to
prevent raindrop impact erosion, control rilling, and maintain in perpetuity a level of soil infiltration that
will protect the wetlands against sediment and fertilizer pollution. Any design or mitigation statements
including “to the extent feasible” or other functionally similar conditionals are meaningless within small
single-family parcels. If there are going to be specific vegetation and soil-infiltration requirements for
each parcel, the DEIR should describe exactly what the requirements are and how their effectiveness
will be monitored and maintained throughout the occupation of the subdivision into the future, and
what the contingent actions would be if it is not maintained.
I agree that this is very complicated, depends upon knowledge of the probable replacement vegetation
in these back yards that we simply do not have, and is unlikely ever to be fully implemented; and the
DEIR provides no actual factual basis to determine that it will be effective under the specific
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 38
circumstances of the Canyon Springs site anyway. Accordingly, it is unacceptable for the DEIR to find
that the vague and flexible mitigation measures provided for water quality actually will mitigate the
impact upon adjoining wetlands and other waters on and off site to a less-than-significant level. The
only effective mitigation is to redesign the project to move all of the parcels outside the setback, if not
further. This is what the design should have been in the first place.
As noted above, the soils of the project site are largely Aldi soils, and, somewhere in the misnamed
“setback” area, transition into Aquolls and Borolls. When disturbed, both of these soil types may result in
runoff containing significant amounts of suspended clay particles, which require either total infiltration
or very extended detention times to remove. The lengthy but vague and non-mandatory low impact
development language that is proposed as mitigation for water quality impacts cannot plausibly be
represented as effective mitigation, because many of the activities that result in the indirect wetland
impacts are ones that are not subject to any neighborhood or Town review, so will probably not
incorporate those principles. Whatever happens during the initial building permit review for a site is not
adequate, because back yard construction and disturbance will continue, unobserved and/or
unregulated by any entity, for many decades.
The DEIR should have taken into account the characteristics of Aldi soils and how they pertain to the
actual reality of construction on site. The profile of this series consists of clay loam having slow
permeability at 8 to 18 inches, and weathered andesite with very slow permeability below 18 inches
(Forest Service, 1994). Consequently, the prevailing soil profile has extremely poor capacity to absorb
precipitation, and surface runoff quickly results, causing erosion of the underlying clayey layer (Figure
16, in Appendix A). When subjected to disturbance (especially compaction), clay loams often become
even less permeable than they were in the undisturbed condition. Thus, at depths which are very much
within the range of construction disturbance – in fact are within the depth range of landscaping
excavation by hand - and would be the depth ranges of any infiltration installations, many of the soils
on the site will have slow to very slow permeability (as is shown visually in Figures 16 and 17 in
Appendix A to this letter). Therefore, it is doubtful if the subjective mitigation measure of supposedly
infiltrating all of the site runoff (whether on a parcel-by-parcel basis, or generally for the project as a
whole) is either feasible or will be effective over the long-term future. Consequently, the potentially
significant drainage impact of the project is not reduced by design features nor mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the mitigation measures provided in the DEIR.
There might be technological means by which some of these impacts could be reduced (whether to a
less-than-significant level is dubious), but examples from different settings may not be relevant. Also,
the implementation cost of some of these measures is extremely high, and may well be economically
infeasible for a modest project such as Canyon Springs. This means that they will probably either not be
done at all, or will not be done well, therefore the mitigation will not in fact occur.
Some of the subsoils that occur in the project vicinity are very rich in clay and are extremely poor
growing substrate for native or native-adapted plants, consequently the feasibility of effective,
sustainable high-percolation revegetation being done successfully by the owners of the parcels is
dubious. I am directly familiar with these soils, and they often have little or no secondary structure and
are therefore susceptible to becoming compacted and losing infiltration capacity (Figure 17). The
foundation spoils from home construction – these same subsoils – are typically just dumped in the
parcel back yard, so we now have a soil surface with poor infiltration, comprised of soil materials which
are extremely difficult to revegetate successfully, covering a significant portion of the slope leading
directly down a few tens of feet into the wetlands. This is not just a hypothetical scenario: it is exactly
what the original home builders did on my parcel and countless others in the Glenshire neighborhood.
My observation of building sites in the neighborhood within the last couple of years shows that this
practice continues today.
Soil enhancement by means of high-nutrient supplements such as fertilizer (even the inaccurately
named “slow release” kinds) or compost (which often includes significant amounts of highly leachable
nutrients) is not necessarily a remedy, because it is vulnerable to the leaching of excessively high
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 39
amounts of soluble nutrients into the wetlands and other waters. Even with the slightly improved
vegetation that can thereby be achieved, the DEIR does not include adequate factual support from sites
of similar climate (east side arid Sierra habitat which is substantially different from the Lake Tahoe Basin)
and soils (clays and diatomaceous earths shallowly underlain by weathered or unweathered volcanic
bedrock) that revegetation of these materials is feasible and effective in eliminating sediment-enriched
runoff from the parcels. Thus, vague mitigation prescriptions of revegetation and LID fail to provide
mitigation of the significant indirect wetland impacts that can reasonably be expected to result from
the project design including many parcels which directly, or nearly, abut wetlands or other waters.
It is theoretically, albeit with difficulty and at very high cost, feasible to reduce some of these problems,
especially on large-parcel projects where the future owners will have the financial wherewithal to do it
and/or the space to preserve native vegetation more than 100 feet from the house. But I do not think
that it will happen on the parcels at Canyon Springs, and the DEIR does not provide any analysis to the
contrary. The only effective mitigation is to redesign the project so that the parcel boundaries lie at least
50 feet from the edge of any wetland, other water (of the U.S. or State), or 100-year flood plain.
These comments about infiltration and revegetation issues apply most especially, but not exclusively, to
the parcels within or next to the 50-foot setback. Given the nature of the soils, even a 50-foot separation
between the parcel limit and closest water or wetland might not be adequate. This should have been
addressed quantitatively but was not.
Page 4.9-19ff. The DEIR correctly identifies two potentially significant hydrologic impacts, but does not
provide sufficient information to substantiate that the proposed mitigation measures would reduce
those impacts to less than significant levels. 1) The DEIR states that “net infiltration across the project
area…would remain unchanged through the use of LID principles.” Neither this part of the DEIR nor the
mitigation measures later provide an adequate level of detail to substantiate that this will be effective,
and there are substantial facts that suggest that comprehensive infiltration of runoff from impervious
surfaces may be very difficult or entirely infeasible and may require measures which cannot feasibly be
required of each parcel owner (for example, may require so much undeveloped and non-landscaped
space that the buildable space of the parcel is too small to meet economic or other goals). The
mitigation measure must specify the absolute hydrologic requirements for each parcel, and specify that
variances cannot be granted in building permit review. Thus, for the mitigation measure to be effective,
it should state that, for each building parcel, no runoff may leave the parcel that exceeds the pre-
construction runoff from it. This would mean that either the existing runoff conditions under the entire
range of antecedent and precipitation conditions must be established for each parcel, or that each
parcel be required to impound and infiltrate all surface water (no runoff from site would equate to no
runoff that exceeds pre-construction conditions). This would entail onerous requirements for baseline
study and engineering design, so it is not clear that either of these requirements are feasible. However,
if they are not, then the impact will not be effectively mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Page 4.9-21. Item 1(c.) is incorrect or incomplete. It states that potential for erosion is not a significant
impact because the resulting sediment-laden water would be unlikely to reach any 303(d) waters or
result in siltation off site. Firstly, the DEIR had already stated on pages 4.9-2 to -3 “The Middle Truckee
River, which all project runoff ultimately drains to, is listed for [having a higher-than allowable
concentration of] sediment.” These two statements are directly contradictory; in fact, it is the latter that
is correct: runoff bearing elevated sediment concentration from project and individual home
construction would flow into a 303(d)-listed water, which is a significant impact under the standards
quoted in the DEIR.
Secondly, as noted above, there is potential for significant adverse impacts on the Glenshire Pond from
elevation of sediment and/or nutrient content in the waters of the project site’s tributaries. Observation
within various neighborhoods within the Town, including ones built within the last few years such as
Elkhorn Ridge, shows that elevated sediment content in runoff waters in roadside ditches persists for
very long periods of time post-construction; thus, hypothetical soil stabilization measures are not in fact
mitigating the impact of construction. So, the project has the likelihood of resulting in siltation off site.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 40
At its essence, either 1) the project, throughout all individual home construction until buildout, adds no
sediment at all to the water that runs off site (which is not required by, or likely to result from, the
proposed mitigation measures); or 2) that sediment drops out of the runoff somewhere between the
project boundary and the Truckee River (which constitutes “resulting in siltation off site”); or 3) that
sediment flows into the Truckee River, which is a 303(d)-listed water. Therefore, there is no logical
project outcome other than the occurrence of a significant impact on water quality from sediment.
The impact and mitigation analysis are inadequate in not addressing the provisions of the Middle
Truckee River sediment TMDL and how the project will achieve them.
Item 1(d.) is also incorrect or inadequate, because the finding of a less-than-significant impact is based
upon the effectiveness of the proposed infiltration concepts. As explained above, the actual physical
characteristics of the site cast constitute substantial facts and evidence that these measures may not be
feasible to implement in a manner that is fully effective in mitigating the project impacts, due to the
characteristics of the soils of the project site.
Page 4.9-22. Item 1(e.) is incorrect or inadequately analyzed for the same reasons that are provided
above for Items 1(c.) and 1(d.).
The DEIR identifies use of fertilizer in connection with revegetation of disturbed areas. Since the project
can easily salvage and re-use all of the existing native topsoil, fertilizer or compost should unequivocally
not be used in revegetation, for two reasons. Firstly, a major study of existing revegetation projects in
the Tahoe area, completed in 2010 by California Tahoe Conservancy, showed that there is a high
correlation between use of nutrient amendments and subsequent long-term prevalence/persistence of
weeds (AECOM, 2010). Revegetation guidance for northern Nevada reinforces this (McAdoo and Davis,
2003). Secondly, there is reason to be concerned that runoff and leachate from fertilized (or compost-
treated) revegetation potentially results in elevated nutrient levels in downstream waters (which in this
case would include the Glenshire Pond). The project should be required to provide baseline water
quality data under a reasonable range of flow conditions and times of year, to have a specified regimen
of during-construction sampling both during and after storm events, and to have effective contingent
mitigation measures in the event of exceedances of the background nutrient levels. The DEIR must be
revised to consider these concerns relating to use of fertilizer and compost, and the project design and
all mitigation measures need to be revised to eliminate any possibility of use of fertilizer or high-
nutrient compost (all types that are enhanced with chicken manure or similar constituents) for project
revegetation.
A study comparing nutrient release from some of the nutrient amendments that are popularly used in
our area showed that the vast majority of ammonium (plant- and alga-available, and a significant water
pollutant) is probably released during the first three or four precipitation events, long before there is
enough plant root growth to take up this soluble nitrogen. Nearly all of the nutrients are leached by the
ninth precipitation event. That means that either during the autumn and early winter after use, certainly
no later than the first snowmelt season, practically all of the alga-available nitrogen from the fertilizer or
compost will have flowed into the Glenshire Pond. That is almost certainly a significant impact, for
which the only available mitigation is source prevention: prohibition of use of any type of fertilizer or
nutrient-enhanced compost in construction of project infrastructure, and probably also in individual
home construction.
The analysis of hydrologic and water quality impacts and mitigation measures on pages 4.9-25ff is
inadequate; the mitigation measures proposed will not reduce the project’s significant adverse impacts
on runoff and water quality to less-than-significant levels. There is a lot of flexible and vague boilerplate
text, which needs to be tightened up by the elimination of conditionals and imprecise wording. The
statement of Impact HYDRO-2 is inadequate in that it does not identify the during-construction impacts
on individual parcels (and these are not clearly included in HYDRO-1 either; that one refers to the
“project” which is the Canyon Springs approval, not including the 200 or more building permits).
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 41
Observation of building sites in eastern Truckee (see Figures 12 and 13 in Appendix A) shows that the
actual implementation practice of even the Town’s current, very simple erosion and sediment control
policy is not effective in containing sediment-laden runoff. I am highly sympathetic to Town staff in this
regard: monitoring an open building permit already requires a large number of separate observations,
and because surface disturbance changes constantly and sediment control structures are so fragile and
so frequently and readily altered by builders, it is nearly impossible to ensure consistent sediment
control. It is just not feasible for the Town to ensure that the measures identified in HYDRO-2 will be
implemented effectively.
This is especially true because many of the measures are conditional and vaguely stated, so even if a
Town building inspector stands there and says “we have a problem” the owner or builder can just rely
upon the squishy wording of the measures and say “we’re doing it.” This is not adequate mitigation.
Let’s dissect one simple measure: “Limit grading to the smallest practical area of land.” This is
unenforceable, because there is no explanation of who decides what is “practical” and what the
definition is. For example, would the site shown in Figure 13 be in compliance? The builder might
represent that he needed to grade the whole parcel to move his equipment and materials around for
“practical” construction of his project. So, it provides no mitigation at all. If the wording were “no
grading (either cut or fill) shall occur on any part of the soil surface outside the footprint of the
building(s), driveway, parking area, deck, and/or patio shown on the approved building permit site
plan,” that would be specific enough that the owner would know exactly what is required, and Town
staff would be able to enforce non-compliance. I do not necessarily suggest that exact wording, which is
relatively onerous. However, anything that is represented as provided substantive mitigation in the
DEIR must be sufficiently unequivocal that it can be effectively implemented by the Town inspectors.
This same approach must be taken in the review and revision of all of the many other measures, not just
the “limit grading” one examined above.
Mitigation measure HYDRO-2b suffers from the same problem. “On-site infiltration should be utilized
wherever possible to minimize runoff.” This has no substance in actual application: “should” means it is
optional, not required, so will often not happen; “wherever possible” is useless, because as we have
seen above, it may not be possible to effect infiltration in many of the site’s soils, so the builder can then
be reassured that in all such soil areas – most or all of the site - infiltration is not required at all; and
“minimize runoff” has no substantive meaning. The text about LID on pages 4.9-30 to -31 needs to be
deleted from the mitigation measure, because it depends on infiltration which is dubiously feasible. Or,
it needs to specify what the “other control measures” are that will be required, not merely suggested, if
infiltration is not feasible. Parcel buyers need to be informed in advance that they may need to install
sizeable rain vault types of structures, which are sometimes tricky or expensive to engineer and install,
since bedrock may be encountered not far below the surface (Forest Service, 1994), and, if it is, the
vaults may not work very well or may need to be much larger than is normally expected.
Mitigation measures HYDRO-2 do not say anything about disposal of spoils from excavating level
building pads and foundation trenches. Therefore, we must assume that these materials, which are
highly unsuitable for revegetation and/or maintenance of high infiltration capacity and are often high
in clay, will just be dumped in the parcels, as has usually been the practice in Truckee. That will make
effective implementation of the revegetation measures virtually impossible, so this part needs to be
deleted from the mitigation measure, because it is likely to be neither feasible nor effective under the
actual conditions of building on these small lots.
Hypothetically, one could require removal of these unsuitable spoils from each building site, but it does
not seem realistic that that would be effectively implemented. Are Town building inspectors going to
be present throughout excavation to ensure the topsoil is carefully salvaged and preserved, and the
spoils go directly into a dump truck and are removed? That sounds infeasible. Or one might
theoretically require topsoil salvage, then burying and decompaction of spoils, then capping with a
specified thickness (say 12 inches) of the salvaged topsoil, and so on. But that also sounds infeasible to
implement effectively, and extremely difficult and expensive for individual owners or builders.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 42
Even if somehow the spoils were not a problem, given the nature of the site’s soils and the ongoing
disturbance of occupied parcels of the small sizes as the ones of this project, the feasibility and
effectiveness of the revegetation measure is dubious. An adequate CEQA mitigation measure is a
statement of a concrete action. The citation of the Water Board’s sediment source control handbook is
not a mitigation measure. The DEIR needs to state definitively what specific actions that are identified in
the handbook are going to be required to be implemented in the approximately 0.35-acre parcels at
Canyon Springs. It is not the responsibility of public reviewers to have to search around everywhere in
that document and think about whether it does or does not include feasible and effective measures.
Besides, with no concrete statements about which things that might be found in it are going to be
required, and which are going to be optional, the DEIR provides zero basis to conclude that any of the
contents of that document will materially reduce impacts at the Canyon Springs site.
I do not see any realistic way that effective monitoring of the revegetation measure is feasible. Who
does this and how often and how? Is the Town going to send staff to inspect every Canyon Springs
parcel every year (for “regular and continual” maintenance required by the mitigation text)? Funded
how? What are going to be the quantitative or other objective monitoring standards? How is
maintenance going to be required and then checked? What are the contingent actions? CEQA does not
require that monitoring be fully specified until the mitigation monitoring plan, long after the DEIR stage
that we are at now. But if even the most cursory consideration of mitigation language reveals that
something is not feasible or effective, and is impossible to monitor, then its potential to contribute to
reduction of impacts must be discounted, and it must be deleted from the DEIR.
When the missing part of Impact HYDRO-2 (from individual home construction activities and long-term
future soil disturbance) is put in, when all of the many vague and unenforceable statements are deleted,
when practical considerations are taken into account, and the infeasible and/or ineffective measures are
removed, we are left to conclude that Impact HYDRO-2 will not be reduced to a less-than-significant
level, but instead that a significant residual water quality impact will remain.
It is important for the DEIR authors and Town decision makers to consider that the homes that will be
built at Canyon Springs are not going to be multi-million dollar Lake Tahoe resort houses, nor are they
high-end resort developments which have the financial ability to implement really rigorous runoff and
sediment controls (and still often fail to do so). The residential construction that will actually occur
within this project is going to be severely constrained both in terms of space (parcels are small) and
financial ability to design, implement, and permanently maintain the runoff and sediment controls that
are hinted at, but not actually required, in the DEIR. It is simply unrealistic to expect these things to
happen in the real world. Based upon parcel sizes, the market sector for which the Canyon Springs
project is intended appears to be the lower-cost portion of the single-family residential market in
Truckee. Sociologically, I think this is excellent, but it does mean that many of the hypothetical
mitigation measures are economically infeasible for those future owners to implement. Consequently,
the project layout and runoff/water quality controls need to be designed based upon the assumption
that runoff and sediment-contaminated water will not be effectively contained within the individual
parcels, and that the project infrastructure must be responsible for the entirety of the runoff
containment and removal of sediment from that runoff.
Low-impact development and best management practices are laudable and, in the future, will help us
reduce the environmental impact of development. However, they are tricky and expensive to design,
implement, monitor, and maintain in perpetuity in places with challenging site-specific conditions and
long-term residents who cannot realistically be expected or required to be diligent and knowledgeable
in their implementation and maintenance. The overly vague and conditional language included in the
DEIR and the sources cited do not provide adequate support for the finding that the project’s impacts
will be reduced to less-than-significant levels by these measures.
Alternatively, a revision of the project design providing greater separation between parcel boundaries
and the nearby tributary receiving waters might provide effective mitigation, if based upon empirical,
quantitative evaluation of the runoff-treatment capacity of the soils of these buffer zones.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 43
General
Plan
Consistency
The project is not in fact consistent with at least two policies of the Town General Plan 2025. Policy COS-
P4.5 states that “Development shall be prohibited within established setback areas for streams and
waterways…” The project would only prohibit construction of habitable structures within the setback,
not other forms of development such as construction of sheds, greenhouses, patios or other
hardscapes, dog enclosures, landscaping, and so on. In any reasonable understanding of the word, and
certainly in terms of their environmental impacts, these things are development. Therefore the project
is inconsistent with Policy COS-P4.5.
Policy COS-P4.1 requires projects to “Provide for the integrity and continuity of … wildlife movement
corridors…” which by any reasonable interpretation includes mule deer migration corridors. As
explained above, the project does not in fact provide for such integrity and continuity, but instead
assumes that the deer will migrate via a route that is different than the one they presently use through
Canyon Springs where large blocks of development are proposed to be placed. The project’s proposed
open space does indeed greatly exceed the Town’s areal requirements, but, as explained in detail
above, the biological reality is that it would not provide for integrity and continuity of the existing
migration corridor. Therefore, the project and alternatives are inconsistent with Policy COS-P4.1.
Land
Use
Page 4.10-47 states that the project’s open space would “provide a permanent wildlife corridor” which
the residual open spaces will do for some, but not all, species. I agree that the open space would be a
nice thing, and would be a residual piece of wildlife and plant habitat, but it isn’t really fully a corridor
for all species, and in particular will not provide a migratory corridor for mule deer.
Alternatives
Section 5 states that the impacts of the Reduced Density alternative would be the same as under the
proposed project. This is incorrect: Alternative E has a bigger parcel footprint exactly in one of the parts
of the site that is highly valuable for deer migration (northeast corner), as evidenced by high density of
deer sign that is found there and the record of a fawn of nursing age noted in project reports. Therefore,
its impacts on deer would be expected to be greater than the proposed project. The reduction of parcel
footprint in the southwestern part doesn’t offset this northern footprint increase, because deer don’t
seem to use that specific development area quite as intensively as they use the northeast corner.
I look forward to reviewing the revised DEIR and/or FEIR for this project prior to the Planning
Commission public hearing on this project. Please keep my contact information on the Town’s list for
notifications of other steps in the CEQA process.
Sincerely,
Adrian Juncosa
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 44
References
AECOM. 2010. Revegetation Guidance Document for Erosion Control Projects in the Tahoe Basin. Report
prepared for the California Tahoe Conservancy, South Lake Tahoe, CA.
California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). 1988. Truckee Loyalton Deer Herd Management Plan.
California Department of Fish and Game, Region II.
California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, and
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (DFG et al.). 1998. Report to the Fish and Game
Commission: An Assessment of Mule and Black-tailed Deer Habitats and Populations in California.
Available for download from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/habitatassessment.html
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW). 2013. The Economic Importance of Hunting. Internet
web page accessible at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/econ-hunting.html.
Collins, W.B., and P.J. Urness. 1981. Habitat preferences of mule deer as rated by pellet-group
distributions. Journal of Wildlife Management 45: 969-972.
Dealy, J.E., P.J. Edgerton, and W.G. Williams. 1986. Use of Curlleaf Mountain-Mahogany by Mule Deer on
a Transition Range. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station
Research Note PNW-439.
Flora North America Editorial Committee, editor (FNAEC). 2005. Flora of North America North of Mexico,
Volume 5. Magnoliophyta: Caryophyllidae, part 2. Oxford University Press, New York.
Innes, R.J. 2013. Odocoileus hemionus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer).
Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed in February 2013.
Leckenby, D.A., D.P. Sheehy, C.H. Nellis, R.J. Scherzinger, I.D. Luman, W. Elmore, J.C. Lemos, L. Doughty,
and C.E. Trainer. 1982. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangeland - the Great Basin of Southeastern
Oregon: Mule Deer. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station
General Technical Report PNW-139.
McAdoo, J.K., and R. Davis. 2003. Northeastern Nevada Revegetation Guide: Planting Desirable
Vegetation to Compete with Invasive Weeds. UNR Cooperative Extension, SP-03-14, Reno, NV.
Naeher, L.P., M. Brauer, M. Lipsett, J.T. Zelikoff, C.D. Simpson, J.Q. Koenig, and K.R. Smith. 2007.
Woodsmoke health effects: a review. Inhalation Toxicology 19: 67-106.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Wildlife Habitat Management Institute, and Wildlife
Habitat Council. 2005. Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Fish and Wildlife Management Leaflet No. 28.
Neff, D.J. 1968. The pellet-group count technique for big game trend, census, and distribution: A review.
Journal of Wildlife Management 32: 597-614.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service). 1994. Soil Survey of Tahoe National
Forest Area, California. Prepared in cooperation with the USDA Soil Conservation Service and Regents of
the University of California (Agricultural Experiment Station).
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 45
Attachment 1: Summary of experience and qualifications of Adrian Juncosa
Current Position
President and Senior Ecologist (EcoSynthesis Scientific & Regulatory Services, Inc.)
Education
Harvard University, B.A.
Duke University, Ph.D.
Additional specialized training in wetland delineation, stream studies and restoration, and erosion
control.
Certification and License
Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (International Erosion Control Association)
California Contractor’s License
Professional Experience
Twenty-five years of experience in biological, environmental, and regulatory consulting.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (subcontractor): field studies of preserve acquisitions.
Missouri Botanical Garden (post-doctoral fellow): floristic studies of Choco region.
Harvard University (co-principal investigator on NSF grant): studies of Rhizophoraceae.
University of California at Davis (postgraduate researcher and visiting assistant professor): research on
Fabaceae and Euphorbiaceae; taught California floristics and flowering plant systematics.
EIP Associates (Director of Wetland and Botanical Studies): field surveys including habitat mapping,
floristic rare plant surveys, selected wildlife surveys; preparation of CEQA and NEPA
documentation including sections for draft and final EIRs and EISs; negotiation with agency staff,
legal teams, and project ownership to develop mitigation specifications; wetland delineations,
permitting (including associated water quality and streambed alteration authorizations);
mitigation design, implementation, and monitoring; expert witness services.
Parsons – Harland Bartholomew & Associates (Supervising Scientist): duties similar to above.
EcoSynthesis Scientific & Regulatory Services, Inc. (President and Senior Ecologist): botanical,
vegetation, and selected wildlife surveys; historical ecology; studies of soils and ecological
succession for riparian restoration, slope stabilization, and mine reclamation; specifications for
erosion control, revegetation, and ecological restoration; environmental impact evaluation and
documentation; permitting, mitigation, and monitoring; technical representation in meetings
with agency staff, project lenders, and third-party environmental auditors. Teach classes for IECA
on erosion control by means of native revegetation.
Technical Expertise
Botany (systematics, biogeography, and ecology)
Vegetation science and mapping
Revegetation ecology, including soils and hydrology
Erosion and sediment control; planning of vegetation-hydrologic performance of soil moisture regimes.
Interpretation of historical and successional ecology
Biology of selected wildlife groups (raptors, owls, and other birds; mule deer in the Sierra Nevada)
Geographic Areas of Expertise
Main emphasis: Northern Sierra Nevada, Great Basin, and many other ecological systems in California.
Additional expertise and project experience elsewhere in the arid West, northeastern and southeastern
U.S., Latin American tropics, West Africa, Indonesia, Australasia
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 46
Appendix A: Figures Illustrating Points Stated in Letter Text
Figure 1. Cul-de-sac in unoccupied part of Elkhorn Ridge subdivision, showing doughnut skid marks and
swastika burned on pavement. I have not observed this behavior, or evidence of it, in occupied portions
of the neighborhood.
Figure 2. Burned area on pavement, extending to singed dry vegetation at the edge of pavement
(arrow). Fragments of broken glass were present, suggesting some combination of flammable liquids
and glass containers. Whatever happened here posed a significant public safety risk, and was facilitated
by the construction of roads which since lie unoccupied and largely unobserved.
Figure 3. Example of prolonged surface water (a potential water of the State) that is obvious at the time
of snowmelt, when the water board directed that site studies occur, but might be overlooked on August
30, September 1, or September 2. This feature has significant depth and flow velocity, might merit
designation as a water of the State, and, so far as can be determined during the DEIR public comment
period, does not appear on the project’s wetland delineation map.
Figure 4. Another area of probable tributary waters of the state that might not be evident in August 30-
September 2. So far as I know, this is not on the wetland delineation map, but it is impossible to be sure
from the very poor image that is provided with the DEIR.
Figure 5. Deer sign observed within Canyon Springs site (589 points, almost all being pellet groups),
plus tracks made in snow by several groups of deer migrating within site on Nov. 4, 2008. This confirms
that the migration corridor documented by DFG for the 1988 management plan remains in use,
although these preliminary observations and other deer sign data from outside the site suggest that the
migration corridor veers north-northwest instead of continuing northeast as mapped by DFG.
Figure 6. Deer pellet group with GPS unit showing UTM coordinates that are located within the project
site.
Figure 7. Amorphous deer scat within site. This form of scat is produced when the deer is eating fresh,
softer plant material. This photograph is best interpreted as evidence of a deer migrating through the
site in the springtime.
Figure 8. Track of a deer migrating through the Canyon Springs site in November 2008.
Figure 9. Tracks of several deer migrating together through the site in November 2008.
Figure 10. Intense hail and rain storm on August 16, 2012, a few hundred feet from Canyon Springs.
Huge flows of sediment-carrying water, and debris flows, covered most of the road surfaces, completely
overwhelmed the roadside drainages, and caused significant erosion both directly because of the
volume of runoff and indirectly due to blockage of drainages by debris flows.
Figure 11. Precipitation event that was probably much less than a 20 year event, showing that, even
with undisturbed vegetation, the infiltration capacity of the native soils is so poor that significant
surface runoff results even from modest precipitation events, resulting in substantial erosion and water
pollution if it encounters any disturbed areas.
Figure 12. Typically ineffective implementation and monitoring (by both contractors and Town) of basic
sediment control BMPs. This was a construction project that should have submitted and fully
implemented a stormwater pollution prevention plan, including monitoring and maintenance, but did
not.
Figure 13. Single family home construction in Glenshire-Devonshire in April 2011 (still fully in the rainy
season), showing that no sediment controls whatsoever are in place at the road sides of the parcel,
where polluted runoff exits the parcel on its way to waters of the State and the Glenshire Pond. Given
that the Town cannot ensure that basic BMPs are implemented, it is essentially certain that the more
challenging and expensive methodologies implied by the DEIR will not be effectively implemented.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page 47
Figure 14. Road construction near the Canyon Springs site, showing ineffectiveness of standard BMPs
and continued flow of turbid water, probably containing a lot of clay particles, for many months
following construction. The DEIR is inadequate in not addressing the clay content of the near-surface
soils of the site (which will be disturbed in construction) and its consequences for water quality impacts.
Figure 15. Aerial image showing that substantial amounts of disturbance, including placement of
impervious or reduced-infiltration cover, can reasonably be expected to occur all the way to the back
boundaries of many parcels (asterisks) that are similar to the sizes of those proposed to abut wetlands
within the Canyon Springs site. It is infeasible to ensure effective implementation of proposed
mitigation measures, therefore significant water quality and indirect wetlands impacts will result.
Figure 16. Typical soils in the project vicinity, with clay loam soils of very poor infiltration and
revegetation capability occurring within inches of the surface. It is technologically possible, but difficult
and very expensive, to prevent erosion even on very short road embankments such as these. In the
context of the Town’s limited monitoring capabilities and the project’s probable financial constraints, it
is not credible that such measures will be effectively implemented at Canyon Springs.
Figure 17. Typical clay subsoils encountered within 1-2 feet of the surface, near the Canyon Springs site.
These materials have very poor ability to percolate water from precipitation and snowmelt, and require
expensive and difficult measures to revegetate in a long-term self-sustaining manner that can ensure
that erosion and polluted runoff from small single-family parcels does not occur. This shows why
proposed within-parcel mitigation measures are unlikely to be effective, and a significant impact will
result.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page A-1
Figure 2. Burned area on pavement, extending to singed dry vegetation at the edge of pavement
(arrow). Fragments of broken glass were present, suggesting some combination of ammable liquids
and glass containers. Whatever happened here posed a signicant public safety risk, and was facilitated
by the construction of roads which since lie unoccupied and largely unobserved.
Figure 1. Cul-de-sac in unoccupied part of Elkhorn Ridge subdivision, showing doughnut skid marks and
swastika burned on pavement. I have not observed this behavior, or evidence of it, in occupied portions
of the neighborhood.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page B-2
Figure 4. Another area of probable tributary waters of the state that might not be evident in August
30-September 2. So far as I know, this is not on the wetland delineation map, but it is impossible to be
sure from the very poor image that is provided with the DEIR.
Figure 3. Example of prolonged surface water (a potential water of the State) that is obvious at the time
of snowmelt, when the water board directed that site studies occur, but might be overlooked on August
30, September 1, or September 2. This feature has signicant depth and ow velocity, might merit desig-
nation as a water of the State, and, so far as can be determined during the DEIR public comment period,
does not appear on the project’s wetland delineation map.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page A-3
10141024
1034104410541064
1074
10841094
1104
1114112411341144115411641174
118411941204
12141224
1234124412541264
12741284
12941304
13141324133413441354
13641374138413941404141414241434
144414541464147414831493150315131523
1533154315531563
1574
1583 1593 1603 1613 1623
1633
1643
1653 1663
167316831693 1703171317231733
17431753
176317731783 17931803 181318231833 1843 1853
19131923193319431953
1963197319831993200320132023203320432053
20632073
20832093210321132123213321432153216321732183219322032213
222322332243
22532263
22732283
2293
2304
2323
2333
2343
2353
2363
2373
23832393
240324132423
2433
2443
2453
2463
2553
25632573
2583
2593
2603
2613
2623
2633
2643
2653266326732683
26932703
2713
2723
2733
27432753
2763
2773
2783
2793
2803
2813
2823
2833
2843
2853
2863
2873
2883
2893
2903
2913
2923
2933
2943
2963 29732983 2993 3003 30133023
303330433053
3063307330833093 31033113 31233133 31433153
33533363
3373338333933403341334233433
3443
3453
346334733483
34933503
351335233533354335533563357335833593360336133623
364336533663367336833693370337133723
373337433753376337733783
3793
3803
3813 3823
3833
38433853
38633873388338933903391339233933
394339533963 39733983 399340034013402340334043
40534063 40734083
40934103
41134123413341434153 4163 41734183 41934203
4213422342334243425342634273
4283
429343034313 43234333 4343 43534363
4373 4383
43934403
4413
46034613462346334643465346634673468346934703
4713
4723
47334743475347634773478347934803481348234833
48434853
48634873488348934903
4913492349334943
49534963497349834993500350135023503350435053506350735083509351035113512351335143515351635173518351935203521352235233
524352535263
5273528352935303
53135323533353435353536353735383
5393540354125422
5463
5473 5483
54935503
55135523 55335543 5553 556355735583 5593 560356135623
5633
564356535663567356835693
5703 5713572357335743
5753
5763 5773 578357935803
5813
671267226732
6742
6752
676267726782679268026812682268326842
6852686268726882689269026912692269326942695269626972698269927002
7012
702270327042
722272327242725272627272 7282729273017311732173317341 7351
7361 73717381 739174017411 74217431 744174517461747174817491
7501
75117521753175417551 75617571758175917601761176217631764176517661767176817691770177117721773177417751776177717781779178017811782178317841 7851 7861787
78817891
014015016 017 018019020021022023 024025026027028029030031032033034035036 037038039 040041 042 043 044 045 046047048049050051052053054055056057 058059 060061062
063
064065 066067068 069070071072073074075076077
153154155156157158
159160161162
163164165166167168169170171172173
0564
0574
0584 0594 0604
06140624
0634
064406540664
06740684
06940704071407240734
0744
075407640774078407940804
0814
0824
0834
0844 0854
0864
0874
0884
0894 0904 0914
Legend
Canyon Springs boundary
Development areas
Deer sign
Tracks of migrating deer Nov 2008
0814
No observations were made in southernmost part of site.
Figure 5. Deer sign observed within Canyon Springs site (589 points, almost all being pellet groups), plus tracks
made in snow by several groups of deer migrating within site on Nov. 4, 2008. This confirms that the migration
corridor documented by DFG for the 1988 management plan remains in use, although these preliminary obser-
vations and other deer sign data from outside the site suggest that the migration corridor veers north-north-
west instead of continuing northeast as mapped by DFG.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page B-4
Figure 7. Amorphous deer scat within site. This form of scat is produced when the deer is eating fresh,
softer plant material. This photograph is best interpreted as evidence of a deer migrating through the
site in the springtime.
Figure 6. Deer pellet group with GPS unit showing UTM coordinates that are located within the project
site.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page B-5
Figure 9. Tracks of several deer migrating through the site in November 2008.
Figure 8. Track of a deer migrating through the Canyon Springs site in November 2008.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page B-6
Figure 11. Precipitation event that was probably much less than a 20 year event, showing that, even with
undisturbed vegetation, the inltration capacity of the native soils is so poor that signicant surface run-
o results even from modest precipitation events, resulting in substantial erosion and water pollution if
it encounters any disturbed areas.
Figure 10. Intense hail and rain storm on August 16, 2012, a few hundred feet from Canyon Springs.
Huge ows of sediment-carrying water, and debris ows, covered most of the road surfaces, completely
overwhelmed the roadside drainages, and caused signicant erosion both directly because of the vol-
ume of runo and indirectly due to blockage of drainages by debris ows.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page B-7
Figure 13. Single family home construction in Glenshire-Devonshire in April 2011 (still fully in the rainy
season), showing that no sediment controls whatsoever are in place at the road sides of the parcel,
where polluted runo exits the parcel on its way to waters of the State and the Glenshire Pond. Given
that the Town cannot ensure that basic BMPs are implemented, it is essentially certain that the more
challenging and expensive methodologies implied by the DEIR will not be eectively implemented.
Figure 12. Typically ineective implementation and monitoring (by both contractors and Town) of basic
sediment control BMPs. This was a construction project that should have submitted and and fully imple-
mented a stormwater pollution prevention plan, including monitoring and maintenance, but did not.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page B-8
Figure 15. Aerial image showing that substantial amounts of disturbance, including placement of
impervious or reduced-inltration cover, can reasonably be expected to occur all the way to the back
boundaries of many parcels that are similar to the sizes of those proposed to abut wetlands within the
Canyon Springs site. It is infeasible to ensure eective implementation of proposed mitigation mea-
sures, therefore signicant water quality and indirect wetlands impacts will result.
Figure 14. Road construction near the Canyon Springs site, showing ineectiveness of standard BMPs,
and continued ow of turbid water, probably containing a lot of clay particles, for many months follow-
ing construction. The DEIR is inadequate in not addressing the clay content of the near-surface soils of
the site (which will be disturbed in construction) and its consequences for water quality impacts.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
March 4, 2013
page B-9
Figure 17. Typical clay subsoils encountered within 1-2 feet of the surface, near the Canyon Springs site.
These materials have very poor ability to percolate water from precipitation and snowmelt, and require
expensive and dicult measures to revegetate in a long-term self-sustaining manner that can ensure
that erosion and polluted runo from small single-family parcels does not occur.
Figure 16. Typical soils in the project vicinity, with clay loam soils of very poor inltration and revegeta-
tion capability occurring within inches of the surface. It is technologically possible, but dicult and very
expensive, to prevent erosion even on very short road embankments such as these. In the context of the
Town’s limited monitoring capabilites and the project’s probable nancial constraints, it is not credible
that such measures will be eectively implemented at Canyon Springs.