Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
Canyon Springs DEIR Public Comment #53 (MAP-SOSG)
SHUTE, MIHALY U---vElNBERcERu-p 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T:415 552-7272 F:415 552-5816 www.smwlaw.com ELLISON FOLK Attorney fqlk@smwlaw.com March 5,2013 Vìø Federal and E-MaÍl Ms. Denyelle Nishimori Town of Truckee 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee, CA 96161 Re: Canyon Springs Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Nishimori: This firm represents Mountain Area Preservation Foundation ("MAPF") and Saving Open Space around Glenshire ("SOSG") with regard to the Canyon Springs Project ("Project"). This letter provides MAPF's and SOSG's comments on the Project and the associated draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR"). We submit this letter to inform the Town that the Project violates the minimum standards of adequacy under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code $ 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, $ 15000 et seq. The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") is "the heart of CEQA." Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'nv. Regents of Uníversity of California (1988) 47 Cat.3d376, 392 (citations omitted) ("Laurel Heights I"). It "is an environmental 'alarm bell' whose pulpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return. The EIR is also intended 'to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.' Because the EIR must be certified or rejected by public officials, it is a document of accountability." Id. (citations omitted). Likewise, NEPA requires that federal agencies "consider every signihcant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action . . . [and] inform the public that fthey have] indeed considered environmental concerns in ftheir] decision-making processfes]." Earth Island Institute v. (1.5. Forest Service (9th Cir. 2003) 351 F.3d 1291,1300 ((citations omitted). Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page2 'Where, as here, the environmental review document fails to fully and accurately inform decision-makers, and the public, of the environmental consequences of proposed aptions, it does not satisff the basic goals of either statute. ,See Pub. Res. Code $ 21061("The purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project."). As discussed in detail below and in the attached technical reports, the DEIR is replete with serious flaws. See MRO Engineers ("MRO") and Baseline Environmental Consulting ("Baseline") Reports, attached as Exhibits A and B. It lacks a legally defensible description of the Project and contains so little information about the Project's potential environmental impacts that, in many instances, it is difficult to evaluate the accuracy of the environmental analysis. Nor does the DEIR provide the necessary evidence or analysis to support its conclusions that environmental impacts would be less than significant. Many of the so-called mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR are nothing more than general assertions that something will be done in the future about the Project's significant environmental impacts. Consequently, the Town will need to prepare and recirculate a revised EIR if it chooses to proceed with the proposed Project. I. The DEIR Fails to Provide an Adequate I)escription of the Project. Under CEQA, the inclusion in the EIR of a clear and comprehensive description of the proposed project is critical to meaningful public review. County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 7l Cal.App.3d 185, 193. The court in Inyo explained why a thorough project description is necessary: "A curtailed or distorted project description may stultiff the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's beneht against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the "no project" alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance." Id. at 192-93. Thus, "[a]n accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." Santiago County Water District v. County of Orange (1981) I l8 Cal.App.3d 818, 830. SHUTE, MIHALY (1--VEINBERCERTT-p Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page 3 The DEIR presents inconsistent information regarding Project features and fails to describe aspects of the Project critical to its analysis. For example, the DEIR acknowledges signif,rcant impacts to on-site and off-site watercourses resulting from increased runoff and associated pollutants and sedimentation. DEIR at 4.9-19 and 4.9-20. Therefore, the DEIR must fully describe all project elements relevant to these potential impacts, including any features intended to reduce runoff, prevent erosion, or protect water quality. The DEIR fails to provide this crucial information. See Baseline report at I and2. First, the DEIR text and analysis describe drainage features that are inconsistent with the drainage plan for the project site. DEIR at3-31 and Baseline letter at 1 and 2. The DEIR states that the Project would comply with regulations applicable to the Project under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") that require Low Impact Development ("LID") principles be incorporated into the sitewide drainage design, but then refers the reader to a drainage plan that indicates only implementation of non-LID features. Id.In fact, the site drainage plan was prepared in 2003, prior to the inclusion of LID requirements in NPDES permits, and thus does not include any LID features. It appears that the DEIR preparers added a generic list of LID features to the Project Description as an afterthought. Second, the DEIR clearly indicates that a technical review (prepared by Geocon in2007) of the Project's drainage plan resulted in recommended revisions to demonstrate feasibility of implementing the drainage plan. DEIR at 4.9-16 and Baseline Report at 3. Yet, neither the technical review document nor any of the recommended revisions were included in the DEIR. 1d. Similarly, the DEIR indicates that"arevised site/drainage plan was prepared in April20lI" yet this revised plan was also omitted from the DEIR. This hobbled-together approach results in an inconsistent and unstable description of the Project's drainage facilities. Without a clear, consistent, and detailed description of the Project's drainage plan, it is impossible to evaluate the proposed Project and associated impacts. Baseline report at I and2. Third, the DEIR states that the Project would include "construction of vegetated, êarthen swales on both sides of the site's crowned, paved roads to convey flows to decentralizedtreatment and infiltration facilities." As explained in the Baseline Report, collection and conveyance of stormwater to centralized treatment facilities is exactly the opposite of LID principles. The DEIR is internally contradictory and the 2003 drainage plan that was included in the DEIR appendix has not been designed to be fully compliant with an LID approach, as required under the current NPDES permits. The project drainage plan (and to the extent the LID drainage requirements affect the site plan and layout) must be redesigned to correct these flaws. Baseline Report at 3. SHUTE, MIHALY ú-vElNBERCERrr.p Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2073 Page 4 Fourth, the DEIR presents misleading information regarding Project setbacks from floodplain areas. The DEIR asserts that all proposed building envelopes are outside the required 5O-foot setback from designated 1O0-year floodplains. DEIR at 3 -3 I and 4 .9-16 . However, the DEIR fails to include a map indicating either the I 00-year floodplain or the 5O-foot setback. See DEIR Figure 3-6 and Baseline Report at 2. Without this information, decision makers and the public cannot evaluate the site plan's consistency with the identified setback. In addition, the DEIR clearly shows that dozens of proposed parcels encroach on the prescribed setback. DEIR at Figure 3-6. It is misleading to claim that a 50-foot floodplain setback zone will be maintained when Project parcels will encroach on that setback. Once the Project is built, homeowners may engage in activities and practices that result in impacts within the setback zone (e.9., installation of structures that don't require permits.). Furthermore, as acknowledged in the DEIR, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's ("CDFV/")I jurisdiction extends not only to the watercourse but to the adjacent riparian area. DEIR at 4.4-4. Therefore, if the project will encroach on CDFW jurisdictional areas, the DEIR must disclose this impact so that the agency and decision makers can make an informed decision regarding the project. Fifth, the DEIR states that the Project will utilize "gravity flow" to convey wastewater from the site. DEIR at 4.15-22. However, as pointed out by the Truckee Sanitary District ("TSD"), the DEIR fails to indicate the location of the wastewater lines on-site. See TSD comment letter attached as Exhibit C and DEIR Figure 3-11 A and B. It is our understanding that "gravity flow" lines often follow existing low points in topography, which would coincide with the location of surface water drainages and wetlands. In addition, sanitary sewer manholes located in or near the flood plain are potential sources of surface water contamination during a flood event. The impacts of sewage spills near surface water drainages and wetlands due to blockages and backups must be addressed in the DEIR. The DEIR must speciff the location of the wastewater lines as well as the sewer manhole design so that related environmental impacts can be evaluated. Sixth, the DEIR minimizes the extent of the Project by failing to describe and analyze full build-out conditions. The Project will include 213 residential lots. DEIR at3-I. The DEIR acknowledges that secondary units are allowed as a matter of right. DEIR at3-17. The Project thus has the potential for development of 426 units. Yet, the DEIR ignores impacts related to the secondary units and only analyzes impacts from the I Formerly the California Department of Fish and Game or CDFW. SHUTE, tVIIHALY Ü--VtlNBERGERrrp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page 5 213 primary units. CEQA requires a thorough analysis of reasonably anticipated impacts of the entire project; it does not permit an EIR to analyze only the general impacts of a conceptual plan when an agency is considering approval of a specific project. Stanislaus Notural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 782; see olso Pub. Res. Code S 21100(b)(1), when a precise site has been delineated and specific facilities are in the works, the lead agency has a statutory mandate to produce a "detailed statement setting forth ... [a]ll significant effects on the environment of the proposed project." By ignoring the impacts from second units, the DEIR fails to analyze the whole project. As a result, several of the impact analyses base their consideration of environmental impacts on this artificially deflated number. These extra units will ampliff the traffic, water and wastewater, air quality and biological resources impacts of the Project. Finally, the DEIR also fails to include information on the following additional Project components : Location of the Project staging areas (see DEIR at3-35 stating only that staging areas would occur on-site); Location of spoils sites and haul routes; o Descriptionofconstruction-relatedactivities(includingtimeline, location, number of construction employees, types of equipment, etc.). Each of these activities would likely result in environmental impacts and therefore must be identified and described in a revised EIR. A. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Describe the Project Setting. An EIR also "must include a description of the environment in the vicinity of the project, as it exists before the commencement of the project, from both a local and a regional perspective." CEQA Guidelines $ 15125; see also Environmental Planning and Inþ. Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 354. An EIR's description of a project's environmental setting plays a critical role in all of the subsequent parts of the EIR because it provides "the baseline physical conditions by which aLeadAgency determines whether an impact is signif,rcant." CEQA Guidelines $ 15125(a). Longstanding case law upholds this fundamental principle by recognizingthat "[a]n EIR must focus on impacts to the existing environment,not hypothetical situations." Cnty. of Amador v. El Dorado Cnty. Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th931, 955 o o SHUTE/ MIHALY (i^--VzEINBERCERLT.p Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page 6 (emphasis added). Here, the DEIR's discussion of the project environmental setting is sorely deficient. For example, the DEIR fails to accurately describe existing traffic conditions in the Project area. The DEIR fails to use the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual, as required by the Truckee General Plan. ,See MRO Report at2 and DEIR Appendix I, LSC report at32.Instead, the DEIR relies on outdated data to perform level of service calculations. Similarly, the DEIR presents existing peak hour and daily traffic volume datathat were estimated rather than based on recent data collection. MRO Report at 3 and 4. This unconventional approach raises serious concerns as to the validity of these fabricated "existing" traffic conditions.ld. Thus, the setting described in the DEIR may or may not represent current existing conditions. The DEIR's approach to describing the site's existing hydrological characteristics is at best incomplete and inconsistent, and at worst inaccurate. For example, according to the Baseline Report, much of the DEIR's discussion of the site's hydrology and drainage existing conditions is based on work performed a decade ago (e.9., a site reconnaissance conducted in2004 and a Hydrology and Hydraulics Report prepared in 2003.) Baseline Report at2.It is unclear whether site conditions observed a decade ago are representative of existing conditions. In addition, as described above, the DEIR relies on an outdated drainage plan that conflicts with Project features described in the DEIR. Id. At a minimum, the DEIR must be revised to document current site conditions and to include an updated drainage plan. Perhaps most importantly, the DEIR fails to adequately describe the Project's biological setting. The DEIR states that*it is well documented that the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd ("deer herd") utilize the project site and surrounding area for foraging, movement, migration, and critical fawning habitat for this deer herd." DEIR at 4.4-27 and 4.4-46. Given the fact that the Project site is known to be used as a migration corridor by a deer herd of regional and local importance, a description of the biological setting is critical. CEQA requires that special emphasis be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and that would be affected by the Project. CEQA Guidelines $ 15125(c). Here, the DEIR's description of the biological setting is inadequate in part because it relies on outdated vegetation maps and other data. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") has adopted policies regarding methods acceptable for SHUTE, MIHALY (i-VEINBERCERTLp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 PageT describing habitats alliances and associations.2 However, the DEIR fails to comply with this guidance. For example, the DEIR acknowledges that it relies on the 1995 Manual of California Vegetation rather than most recent and expanded 2009 edition. DEIR footnote at 4.4-20. Similarly, many references in the DEIR, (e.9., Holland & Sawyer) have been completely updated and the data is readily available on the CDFW website. Instead of using the most current data to accurately describe the existing baseline conditions at the Project site, the DEIR ignores current data available and employs outdated information. In sum, the DEIR fails to describe the project and environmental setting with sufhcient accuracy and specificity to enable either substantive public comment or an informed decision on the Project. According to settled case precedent, this failure to describe the Project setting violates CEQA. See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 27 Cal.App.4th at724-25 (environmental document violates CEQA where it fails to completely describe wetlands on site and nearby wildlife preserve). B.The DEIR Fails to Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Significant Environmental Impacts. CEQA requires that an EIR be detailed, complete, and reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure. CEQA Guidelines $ l5 151. The document should provide a sufhcient degree of analysis to inform the public about the proposed project's adverse environmental impacts and to allow decision-makers to make intelligent judgments.ld. Consistent with this requirement, the information regarding the project's impacts must be "painstakingly ferreted out." Environmental Planning and Inþ. Councíl of Western El Dorado Countyv. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350 at357 (hnding an EIR for a general plan amendment inadequate where the document did not make clear the effect on the physical environment). Meaningful analysis of impacts effectuates one of CEQA's fundamental purposes: to "inform the public and responsible off,rcials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made." Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the University of Calíþrnia (1993) 6 Cal4th 7112, ll23 ("Laurel Heights 11'). To accomplish this pu{pose, an EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just an agency's bare conclusions. Cítìzens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 2 and http ://www.dfe.ca.eov/bioeeod ata/v escamp/pdfsÆinal SB 85 Report.pdf . SHUTE, MIHALY (r*\(/EINBERCERTTp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page 8 52 Cal.3d 553, 568. Nor may an agency defer its assessment of important environmental impacts until after the project is approved. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d at 306-07. AIEIR's conclusions must be supported by substantial evidence. Laurel Heights 1,47 Cal.3d376 at 409. As documented below, the project DEIR fails to identiff, analyze, or support with substantial evidence its conclusions regarding the Project's significant environmental impacts. These deficiencies clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of the DEIR under CEQA. C The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Transportation Impacts. 1.The DEIR Omits Evaluation of the Project's Impacts to I-80 and its Ramps. Despite the fact that I-80 is projected to carry a substantial portion of the traffic generated by the proposed Project, the DEIR fails to analyze the Project's potential impacts on the freeway, its on- or off-ramps, or the merge/diverge points where the ramps meet the freeway mainline. The DEIR acknowledges that afotal of 9l PM peak-hour Project-generated trips were assigned to/from the west on I-80 at the Hirschdale Road ramps. DEIR at 4.14-32. Those 9l trips represent 35 percent of the total Project trip generation in the PM peak hour. In that same PM peak-hour period, 64 Project-related trips (25 percent of the project-generated total) were assigned tolfrom the east on I-80 at the Hirschdale Road ramps. Id.The DEIR also acknowledges atotal of 101 Project- related trips (39 percent of the total) were assigned to/from west on I-80 in the PM peak hour, and 47 proj ect trips ( I 8 percent of the total) were assigned tolfrom the east in 203I . Id. at 4.14.33 Inasmuch as the DEIR clearly acknowledges that Project- related traffic will travel on I-80, we can find no logical explanation as to why the document does not evaluate these trips. An EIR must analyze environmental impacts over the entire area where one might reasonably expect these impacts to occur. See Kings County Farm Bureauv. City of Hanþrd, (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d at 721-23. This principle stems directly from the requirement that an EIR analyze all signif,rcant or potentially signif,rcant environmental impacts. Pub. Res. Code $$ 21061, 21068. The revised DEIR must identiff each freeway segment and ramp that could be significantly impacted by the Project's influx of traffic, analyze the impacts, and identify feasible mitigation. SHUTE, MIHAL\ ü>-vEINBERCERTT' Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page 9 The DEIR Inappropriately Omits Examination of Certain Intersections in the AM Peak Hour. Although the Project has the potential to impact at least eight intersections in the study arca,the DEIR evaluates AM conditions at just four of these intersections. AM peak hour impacts were only analyzed af Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road, as well as three intersections (Glenshire Drive at Dorchester (West), Somerset, and Whitehorse/Martis Peak). MRO report at2. As the MRO Report explains, the volume of traffic generated by the proposed Project in the AM peak hour is substantial. Because the AM and PM peak hours have different traffic flow patterns, the failure to analyze how each of these omitted intersections would operate in the AM peak hour is a serious omission. 3. The DEIR Relies on Outdated Methodology For Determining the Project's Impacts. As discussed above, the Truckee General Plan Policy CIR-P3.1 requires that, ". . . level of service shall be computed according to the planning methodology documented in Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board in 2000, or as amended in subsequent updates." DEIR at 4.14-6. The reference to "subsequent updates" is important;the 2010 version of the Highway Capacity Monual (HCM 2010) was released on April 17,2011. As the MRO Report explains, inasmuch as the HCM 2010 methodology was used to evaluate the Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive intersection, it certainly should have been used for purposes of evaluating the proposed Project's impacts. Had the DEIR relied on an up-to- date methodology, the document may have identif,red additional significant effects, thus triggering the need for more extensive mitigation and additional alternatives to reduce the Project's transportation impacts. In addition, because the DEIR did not use the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual, as specifically required by the Truckee General Plan, the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan. The level of service calculations must be revised using the current methodology, and the results must be provided for public review in a revised DEIR. 4. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze the Project's Potential Public Safety Risks. The DEIR fails to analyze the Project's potential to increase public safety risks on area roadways. The document identifies historical accident data for three intersections and four roadway segments in the study area (at 4.14-26), yet it provides no assessment of whether the derived accident rates result in an existing safety problem. The 2 SHUTE/ MIHALY ü¡--VEINBERCERTTp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page 10 DEIR's technical appendix includes an analysis comparing the historical accident data to California and Nevada County average accident rates for similar roads. LSC Report at7 - l2.In six of the seven cases, the historical accident rates (for Project arca roadways) are substantially higher than those averages. As the MRO Report explains, "[i]t is a substantial concern that the DEIR failed to include this important information, which directly indicates that a considerable safety problem exists in the study areatoday." Initially, CEQA requires that the analysis be presented in the EIR. See Santa Clarita Organizationþr Planning the Environment v. County of L.A.(2003) 106 Cal.App.4th715,722 (agency's analysis must be contained in the EIR, not "scattered here and there in EIR appendices"). Decision-makers and the general public should not be forced to sift through obscure minutiae or appendices in order to ferret out the fundamental assumptions that are being used for purposes of the environmental analysis." San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center,149 Cal.App. 4th at 6591' see also Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. th 412, 442 ("The datain an EIR must not only be sufficient in quantity, it must be presented in a manner calculated to adequately inform the public and decision makers, who may not be previously familiar with the details of the project.") Moreover, given the existence of this existing public safety risk, the DEIR should have thoroughly examined the Project's potential to increase this risk. Will the additional traffic generated by the Project exacerbate this existing deficiency? Specifically, will the residents of the area be subject to a greater likelihood of being involved in a potentially injury-causing collision as a result of implementation of the proposed project? The DEIR must be revised to include a detailed analysis of project- related safety impacts and to identiff needed mitigation measures. In addition, the Project proposes one primary vehicle access point on Martis Peak Road and one gated access for emergency use only that would connect the Project site to Edinburgh Road. DEIR at3-20. The DEIR fails to consider the potential for this gated access to be opened for use beyond emergency access. Community menibers who attended informational meetings on the Project have been informed that the Town can decide to remove the gate and allow access via Edinburgh in the future. The residents at the southern end of the Project will likely prefer more convenient access through Edinburgh compared to driving to the northern end of the site, creating pressure to open Edinburgh for regular access. However, Edinburgh Road is a winding, narrow, steep road that feeds into other roads that are similarly oriented. Substantially increasing traffic on these roads by allowing daily access tolfrom the Project site would result in additional public safety concerns. Moreover, if the access was changed to allow daily through traffic, the amount of traffic from a Category 3 development (i.e., greater than I I units) SHUTE, MIHALY Ù-*\(/EINBERCERTp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page ll such as is being proposed at Canyon Springs, would result in an increase in traff,rc on Edinburgh beyond the capacity of that roadway. Truckee General Plan Circulation Element at 4-36. Therefore, future access through Edinburgh would result in additional impacts not considered in the DEIR. The DEIR Understates the Project's Traffic Impacts Because it Assumes the Implementation of Unfunded Transportation Infrastructure. The DEIR's analysis of cumulative traff,rc conditions assumes the Donner Pass Road Extension Project will be complete by the year 2031. We can find no evidence in the DEIR or elsewhere, however,that this roadway project will actually be implemented by 2031. Consequently, if the roadway is not expanded, traffic impacts would be far more severe than the DEIR discloses. As the MRO Report explains, this critical roadway project is beyond the control of the Canyon Springs Project. In fact, it is beyond the control of the Town of Truckee, as the Donner Pass Road Extension project is directly tied to the private sector Railyard Master Plan project. The Town has committed only a small portion of the total cost of the extension project. If, therefore, the Railyard Master Plan project does not proceed, the Donner Pass Road Extension will not be completed. Because the Canyon Springs DEIR assumes the completion of this transportation project, it presents an inaccurate, overly-optimistic view of traffic operations in the year 2031. Such an assumption results in a substantial-and unlawful- underestimation of the Project's impacts. County of San Díego v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Cmty. College Dist. (2006) l4l Cal.App.4tn 86, 93 (overturning an EIR that relied on future , uncertain traff,rc mitigation contemplated in a General Plan); Laurel Heíghts 147 Cal.3d 376,404405 (Requiring that an EIR contain "facts and analysis, not just an agency's bare conclusions or opinions."). Moreover, as acknowledged in the DEIR, the "construction of Donner Pass Road Extension is not currently identif,red in the CIP, fully funded, and scheduled for completion within three years. Therefore, the proposed development does not meet the criteria in the General Plan Circulation Element for an "allowable development" making the Project inconsistent with the General Plan. DEIR at 2-28. 5. SHUTE, MIHALY C9=VEINBERCERLT-r, Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,20'13 Page 12 6. The DEIR Lacks the Evidentiary Support to Conclude that the Proposed Mitigation Measures Would Reduce Impacts to a Less Than Significant Level. An EIR is inadequate if it fails to suggest feasible mitigation measures, or if its suggested mitigation measures are so undefined that it is impossible to evaluate their effectiveness. ,San Franciscans for Reasonable Growthv. Cíty and County of San Francisco (1934) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 79. Of course, the Town may not use the inadequacy of its impacts review to avoid mitigation: "The agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to collect data;' Sundstrom 202 Cal.App.3d296,36. Nor may the Town use vague mitigation measures to avoid disclosing impacts. Staníslaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182, 195. Put another way, an EIR must set forth specific mitigation measures or set forth perforrnance standards that such measures would achieve by various, specified approaches. See CEQA Guidelines S 15126.4; see also Sacramento Old Cíty Assn. v. Cíty Council of Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011,1034. Here, certain of the mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR have not been formulated. For example, Mitigation Measure TRANS-4 calls for the preparation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan prior to the construction of Phase 1 of the Project. DEIR at 4.14-71. Yet, the DEIR provides no information about the contents of such a Plan. Nor does the document disclose how the Plan would be expected to reduce the Project's construction-related trafhc impacts to a less than signiltcant level. Even worse, Mitigation Measure TRANS-5 calls for the Project applicant to fund atrafftc safety study and to implement the recommended safety improvements as a result of the safety study. Id. at 4.14-72. Defening the preparation of this critical traffic safety study until after Project approval is impermissible under CEQA. In Sundstrom, Mendocino County attempted to satisff CEQA by approving a project subject to conditions requiring the applicant to prepare two hydrology studies for planning staff review and to adopt mitigation measures recommended in those studies. The court rejected this approach because by requiring that the applicant prepare the hydrology studies, the County improperly delegated its legal responsibility to assess a project's environmental impact. Id. at 307. The court emphasized that CEQA requires the lead agency itself prepare or contract for the preparation of impact assessments (citing CEQA $ 2l0S2.l), that such assessments reflect an agency's "independent judgment," and frnally, that the Board of Supervisors, not County planning staff, be responsible for reviewing and certiffing the assessment.ld. SHUTE, MIHALY (c=vElNBERCERrrp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2073 Page 13 Because the DEIR does not describe the construction plan or the safety study, and does not set forth measurable performance standards for the plan and study, the document lacks the evidentiary support that the Project's transportation impacts would be mitigated to less than signif,tcant levels. D.The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Impacts on Hydrology and Water Quatity. 1.The DEIR Fails to Demonstrate That the Proposed Drainage Approach for the Site is Feasible. As discussed above, the DEIR states that the Project will implement an LID drainage approach. However, the DEIR fails to demonstrate that such an approach is feasible at the site. For example, the DEIR fails to analyze the infiltration capacity of on- site soils. Baseline Report at 3. Given that an LID approach focuses on retaining runoff on-site and infiltrating it, this omission is particularly problematic. Rather than evaluate potential impacts associated with the Project's drainage requirements, the DEIR defers analysis to a later date. Tellingly, the DEIR itself acknowledges that the feasibility of implementing the proposed drainage design has not been analyzed. DEIR at 4.9-16.The DEIR states that: "Prior to initiation of construction, the project proponent would need to demonstrate that the post development design storm hydrograph leaving the project is not changed from pre-project conditions such that downstream drainage structures (culverts, bridges, etc.) remain adequate post-development. To this end, 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." Id. Given the lack of analysis of the site's infiltration capacity, the DEIR fails to provide evidence that the drainage plan as proposed can be implemented. This deferral of analysis of the Project's impacts until after Project approval renders the DEIR useless as an informational document and undercuts CEQA's core pu{pose of alerting decision-makers and the public to environmental impacts when mitigation measures can still be imposed and alternatives considered. See Sundstrom,202 CaI.App.3d at 306-07 and CEQA Guidelines $ I 5 126.a(aXlXB). SHUTE/ MIHALY ú^-.-\(/EINBERCERu.p Ms. Denyelle NishÍmori March 5,2013 Page 14 2.The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyzethe Project's Impacts on Surface \Mater and Groundwater Quality. The DEIR acknowledges that the Project has the potential to impact water quality during both construction and operation phases. DEIR at 4.9-19 and 4.9-20. The document discloses that the Project is located within the Truckee River Hydrologic Unit and that the main tributaries on the Project site are tributaries to the Truckee River. DEIR at 4.9-14. However, the DEIR fails to disclose that the main tributaries on site discharge first to Glenshire Lake, a water body located to the west of the Project site. Baseline Report at 4;Map indicating hydrological connectivity to Glenshire Lake attached as Exhibit D. Insofar as Glenshire Lake is the receiving water body for the Project site's discharges, it is a part of the site's hydrologic system and must be included in the Project's setting and impact analysis. Glenshire Lake is a shallow water body that experiences increases in water temperatures during the warm season. Consequently, the Lake is particularly vulnerable to excess sediments and nutrients carried in runoff from the Canyon Springs site, which would have the potential to degrade water quality and to cause eutrophication of the Lake. These impacts would in turn result in adverse impacts to wildlife and habitat at the Lake. Under these circumstances, where the existing environment is especially sensitive, an acctrate description of current environmental conditions and analysis of the Proj ect' s impacts is essential. Here, the DEIR fails to adequately describe existing conditions at Glenshire Lake, so that the reader of the DEIR lacks even the most basic understanding of this hydrologic system. V/ithout this rudimentary information on the Lake's existing hydrological conditions, the DEIR is crippled in its ability to analyze the Project's potential impacts related to the Lake's sensitivity to new pollutant loads resulting from the Project. The DEIR also fails to address potential impacts to stormwater and snowmelt runoff water quality related to application of road salt. As the Baseline Report explains, when snow and ice melts, the applied salt goes with it, potentially entering surface receiving waters and/or underlying groundwater. Water quality degradation and related stress and mortality to flora and fauna is an established result of road salt application. Baseline Report at 4.The DEIR makes no mention of this potential impact, which is particularly surprising since the Project proposes to collect and convey road drainage to centralized detentions basins where the water would be infiltrated. This practice, of concentrating runoff into a few locations would increase the pollutant loading at those locations and increase the risk to groundwater quality degradation. SHUTE, MIHALY tc--VEINBLRCERT.Tp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page 15 The DEIR acknowledges a well located on the site but provides no information about the well relative to proposed grading and construction of the site. DEIR at 4.9-15 and Baseline Report at 4. According to the Baseline Report, it is not uncommon for wells to go unnoticed during construction, resulting in the wellhead being sheared off or damaged. Baseline Report at 4. Such damage would introduce a preferential flow path for contaminants on the surface to enter groundwater, resulting in degradation of groundwater quality. Id. The DEIR must include information on the current condition of the well casing and sanitary seal as well as the proposed use of this well. A revised DEIR must identify, analyze, and mitigate these significant impacts. The DEIR Fails to Identify Feasible Mitigation Measures For the Project's Water Quality Impacts. Consistent with the DEIR's flawed approach to analyzing the Project's water quality impacts, the DEIR also fails to identiff feasible mitigation for these impacts. Specihcally, the DEIR fails to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation measures provided to address project construction and operation period water quality impacts would be effective. For example, mitigation measures HYDRO-I and HYDRO-2 provide no specif,rc performance standards by which to measure the effectiveness of the best management practices that the applicant might select. This is unacceptable under CEQA because it defers critical decision-making that could affect the effectiveness of the water quality measures, with no performance standard to ensure or gauge success. The DEIR acknowledges the uncertainty of the feasibility of adequately treating runoff by infiltration (which is touted as the primary treatment approach throughout the DEIR's analysis) at this site by stating "other control measures may be considered if site constraints are such that construction of infiltration features is not feasible." DEIR page 4.9-31. Because the DEIR fails to actually describe the specihc control measures, or explain how they might be implemented, there is no evidence that implementation of the measures would be practicable. The feasibility analysis should be conducted now so that decision makers and the public have a clear, concise, and feasible drainage and stormwater treatment plan to review and comment upon. In sum, the DEIR lacks sufflrcient evidentiary support for its conclusion that the Project's impacts on water quality would be less than significant. A revised DEIR that comprehensively evaluates and mitigates the proposed Project's hydrology and water quality impacts must be prepared and recirculated. 3 SHUTE, MIHALY Ü¡-VEINBERCERTTp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori Marclr 5,2013 Page 16 The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Impacts to Biological Resources. According to CDFW, the Project site is part of a migration corridor for the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee deer herd. Personal Communication, Sara Holm, Wildlife Biologist with CDFW and Carmen Borg, February 25,2013. The deer herd is known to show high site f,rdelity, that is they show a high preference for use of the same route, when migrating from their winter grounds to summer grounds. 1d. No matter how many individual deer utilize a route, those deer will use the same route year after year. Id. Displacement of deer from a preferred route to an alternate route will concentrate the deer to increasingly smaller areas that arc likely already used by different deer. Because any given area or route has limited resources for the deer (e.g., covere browse, etc...), a particular route can only support a limited number of individuals. Therefore, as habitat is reduced, the deer herd must expend more energy to find protective cover, food andlor alternative routes. Id. When the deer arrive in the Project area, they have already undergone stressors of surviving the winter season and many does are pregnant when they arrive. The additional stress and energy required to f,rnd an alternative route further. taxes the deer and may affect the herd's ability to survive over time. Id. Habitat changes resulting from residential developmeht and recreational use are currently the biggest concern for the future of the deer herd. ,See Exhibit E, Interstate Deer Project, Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Report and Management Plan Update 2010 at 30. A significant issue impacting this herd today involves changes in land use on private land. Id. The Verdi sub-unit of the herd appears to be in trouble, and the future of these migratory deer is not as hopeful. Id.Moreover, the DEIR acknowledges that both the Town of Truckee and CDFW consider the deer herd's migratory corridor to be sensitive habitat. DEIR Appendix 8 ,2009 RMT Study at 3-3. Thus, blockage or disruption to this migration corridor would constitute a significant impact under CEQA. Id. and CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G at IV. d. Given the importance of the biological resources present on the Project site, the DEIR's incomplete discussion of impacts to biological resources is troubling. As detailed below, the DEIR underestimates Project-related impacts to biological impacts as a result of a series of errors, including the failure to analyze impacts to sensitive habitat and the reliance on inadequate measures to mitigate impacts. The DEIR's treatment of biological impacts does not meet CEQA's well established legal standard for impacts analysis. Given that analysis and mitigation of such impacts are at the heart of CEQA, the DEIR will not comply with the Act until these serious deficiencies are remedied. 4. SHUTE, MIHALY(¡-VtlNBERCERrrp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page 17 5. The DEIR Analysis of Impacts to the Deer Migration Corridor Is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence. The DEIR states that "fA]ccording to CDFW, impacts resulting from residential development and recreational use are currently the biggest concern for the future of this deer herd." DEIR at 4.4-47. Despite the fact that the Project proposes these same uses at the Canyon Springs site, the DEIR analysis concludes that impacts to the deer herd would be less than significant without providing evidence to support this conclusion. DEIR at 4.4-49. First, the DEIR fails to consider deer herd management plans prepared by CDFW that apply to the Project site. ,See The Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Management Plan, Mray 1982, attached as Exhibit F, and Interstate Deer Project, Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Report and Management Plan Update 20L0, attached as Exhibit E. Instead, it relies on scant, incomplete and inaccurate background data collected for the Project. The DEIR relies on data collected via four remote sensing cameras located at the four corners of the Project site that document photographs of deer using the site. However, the DEIR fails to map the locations of the camera sites and fails to explain the reasoning behind the location of the camera sites. The DEIR acknowledges that it is "highly likely that other deer were on the site and were not observed" but asserts that the results of the camera survey work area aÍe a representative sample of deer movement on the whole site. DEIR at3-4. Given that only four cameras were used to gather data on the 2I3-aqe site, we question this assertion. DEIR at 3-5. Moreover, the data presented in the DEIR indicating 151 deer observations over two 65 day periods clearly indicates deer use of the site for migratory pu{poses and thus constitutes a signif,rcant impact. Personal Communication, Sara Holm and Carmen Borg, February 25,2013. CDFW is currently conducting a study of deer in the Verdi subunit that indicates the Canyon Springs site is indeed used as a migratory corridor; Personal Communication, Sara Holm and Carmen Borg, February 25,2073. The study has been ongoing during three fall seasons and two spring seasons and has employed between 8 and 16 cameras on the borders of the Canyon Springs site.Id. Preliminary data show substantial deer use of the site compared with the data presented in the DEIR. Specifically, the DEIR cites 151 deer observations over two 65 day periods. DEIR at Appendix 8,2011 Heal Study at3-3 and 3-6. In contrast, the CDFW data thus far indicate a total of 385 deer occurrences. Moreover, CDFW's preliminary data indicate substantial use of the northern portion of the site. Personal Communication, Sara Holm and Carmen Borg, February 25,2013.In addition, recent and on-going data collection through aerial tracking of collared deer clearly indicate that aI least three collared individual deer have used the site for migration pulposes. Id.This data provides ample SHUTE, MIHALY (¡=\øElNBERGERrr.p Ms. Denyelle Nishimori Mai'ch 5,2013 Page 18 evidence that the site is indeed used by deer for migration. A revised document must consider and incorporate CDFW's data into the analysis. In addition, the DEIR is rife with contradictory statements. For example, the DEIR claims there is "no direct evidence that deer use the site for critical winter habitat or that known major migratory routes...exist within the project site." DEIR at 4.4- 46. But the DEIR also makes clear that the deer herd uses Section 3 (of which the eastern portion of Project site is apart) as a migratory route. (DEIR Appendix 8,201I Heal Study at 4-13) and that the deer experience fewer disturbances in the northeastern area of the site than in the westernmost part of the site (DEIR at Appendix E, October 2009 RMT Study at3-7.) The DEIR fails to distinguish between the level of use by the deer in different areas of the Project site and instead concludes that no portion of the site is used as a migratory corridor. DEIR at 4.4-46. In addition, the RMT 2009 Study included in DEIR Appendix E states "[T]here is the potential for conflict between mule deer and development of the areas within the vicinity, including the Canyon Springs site and the Raley-Teel property to the east. Blockage or pafüal blockage of this major migration corridor may be a significant impact under CEQA." DEIR Appendix E, 2009 RMT Study at 3-7 . A revised DEIR must provide a comprehensive analysis of the site's potential use as a migratory corridor, including analysis of documentation by CDFW. In addition, the revised document must identiff altematives for avoidance and additional protective measures to avoid impacts to those areas. The DEIR goes on to state that "disruptions to mule deer migration in the Truckee region include Interstate 80, other roadways,...fencing, and developments....." DEIR Appendix E , 201I Heal Study at 3-3. CDFW indicates that the deer herd is disrupted by such barriers as roads and highwuyt.' Th" DEIR surmises that the purported limitations of use of Section 3 as a migration route by the deer herd is due to the larger herd's reduced population, lack of dense cover, and frequent disturbances in the area. Id. Yet, this Project would further contribute to these limitations by a) developing the site with approximately 213 residential units, which would increase trafhc and the potential for deer mortality on roadways, b) reducing dense cover through removal of a substantial number of trees, and c) increasing the presence of humans and dogs. Id. These direct and indirect impacts are signif,rcant and must be more thoroughly evaluated in a revised ' htç://***.dfg.ca.gov lregionsl2/Loyalton-Truckee Deer/ - Link to CDFW report under Herd Information & Location section. SHUTE, MIHALY C2--VEINBERCERTTp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page 19 document. Moreover, the deer herd relies not only on migratory routes for its survival. All elements of the deer herds habitat, including summer Íange, winter range, migration corridors, and fawning areas are important for the herd's survival. Id.Therefore, analysis of impacts to the herd must consider all uses of the site by the herd rather than focusing only on potential use of the site for migration. 6.The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze the Effects of the Project's Construction Period on Wildlife. Despite the fact that land development construction would last for more than 2 years and build-out of the site would take 20 years or more (DEIR at 4.4-47), the DEIR fails to identiff construction impacts such as noise, deforestation, and dust on wildlife as significant impacts. It only states that "there would be adequate undisturbed areas for wildlife throughout the build-out period for project completion." DEIR at 4.4- 48. The DEIR bases its conclusion partially on the Project's 50-foot setback from the 1O0-year floodplain, which is intended to avoid encroachment into the wildlife corridors on the Project site. However, given the DEIR's incomplete description of construction activities as described above, the Project's allotted setbacks may not be adequate to prevent impacts to wildlife movement. The DEIR Defers Analysis and Mitigation of Impacts to Sierra Nevada Red Foxes. The DEIR acknowledges that the Sierra Nevada red fox, a State threatened species, has the potential to occur on the Project site. See DEIR at2-13. Yet, the DEIR fails to include any surveys for the fox. Id.Instead, the DEIR defers surveys to determine if suitable den sites occur on the site until after Project approval. Id. Defening this analysis clearly violates the core purpose of CEQA: to identi$'the environmental impacts of a project before approving it. San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 684-85. 8.The DEIR Fails to Ensure Protection of the Project Site's Proposed Open Space Areas. The DEIR states that the Project's proposed open space areas would minimize impacts to the wildlife corridor. DEIR at 4.4-48. As an initial matter, it is well known that the deer herd's migratory route is oriented north to south through the Canyon Springs site. Yet, the Project locates the open space corridor in an east-to-west orientation. Nevertheless, the DEIR fails to provide evidence that the future preservation of the open space areas would be assured. The open space areas would be owned and 7 SHUTE, MIHALY (r--vtlNBERcERr.rp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori lvlarch 5,2013 Page20 managed by the Home Owner Association ("HOA").[d. However, the HOA can change the applicable rules to allow conversion of the open space areas at any time. Without permanent easements to ensure that no further land conversions would take place, the viability of the open space areas for use as a wildlife corridor cannot be assured. Finally, the DEIR mentions a Fire Safety and Fuel Modification Plan cited in mitigation measures for potentially signif,rcant impacts related to wild land fire hazards, yet this Plan is omitted from the DEIR. DEIR at2-20 and2-29.Implementation of this Plan could in itself result in significant impacts to biological and aquatic resources. For example, the Plan may require removal of vegetation used as cover or browse by the deer herd or removal of vegetation associated with the streams and other water features. The failure to prepare this Plan prior to Project approval makes it impossible for the Town to determine whether this mitigation measure will result in signihcant impacts. 9. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Mitigate Identified Significant Impacts. The DEIR's approach to mitigation for the Project's impact on sensitive bird species and bat habitat is legally def,rcient and provides no justification for its conclusion that the measures would reduce Project impacts to a less than significant level. First, the document fails to identify adequate mitigation for the loss of habitat. By the DEIR's own admission, the Project would directly impact almost 28 acres of Jeffrey pine habitat including 26 snags. DEIR at 4.4-40. The DEIR acknowledges that this removal of habitat would result in signif,rcant impacts to nesting birds and bats. DEIR at2-14,2-16, 4-4.31, and 4-4.40. This impact is significant,pafücularly as many of the Project's sensitive bird species and bat species rely on this habitat for foraging and possibly nesting and roosting. Yeq the DEIR does not propose adequate mitigation for this loss of habitat. First, the measure calling for construction activities to occur outside the bird nesting season is entirely inadequate. The DEIR calls for avoiding vegetation removal outside the nesting season, between mid-September and the end of February. DEIR at2-14 and 4.4-56. The document immediately back pedals though when it asserts that if vegetation removal is scheduled to occur during nesting season a qualif,red biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys. The end result is a measure that would, in no way, prevent construction activities from occurring within the nesting seasons of migratory birds. Similarly, the DEIR suggests that bat roosts be removed once nesting has been completed or the animals leave the roost, respectively. DEIR at2-76 and Figure 4.4-3. This mitigation measure is inappropriate -- roosting habitat may be limited in the area, and loss of these resources may result in the long-term decline of these species. . SHUTE, MIHALY (l.-\øEINBERCERITp Ms. Denyelle Nishimorr March 5,2013 Page2l In sum, the Project would result in significant impacts to sensitive bird species and bats. The mitigation measures are vague and unenforceable and the DEIR provides no evidence that they will be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. E. The DEIR Does Not Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Impacts on Climate Change. While the DEIR appropriately acknowledges the importance and legal necessity of analyzing the Project's contribution to global climate change, the document's climate change analysis stops short of complying with CEQA. First, as noted above, the DEIR analyzes only a portion of the Project and underestimates the Project's traffic impacts. ^See supra Sections I and III. A. The greenhouse gas ("GHG") impact analysis for the Project relies on this defective analysis. Second, the DEIR fails to implement its own significance thresholds and erroneously determines that the project will not have signif,rcant effects on climate change. Having failed to identi$r the Project's significant climate effects, the DEIR then fails to identiff mitigation measures to reduce or avoid the Project's contributions to global warming. 1. The DEIR Grossly Underestimates the Projects Greenhouse Gas Emissions The DEIR's analysis of the Project's significant effects on climate change is undermined by the fact that it calculates only a portion of the carbon emissions for which the Project will be responsible. For example, the DEIR fails to account for the Project's destruction of carbon sinks. The DEIR states that the Project will result in the destruction of 27.92 acres of Jeffrey pines. DEIR at 4.4-39. Yet the DEIR's analysis completely ignores the effects of the removal of these carbon sinks. The DEIR indicates that carbon sequestration was considered inapplicable to this Project. DEIR Appendix H, Summary Results at l. Yet the destruction of carbon sinks, such as forested areas, is an important contributor to the emission of GHGs and to climate change. The DEIR should be revised to include disclosure and mitigation of the Project's impacts on tree removal. The DEIR also fails to account for its emissions of black carbon, a major contributor to climate change. See DEIR at4.7-I7. Black carbon is a component of soot, and is a component of fine particulate matter, known as PM 2.5.h is produced by incomplete combustion, is a significant contributor to global warming and has substantial negative effects on health and agriculture. See Black Carbon Pollution Emerges as Major Play in Global Warming, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, March 23,2008, attached as Exhibit G and Global Air Quality; Health Co-benefits of Mitigating Near-Term S H UTE, IVI IHALY (1-*løEINBERCERLT.p Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,20'13 Page22 Climate Change through Methane and Black Carbon Emission Controls, Environmental Health Perspectives, June 2012, attached as Exhibit H; and Report to Congress on Black Carbon, United States Environmental Protection Agency, March 2012, excerpt attached as Exhibit L Black carbon heats the atmosphere in a variety of ways. First, it is highly eff,rcient at absorbing solar radiation, and in turn, heating the surrounding atmosphere. Second, atmospheric black carbon absorbs reflected radiation from the surface. Third, when black carbon lands on snow and ice, it reduces the reflectivity of the white surface which causes increased atmospheric warming as well as accelerates the rate of snow and ice melt. Rapid snow melt is of particular concern in the Tahoe basin, where snow covers the ground much of the year and where rapid melt could have serious implications for the area's water supply. Fourth, it evaporates low clouds. Notably, black carbon is often complexed with other aerosols such as sulfates, which greatly increases its heating potential.Id. Due to black carbon's short atmospheric life span and high global warming potential, decreasing black carbon emissions offers an opportunity to mitigate the effects of global warming trends in the short term. Id.It is estimated that black carbon is the second greatest contributor to global warming behind carbon dioxide. See 1d. In developed countries, diesel burning is the main source of black carbon. Diesel particulate matter is approximately 75o/o elemental carbon. SeeEPA2002 Diesel Health Assessment at http; l lwww. scribd. com/doc/ 1 0l l 457 lHealth-Assessment-Document-for-Diesel- Engine-Exhaust-EPA-May-2002 ) attached as Exhibit J. The proposed Project will require the use of diesel powered heavy duty trucks and construction equipment for a construction period that will last approximately 20 years. Yet, the DEIR ignores this contributor to climate change when evaluating GHG emissions. Black carbon emissions must be quantified and mitigated as part of the revised EIR for the Project. Finally, as discussed above in Section IILA, the DEIR dramatically understates the Project's traff,rc impacts. Since the DEIR underestimates the Project's traffic impacts, it also undercounts the emissions attributable to transportation. Because the Project will create more traffic than disclosed in the DEIR's table of GHG sources, that table should be revised to account for the higher emissions resulting from the additional traffic. DEIR at Table 4.7-4. The failure to disclose these sources of GHGs undermines the DEIR's role as an informational document that decision makers must rely on. 'Where, as here, the environmental review document fails to fully and accurately inform decision-makers, and the public, of the environmental consequences of proposed actions, it does not satisfr sHUTE/ tvllHALY Cl-\(/EINBERCERrrp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page23 CEQA's basic goals. ^See Pub. Res. Code $ 21061 ("The purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project."). The DEIR must be revised to include these sources of emissions and the conclusion of insignificance revised. The DEIR Erroneously Fails to Identify the Project's Greenhouse Gas Emissions As Signiflrcant Determining whether or not a project may result in a signif,rcant adverse environmental effect is a key aspect of CEQA. CEQA Guidelines $ 15064(a) (determination of significant effects "plays a critical role in the CEQA process"). CEQA specifically anticipates that agencies will use thresholds of significance as an analytical tool for judging the significance of a Project's impacts. CEQA Guidelines $ 15064.7. The California Air Resources Board's ("ARB") recommends a threshold of signif,rcance of 1,600 tons of CO2 equivalent ("CO2e") trier year. DEIR at 4.7-15. Here, the DEIR purportedly adopts this ARB threshold, but then fails to properly apply its own thresholds of signif,rcance to the Project. The document acknowledges that implementation of the Project will emit 3 ,025 tons of CO2e per year, almost twice the ARB level of signif,rcance. DEIR at 9-7 4. Despite this evidence, the DEIR ignores its own threshold and reaches the conclusion that the impact will be less than significant. DEIR at 4.7-22. The DEIR makes no attempt to justiff this contradiction between its selected threshold and the conclusion that there will not be a significant impact. Rather, the DEIR rests its conclusion upon the slender argument that the ARB has not adopted this threshold. CEQA contains no requirement that a threshold be adopted before a lead agency may base its significance determination on it. See Protect the Hístoric Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1106-12. Moreover, CEQA specifically assigns the lead agency, in this case the Town of Truckee, the responsibility of considering whether a project's emissions exceed the established threshold. CEQA Guidelines at 15064.4(b)(2). A revised EIR must properly apply the document's significance criteria. See Endangered Habitat League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App. th777,783-84,796 (holding that the county improperly ignored its own thresholds of significance by using the volume-to-capacity ratio to evaluate the significance of traff,rc impacts). 2. S H UTE, IVI IHALY (f--VEINBERCERTTp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page24 By producing at least 3,000 tons of CO2e each year for the life of the Project, development of the Canyon Springs subdivision will make it that much more difficult for Truckee, Nevada County, the Northern Sierra Air District, and the State to meet mandated GHG reduction goals. 3. The DEIR Fails to Propose Feasible Mitigation for the Project's Significant Climate Change Impacts. Had the DEIR analyzed and disclosed all applicable sources of GHGs and compared them to any reasonable threshold of significance, it would have found that the Project will have a signif,rcant effect on climate change. With this signif,rcance determination comes CEQA's mandate to adopt feasible mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid the impact. CEQA Guidelines $ 15126.3(a)(l); see also Woodward Park Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Cíty of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal. App. 4th 683,724 ("The EIR also must describe feasible measures that could minimize significant impacts."). Under CEQA, "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Bd. of Port Comm'rs (2001) 91 Cal.App. rh 1344,1354 (quoting Pub. Res. Code $ 21002). Accordingly, CEQA requires lead agencies to identiff and analyze all feasible mitigation, even if this mitigation will not reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. CEQA Guidelines S 15126.4(aXlXA) (discussion of mitigation "shall identiff mitigation measures for each significant environmental effect identified in the EIR"); see also Woodward Park Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Cíty of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th at724 ("The EIR also must describe feasible measures that could minimize significant impacts. "). Here, rather than identiff enforceable mitigation measures, the DEIR identihes "design features" that will supposedly reduce the Project's GHG impacts. DEIR at 4.7-20 through 4.7-22. However, none of these features are adequate under CEQA. For the most part, the Draft Design Guidelines contain only recommendations that are optional and unenforceable. See DEIR Appendix C at 6,8, and 19. For example, the Design Guidelines suggest only consideration of water reuse and use of reclaimed wood; and orientation of structures for passive heating and shading from tree canopies is only encouraged rather than required (see ld.;Draft Design Guidelines use of word "should"). Mitigation measures must be "fully enforceable" and the lead agency must provide assurance that the measures will actually be implemented. Pub. Res. Code $ 21081.6(b); CEQA Guidelines $ 15126.4(a)(2); Anderson First Coalitionv. City of Anderson (2005)130 Cal.App.4th 1173,1186-87 ; Fed'n of Hillside & Canyon Ass'ns v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252,1261. SHUTE, MIHALY(¡-VtlNBERCbRrrp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page25 Furthermore, the DEIR admits that none of the measures are certain to be included in the Project. DEIR at4.7-22 ("[A]t this stage in the planning and development process, it cannot be determined which exact features would be incorporated into the final project design, nor can the exact reduction in GHG emissions be calculated for the incorporation of each measure."). Thus, the DEIR provides no evidence to support its conclusion that the design features will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. A recirculated DEIR must disclose the Project's emissions as significant and must propose feasible, enforceable mitigation measures that quantif, their effects on GHG emissions. Below is a list of example measures that would reduce the Project's emissions: Requiring the project to be held to the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) or comparable standards for energy- and resource-eff,rcient building during pre-design, design, construction, operations and management. See http ://www..us gbc. org. o o o a o Requiring measures to reduce black carbon. Because black carbon is a component of diesel particulate matter, strategies that reduce particulate matter will also reduce black carbon. Requiring use of a catalyzed diesel particulate f,rlter on both new and existing diesel engines during construction would reduce diesel particulate and black carbon emissions. Requiring use of salvaged and recycled-content materials for building, hard surfaces, and non-plant landscaping materials. Requiring water conservation measures in homes and landscaping, use of drought-tolerant plants in lieu of turf and planting of shade trees. Requiring installation of the maximum possible solar energy affay on the building roofs andlor on the project site to generate solar energy for the facility. Requiring the use of passive heating, natural cooling, solar hot water systems, and reduced pavement. o SHUTE. MIHALY ú>-vEtNBERcERr-r, Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,201,3 Page26 Requiring that landscaping preserve natural vegetation and maintain watershed integrity. Requiring the use of the combination of construction materials with the lowest carbon footprint. Requiring the use of only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances. Requiring the planting trees to sequester carbon. Requiring that buildings be constructed to a standard thatis 20o/o more stringent than the Title 24 energy standards in place at the time of construction. In addition, other GHG emission mitigation measures are readily available. See, e.g., CAPCOA, "CEQA and Climate Change" excerpts attached as Exhibit K and are available at hfto : I I www. caocoa. ors/wo loads/downloadsl20l0l0 5/CAPCOA- White-Paper.pdf; California Department of Justice, "The California Environmental Quality Act: Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level" attached as Exhibit L and available at and Governor's Off,rce of Planning and Research, "CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review" attached as Exhibit M and available at http://www.opr.ca.sov/ceqa/pdfs/iune08-ççqa,pdf. A revised and recirculated EIR should draw on these resources to develop a concrete mitigation plan. Until it does so, this environmental review will remain inadequate. F'.The DEIR Fails to Analyze Impacts Related to the Project's Inconsistency with the General Plan. Although the DEIR concludes that the Project is consistent with the County's General Plan (DEIR at 4.10-13), this is not the case. Among other failings in this regard, the proposed Project is not authorized to employ the cluster development design it proposes. The DEIR incorrectly states that the Project site is located 1.6 miles from the town core when the actual driving distance from the town core to the Project site is approximately 8-10 miles. The DEIR also implies that the Froject site is located close to the town core, which it is not.Id. These distinctions are important because the Town's General Plan allows varying cluster designs based on the location of the development. See Truckee 2025 General Plan at Table LU-7 . Here, the DEIR claims the Project is o a o o a SHUTE/ MIHALY ú>-VEINBERGERTTp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page27 consistent with 'Rural Suburban Clusters" described by the General Plan. DEIR at 4.10- 13. However, the Rural Suburban Cluster design is only permiued on "sites peripheral to Town core" and are "generally not (permitted) on sites within the rural fringe." Truckee 2025 General Plan at Table LU-7. This Project site is located at the rural fringe at the eastern most boundary of the Town of Truckee and is thus subject to the 'Rural Clusters' design. Id. Therefore, the proposed cluster design of the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan. The DEIR fails to acknowledge, let alone analyze fuIly, the impacts of a cluster design that is inconsistent with what is contemplated in the General Plan. In addition, the DEIR is subject to the Town of Truckee's 2025 General Plan ("General Plan") Overlay Area 6 designation. DEIR at 4.10-6 and 4.10-7. This designation requires that a "planned development" be adopted for the Project site prior to approval of a tentative map or subdivísion for any properties on the site. General Plan at 2-45. The fact that the General Plan specifies that a planned development be prepared and adopted prior to issuance of approvals implies that the development must undergo additional planning. Id.But, according to Town planning staff, the planned development documentation for this Project consists only of a) the Tentative Map and b) the draft Design Guidelines. Email communication from Denyelle Nishimori, Planner at the Town of Truckee to Nikki Riley, February 19,2013. As established above, the submitted documentation on the Project is incomplete and the draft Design Guidelines so vague as to be unenforceable. Therefore, the Town should not rely on the submitted materials to approve the Project. According to the American Planning Association, it is standard practice that planned developments (also generally known as planned unit developments): 1) require that open space be conf,rgured in a manner to protect sensitive natural resources and2) are consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan, in this case, the General Plan. See American Planning Association QuickNotes: Understanding Planned Unit Development, attached as Exhibit N. This planned development does neither. As established earlier, the proposed site plan indicates that the Project would result in dozens of parcels that would encroach onto the 1O0-year floodplain and will result in significant impacts related to water quality and biological resources. In addition, as discussed above, the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan. ^See Supra sections II, III.4.3 and III.H. G. The DEIR Fails to Include a Discussion Of the Project's Energy Impacts. One of the DEIR's glaring omissions is a discussion of the projects potential impacts on energy resources. CEQA requires that EIRs include an evaluation of potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or SHUTE, MIHALY ú-løL,lNBERGERrrp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page28 reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F, Energy Conservation. Beyond a brief statement regarding the intent to design and construct the Project buildings following the draft Design Guidelines for the Project, the DEIR provides no information on how this goal will be met and how the project will conserye energy. The Draft Design Guidelines state that they are intended to "ensurelqeate a consistent design theme" but for the most part, they contain only recommendations that are optional and unenforceable. See DEIR Appendix C at 6,8, and 19. For example, the Design Guidelines suggest only consideratíon of pre-plumbing for solar heating and radiant heating systems; installation of Energy Star Certified Appliances is greatly encouraged rather than required; and skylights and solar panels are only encouraged. Id. This approach does not comply with CEQA. At a minimum, CEQA requires a Project Description that includes detailed information on the projects projected energy requirements, a discussion of existing energy use patterns in the region and the Town, an assessment of the projects impacts on energy resources, mitigation measures to minimize energy consumption, and an alternatives analysis that compares alternatives in terms of overall energy consumption.Id. Without such an analysis, the public and decision-makers have no way to evaluate the project's potential impacts on energy resources so that the DEIR is not legally adequate under CEQA. H.The DEIR's Analysis of the Project's Cumulative Impacts is Inadequate and Violates CEQA An EIR must discuss a Project's significant cumulative impacts. CEQA Guidelines $ 15130(a). CEQA def,rnes "cumulative impacts" as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." CEQA Guidelines $ 15355(a). "[I]ndividual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects." CEQA Guidelines $ 15355(a). A legally adequate cumulative impacts analysis views a particular project over time and in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the project at hand. "Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." CEQA Guidelines $ 15355(b). Cumulative impacts analysis is necessary because "environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources lthat] appeffi insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact." Communities for a Better Env't v. CaL Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th98,ll4. SHUTE, MIHALY ù*-vtlNBERCERr.r-r, Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page29 Here, the analysis of cumulative impacts in the DEIR is cursory and superficial. The DEIR fails to analyze adequately a number of potential cumulative impacts. These include, but are not limited to, traffic, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, and perhaps most critically, cumulative impacts to climate change. Indeed, climate change is the classic example of a cumulative effects problem; emissions from numerous sources combine to create the most pressing environmental and societal problem of our time. Kíngs County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanþrd (1990) 221 Cal.App.3 d 692,720 ("Perhaps the best example fof a cumulative impact] is air pollution, where thousands of relatively small sources of pollution cause serious a serious environmental health problem."). Moreover, if an agency's analysis indicates that a proposed project will have a significant project-specif,rc or cumulative impact on climate change, the agency must identiff and adopt feasible mitigation measures to address this impact. CEQA Guidelines $ 15126.a@). With regard to climate change, existing conditions are such that we have already exceeded thê capacity of the atmosphere to absorb additional greenhouse gas emissions without risking catastrophic and irreversible consequences. Therefore, even seemingly small additions of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere must be considered cumulatively considerable. See Communities þr Better Env't at 120 ("the greater the existing environmental problems are, the lower the threshold for treating a project's contribution to cumulative impacts as signif,rcant."); see also Center þr Biological Diversíty v. National Highway Trffic Safety Admínístration (9th Cir. 2007) 508 F.3d 508, 550 ("we cannot afford to ignore even modest contributions to global warming."). Based on these and other recent climate change observations, leading scientisti now agree that "humanity must ai r for an even lower level of GHGs."4 Instead of following CEQA's mandate, the DEIR betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the statute. The DEIR fails to actually analyze the effect of the Project together with effects of related projects on climate change. The document contains a single paragraph on the Project's cumulative climate impacts which simply states that because the Project's emissions are not significant, they will not have a significant cumulative impact. DEIR at4.7-24. Thus, the EIR assumes that if the Project's impacts related to GHG emissions are less than signif,rcant (which they are not), then the impacts could not be cumulatively considerable. This turns cumulative analysis on its head and is a plain violation of CEQA. An EIR may not conclude that aproject will o Ja-"r Hansen et al., Target Atmospheric COz: Where Should Humaníty Aim? 2 Open ArvospHERIC ScI. J.217 ,226 (2008). SHUTE/ MIHALY Ü¡-\øEINBERCERTT.p Ms. Denyelle Nishimori Marclr 5,2013 Page 30 not contribute to cumulative impacts simply because it has a less than significant impact on a project level. See Kings County,22l Cal.App.3l at 720-21. The purpose of analyzing cumulative impacts is to determine whether a collection of less than signif,rcant impacts may combine to be cumulatively considerable. It is wholly inappropriate to end a cumulative analysis on account of a determination that a project's individual contribution would be less than significant. Rather, this should constitute the beginning of the analysis. The Project is the latest in a series of sprawling residential developments in the TruckeeAvlartis Valley Region that destroy carbon sinks and create high levels of automobile trafhc (e.g., Elkhorn, Sierra Bluffs, Old Greenwood, Gray's Crossing, Juniper Hill, Martis Peak, Olympic Heights, and Hilltop); each of these developments contributes to the problem of global climate change. The DEIR's failure to analyze the Project in this context is unlawful. Furthermore, as discussed above, in the absence of detailed Project-specific analysis of climate change impacts, the EIR simply has no evidentiary basis to conclude that Project-specific impacts would be less than significant. Similarly, the DEIR glosses over the potential cumulative impacts related to water quality and fails to perform an adequate analysis here as well. The DEIR acknowledges the potential for cumulative adverse affects to water quality. DEIR at 4.9- 24 and25. However, it makes no specific affempt to measure how the development of related projects would contribute to water quality. The DEIR foregoes analysis of cumulative conditions and summarily concludes that because the Project must comply with existing regulations and permitting requirements, it will not contribute to cumulative water quality impacts. This type of conclusory statement does not substitute for reasoned analysis and does not satisff CEQA requirements for several reasons. Initially, the Town was made aware of their obligation to perform this analysis during the Notice of Preparation for the Project. In fact the Lahontan Water Board commented that the Project "may result in cumulative impacts that have the potential to permanently alter the hydrological and ecological function of the aquatic resources with the Project area." See Lahonton Water Board comment letter at l, 5, 7 , and 1 1 attached as Exhibit O. Moreover, compliance with regulations does not excuse the agency from analyzing resulting impacts. Oro Fino Gold Míning Corporation v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 885. In another example, the DEIR fails to analyze cumulative impacts on the deer herd resulting from the Project in combination with the foreseeable development of the adjacent parcel to the east of the Project site, known as the "Teel parcel". ,See also section H, below. Development of the Teel property is likely to displace the deer herd even farther to the east. Therefore, the DEIR must evaluate the impacts of that SHUTE, MIHALY C!-VZEINBERCER p Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page 3 1 displacement. Are there topographic features that would limit deer migration through the Teel property and other areas to the east? Is the habitat to the east suitable and sufficient to support migration of the herd? Until the DEIR provides this analysis, it will remain inadequate. Similarly, the DEIR fails to analyze the cumulative effects of increased traffic on deer/wildlife mortality. As established above, the Project will result in a significant increase in traffic in the vicinity of the Project. CDFW indicates that the deer herd is disrupted by such barriers as roads and highways and it is common knowledge that deer und fu*n fatalities occur on this roadways.s The DEIR even acknowledges that increases in traffic are one of the main disruptions to the deer herd. DEIR at Appendix E, 201 1 Heal Study at3-3. An increase of more than 2,000 vehicle trips per day would result in increased potential for deer fatalities. The cumulative effects of traffic impacts from the proposed Project along with other development in the region on the deer herd must be evaluated in a revised DEIR. CEQA mandates that the public be informed of the totality of the impacts of those other projects along with the present project under consideration. Moreover an EIR must include objective measurements of a cumulative impact when such data are available or can be produced by further study and are necessary to ensure disclosure of the impact. See Kings County,22l Cal.App.3d at 729.The revised DEIR must therefore evaluate the potential impacts from all the past, present, and probable future projects in the vicinity of the Project and identiff mitigation capable of offsetting these impacts. The EIR must examine other projects and determine whether impacts of the project under review are significant when considered in combination with the others. CEQA Guidelines $ 1s130(bx1)-(3). I. The DEIR Fails to Identify the Project's Growth-inducing Impacts The DEIR acknowledges CEQA requirements that an EIR discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster growth or construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. DEIR at 6-1. But instead of analyzingthe growth-inducing impacts of this potential development, the DEIR dismisses the issue by stating that "the new ofÊsite utility infrastructure that would facilitate adequate water supply to the proposed project would only serve the project site and 5 hup:i/www.dfg.ca.gov/regions l2lLoyalton-Truckee Deer/ - Link to CDFW report under Herd Information & Location section. SHUTE, MIHALY (i*-VhlNBERCERrrp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page32 would not facilitate additional development, as the surround residential area is generally built-out." DEIR at 6-2. This is incorrect. The Teel parcel to the east of the Project site is within the Town's sphere of influence and is zoned PRD2. It is common knowledge that this parcel is slated for annexation into the Town of Truckee. Moreover, as explained in the comments from the TSD, "[D]evelopment of these properties in the foreseeable future seems reasonable and TSD will be requiring the Canyon Springs developer to size the sewer infrastructure and provide easements that will allow future service to these adjacent properties ." See Exhibit C, TSD letter at 1. The Town's General Plan specifies a goal of avoiding of sprawl development. General Plan at Goal LU-3 (Create efficient land use patterns which reduce environmental impacts and minimize the potential for residential and commercial sprawl). Approval and development of the Canyon Springs Project would expand development and extend utility infrastructure beyond the Town's existing boundary, effectively removing an obstacle to future development approvals on the Teel Parcel and other properties . Id. That new development has yet to be approved does not excuse the requirement to analyze a project's environmental or growth inducing impacts. Guidelines ç 15126.2(d); Cíty of Davis v. Coleman (9th Circuit 1975) 521F.2d 661,675-76. The DEIR could easily begin to estimate the number and location of dwelling units that could be approved on the Teel parcel based upon the evidence of potentially developable parcels and other planning documents. As the City of Dav¿s court directed "the purpose of an EISÆIR is to evaluate the possibilities in light of current and contemplated plans and to produce an informed estimate of the environmental consequences." Id. at676. Accordingly, the DEIR must be revised to identiff the extent and location of new development facilitated by removing the obstacle of limited existing infrastructure and to analyze the environmental impacts of the growth. At a minimum, the DEIR must analyze the additional population growth and new residential units that this Proj ect would facilitate. il. CONCLUSION In order to cure the panoply of defects identifìed in this letter, the DEIR must be revised to fully and accurately describe all components of the proposed Project. The revised document must also include substantial new information to (l) evaluate the environmental impacts of the whole of the Project, and(2) identiff effective mitigation measures and alternatives capable of alleviating these impacts. CEQA requires that the public have a meaningful opportunity to review and comment upon this significant new information, which should be presented in the form of a recirculated draft EIR. SHUTE, MIHALY ÙL*-VEINBERGERTTp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page 33 Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIFIALY & WEINBERGER LLP Hhs'-- Û-fP cTB Ellison Folk Ç-¿ Carmen J.org, AICP Urban Planner Attachments Exhibit A: Letter report from Neal Liddicoat, MRO Engineers to Shute, Mihaly & V/einberger LLP. February 20,2013 Exhibit B: Letter from Bruce Abelli-Amen, Baseline Environmental Consulting to Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP. February 21,2013 Exhibit C: Comment letter on the DEIR from Blake Tresan, Truckee Sanitary District, to Denyelle Nishimori, Town of Truckee Planner. January 9,2013 Exhibit D: Canyon Springs Hydrology Map. United States Geological Survey. February 25,2013. Exhibit E Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Report and Management Plan Update, California Department of Fish and Game,2010. Exhibit F: The Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Management Plan, California Department of Fish and Game,May 1982 Exhibit G: Black Carbon Pollution Emerges as Major Play in Global Warming, Scripps Institution of Oceanography. March 23,2008 SHUTE, MIHALY (¡-'løEINBERCERT.L' Ms. Denyelle Nishimori March 5,2013 Page34 Exhibit H:Global Air Quality and Health Co-Benefits of Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change through Methane and Black Carbon Emission Controls, Environmental Health Perspectives. Jlur,:'e 2012 Exhibit I:Report to Congress on Black Carbon, United States Environmental frotection Agency, March 2012, Excerpt. Exhibit J:Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust, United States Environmental Protection Agency, ll/ay 2002 Exhibit K CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emission from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. January 2008 Exhibit L: California Attorney General's Office: Addressing Climate Change at the Project Level, Department of Justice. January 6,2010 Exhibit M:Technical Advisory: CEQA and Climate Change - Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review, Governor's Office of Planning and Research. June 19, 2008 Exhibit N: American Planning Association Quick Notes: Understanding Planned Unit Development. Exhibit O: Letter From Alan Miller, Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahonton Region to Denyelle Nishimori. May 18, 2011 Alexis Ollar, Executive Director, MAPF Leigh Golden, President, SOSG 460866.2 cc SHUTE, MIHALY 0q=-VEINBERCERTT-p February 20, 2013 Ms. Carmen Borg, AICP Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, California 94102 Subject: Review of Transportation and Traffic Impact Analysis Draft Environmental Impact Report – Canyon Springs, Truckee, California Dear Ms. Borg: As requested, MRO Engineers, Inc., has completed a review of the “Transportation and Traffic” analysis completed with respect to the proposed Canyon Springs project in Truckee, California. The proposed project is the subject of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared by The Planning Center/DCE in December 2012. The DEIR incorporates (as Appendix I) a traffic impact analysis prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. [Reference: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis, August 27, 2012.] Our review focused on the adequacy of the “Transportation and Traffic” section of the DEIR, including the detailed procedures and conclusions documented in the LSC report. Transportation and Traffic Impact Analysis Review Our review of the project’s traffic impact analysis revealed a number of significant traffic impacts that were not disclosed or mitigated in the DEIR and that should be addressed prior to certification of the environmental document by the Town of Truckee. These issues are summarized below. 1. No Analysis of Potential Freeway System Impacts – The Canyon Springs traffic impact analysis addresses conditions at eight intersections (including one future intersection) and eleven roadway segments. Among the intersections included in the analysis are I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Hirschdale Road and I-80 Westbound Ramps/Hirschdale Road. DEIR Figure 4.14-4 (p. 4.14-32) illustrates the “2011 Project Generated PM Traffic Volumes.” Review of that figure reveals that a total of 91 PM peak-hour project-generated trips were assigned to/from the west on I-80 at the Hirschdale Road ramps. Those 91 trips represent 35 percent of the total project trip generation in the PM peak hour. In that same PM peak-hour period, 64 project-related trips (25 percent of the project-generated total) were assigned to/from the east on I-80 at the Hirschdale Road ramps. DEIR Figure 4.14-5 (p. 4.14-33) illustrates similar information for the year 2031. A total of 101 project-related trips (39 percent of the total) were assigned to/from west on I-80 in the PM peak hour, and 47 project trips (18 percent of the total) were assigned to/from the east. Despite the fact that I-80 was projected to carry a substantial portion of the traffic generated by the proposed project, no analysis was conducted to assess potential project-related traffic impacts at any of the on- or off-ramps or the merge/diverge points where the ramps meet the freeway mainline. Further, no analysis of project-related impacts on the I-80 mainline was performed. M R O ENGINEERS 2202 Plaza Drive Rocklin, California 95765-4404 PHONE (916) 783-3838 FAX (916) 783-5003 Ms. Carmen Borg February 20, 2013 Page 2 Consequently, it is impossible to determine whether the proposed project will adversely impact traffic operations on the freeway facilities. To ensure a thorough analysis of potential traffic impacts, it is essential that these analyses be performed and documented in a revised DEIR. 2. Level of Service Calculation Methodology – Town of Truckee General Plan Policy CIR-P3.1 requires that, “. . . level of service shall be computed according to the planning methodology documented in Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board in 2000, or as amended in subsequent updates.” [DEIR p. 4.14-6] The reference to “subsequent updates” is important, in that the year 2010 version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) was released on April 11, 2011. In this regard, the LSC report (p. 32) states: “The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual was released subsequent to commencement of this traffic analysis. The HCM 2010 methodology was used in the evaluation of the Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive intersection, as applied in the Highway Capacity Software 2010 (HCS 2010) software package developed by McTrans Center at the University of Florida.” This raises the obvious question: If HCM 2010 could be used for the Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive intersection, why could it not be used for the other locations included in the traffic analysis? We also note that data collection for the study occurred at the I-80/Hirschdale Road interchange on July 8, 2011, which is about three months after the HCM 2010 release date. (See LSC report, p. 7) Also, delay counts were performed at Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road on Friday, August 5, 2011. Clearly, the 2010 update to the Highway Capacity Manual was available at the time that the analysis was initiated (or, certainly, in the earliest stages of the analysis, prior to the conduct of any level of service calculations). The failure to use the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual represents a violation of the Town of Truckee General Plan. The level of service calculations must be redone using the current methodology, and the results must be provided for public review in a revised DEIR. 3. Analysis Periods – The analysis largely focuses on traffic operations in the PM peak hour, although AM peak-hour analyses were performed at four of the eight study intersections. AM peak hour impacts were only analyzed at Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road, as well as three intersections (Glenshire Drive at Dorchester (West), Somerset, and Whitehorse/Martis Peak) where traffic patterns were judged to be influenced by activity at the nearby Glenshire Elementary School. Although it might be true that, in general, PM peak hour volumes are greater than AM peak hour volumes, this does not eliminate the possibility that additional significant impacts will be found in the AM. Directional traffic patterns are different in the two peak-hour periods, so that problems that may not be apparent in the PM peak hour are revealed in the AM peak hour. For example, left turns are often the critical consideration in intersection operations. Project- generated traffic will be added to different left-turn movements in the AM and PM peak hours. By analyzing only the PM peak hour, any related AM peak hour impacts will be missed. M R O ENGINEERS Ms. Carmen Borg February 20, 2013 Page 3 DEIR Table 4.14-6 summarizes the volume of traffic that the project will generate in the AM and PM peak hours. While it is true that the number of PM peak-hour trips exceeds the AM peak-hour value, the volume of project-related trips in the AM peak hour is substantial – 194 total trips. Of those trips, 148 will be outbound from the project site. In comparison, the peak direction trip number in the PM peak hour is 164 (inbound) trips, which is only 16 trips greater than the peak directional trip value in the AM peak hour. Although we recognize that the Town of Truckee has adopted a policy requiring that only the PM peak hour impacts be evaluated, CEQA requires that all significant impacts associated with the proposed project be revealed in the DEIR. Given that the AM and PM peak-hour trip generation values for the project are not substantially different and that different traffic flow patterns exist in the AM and PM peak hours, we believe there is a reasonable likelihood that significant impacts might be found in the AM peak hour that differ from those identified in the PM peak hour. The only way to verify this, of course, is to perform AM peak hour analyses and document the results of those analyses in a revised DEIR. 4. Peak Hour Traffic Volume Data – Pages 5 - 7 of the LSC Transportation Consultants report describe the derivation of the “existing” conditions traffic volumes. (This information is not provided in the DEIR.) Page 6 of the LSC report says, “Year 2011 peak-hour intersection turning movement volumes were estimated at the study intersections as described below.” That estimation process is summarized here: • At three locations (Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road, Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive (West), and Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road) PM peak-hour counts performed in 2009 were increased using a two percent per year growth factor to estimate values for 2011. • At Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive and Glenshire Drive/Hirschdale Road, the year 2011 volumes were based on counts conducted in March 2004. Those old counts were first adjusted to approximate Summer 2004 values, then were further manipulated to represent estimated Summer 2009 traffic volumes. A two percent per year growth factor was then applied to those fabricated numbers to estimate 2011 traffic volumes. • The AM peak-hour volumes at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection were based on counts conducted in July 2004. Those volumes were adjusted upward to represent estimated 2009 values, which were subsequently increased further using the two percent per year growth factor. Only the intersections that were judged to be affected by school traffic patterns were actually counted at the time the study was initiated. In every other case, the “existing conditions” traffic volumes were fabricated from data as much as seven years old when the study began. The traffic analysis claims that the resulting traffic volume estimates are “conservative,” but there is no way to know if this is actually the case. DEIR p. 4.14-17 says: “These volumes are considered to be conservative, given that a comparison of the 2006 to 2009 PM peak-hour traffic volumes through the Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive intersection indicates no growth in the total intersection volume.” Of course, the 2011 volumes used in the analysis were not based on 2006 volumes; they were based M R O ENGINEERS Ms. Carmen Borg February 20, 2013 Page 4 on either 2004 or 2009 volumes. The comparison of 2009 volumes to 2006 volumes obviously ignores what might have happened between 2004 and 2006, as well as from 2009 to 2011. Also, we note that this conclusion is based on traffic volumes at one location at the extreme west end of the study area, which might not be representative of what has happened elsewhere within the study area. With regard to the Town’s policy calling for analysis of the tenth-highest summer PM peak hour, we would suggest that a better approach for this study would have been to perform Summer 2011 counts and adjust those as necessary to represent the tenth-highest hour. This is vastly superior to basing the Summer 2011 volumes on counts conducted in the spring or summer of 2004. In short, it is a substantial concern that the bulk of the “existing” intersection traffic volumes were estimated, rather than based on recent data collection. This is quite unusual, and the resulting estimates may not accurately represent current conditions in Truckee. Moreover, because these estimated traffic volumes represent the most critical input parameter in the intersection level of service calculation process, any inaccuracies in those values directly affects the validity of the level of service results. In short, to the extent that the estimated peak- hour traffic volumes are inaccurate, the corresponding level of service results reported in the DEIR are invalid, and a misleading representation of the environmental setting is provided.. 5. Daily Traffic Volume Data – The daily traffic volumes used in the analysis of roadway segments were also estimated, rather than counted. In this case, the margin of error associated with the daily traffic volumes is potentially even greater, given that the daily volume estimates are based on estimates of peak-hour traffic. That is, the estimates were estimated based on other estimates. Specifically, the “existing” daily traffic volumes were estimated from the peak-hour volumes (derived as described above) by applying a factor ranging from 9.5 to 10.6. This is somewhat puzzling, as the study apparently began in the spring or summer of 2011, since counts were performed at the I-80/Hirschdale Road interchange in July 2011. Consequently, summer counts could have been conducted as part of this study. [See LSC report, p. 6 – 7] Again, we must question the validity of the fabricated “existing” traffic volumes. 6. Cumulative Conditions Traffic Volume Estimates – The cumulative conditions analysis presented in the DEIR addresses projected traffic operations in the year 2031. However, as described on p. 4.14-20 of the DEIR, the year 2031 traffic volumes are actually year 2025 traffic volume projections. That is, the Town of Truckee’s TransCAD travel demand forecasting model was used to create estimates of traffic in the year 2025, and “[n]o further growth in traffic is assumed between 2025 and 2031.” [DEIR, p. 4.14-20] Thus, zero traffic growth was assumed for six of the twenty years included in the cumulative conditions analysis. Even though the year 2025 traffic projections represent buildout of the Truckee General Plan [DEIR, p. 4.14-20], the approach employed in the analysis fails to account for General Plan amendments that might be approved in the next twelve years. Similarly, it fails to reflect traffic increases associated with growth beyond Truckee’s boundaries, which would not be reflected in the General Plan land use. M R O ENGINEERS Ms. Carmen Borg February 20, 2013 Page 5 The use of 2025 traffic volume projections is inappropriate unless the analysis is described as being for that year. To suggest that the analysis covers a twenty-year time period when it actually considers only fourteen years is misleading. The cumulative conditions analysis must be revised using valid estimates of year 2031 traffic volumes, then recirculated for public review. 7. Safety Analysis – DEIR Table 4.14-5 (p. 4.14-26) and the related text provide “Historical Accident Data” (including accident rates per million-vehicle-miles for roadway segments and million-vehicle-movements for intersections) for the seven locations (three intersections and four roadway segments) included in the safety analysis. The DEIR, though, provides no assessment of whether the derived accident rates indicate an existing safety problem. On the other hand, the LSC report (pp. 7 – 12) supplements the historical accident data with a comparison to California and Nevada County average accident rates for similar roads. In six of the seven cases, the historical accident rates are substantially higher than those averages, as summarized in Table 1 below. It is substantial concern that the DEIR failed to include this important information, which directly indicates that a considerable safety problem exists in the study area today. The failure to include this information in the body of the DEIR effectively defeats the purpose of the report as an informational document. Although we acknowledge that the information was presented in an appendix to the DEIR, we believe that a finding directly relating to the safety of the residents of the study area should be afforded greater prominence. Moreover, given the existence of this safety issue, a greater effort should have been made to address the potential impacts of the proposed project. Will the additional traffic generated by the project exacerbate this existing deficiency? Specifically, will the residents of the area be subject to a greater likelihood of being involved in a potentially injury-causing collision as a result of implementation of the proposed project? The DEIR must be revised to include a detailed analysis of project-related safety impacts and to identify needed mitigation measures. M R O ENGINEERS M R O ENGINEERS Ms. Carmen Borg February 20, 2013 Page 6 Table 1 Study Area Accident Experience (2006 – 2010)1 Location Actual Accident Rate2 Caltrans Average Accident Rate2 Does Actual Rate Exceed Caltrans Average? Nevada County Average Accident Rate2 Does Actual Rate Exceed Nevada County Average? Intersections Glenshire Dr./Donner Pass Rd.3 0.52 0.20 Yes N.A.4 N.A. Glenshire Dr./Dorchester Dr. 0.38 0.20 Yes N.A. N.A. Glenshire Dr./Martis Peak Rd./Whitehorse Rd. 0.0 0.20 No N.A. N.A. Roadways Glenshire Dr. through residential subdivision5 1.11 0.97 Yes 1.04 Yes Glenshire Dr. between Martis Peak Rd. and Hirschdale Rd.6 1.98 0.97 Yes 1.04 Yes Hirschdale Rd. between Glenshire Dr. and I-807 2.61 0.97 Yes 1.04 Yes Edinburgh Dr./Regency Cir./ Courtenay Ln./Somerset Dr. 1.54 0.97 Yes 1.04 Yes Notes: 1 Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis, August 27, 2012, Table 2, p. 11. 2 Accidents per million-vehicle-movements for intersections and accidents per million- vehicle-miles for roadways. 3 Of the twelve accidents reported, five (42%) resulted in injuries to a total of eight individuals. 4 Not applicable; no Nevada County average accident rates were presented for intersections. 5 Six of the sixteen accidents reported resulted in injuries, with a total of nine people being hurt. 6 Accident rate is approximately double the State and County averages and one-third of the accidents (i.e., three of nine) resulted in injuries. 7 Actual rate is 2.7 times the State average and 2.5 times the County average. 8. Donner Pass Road Extension Project – The analysis of cumulative conditions is based on a number of assumptions regarding land use and the transportation system that will exist in the study’s horizon year. One of the key roadway system assumptions is that the Donner Pass Road Extension will be complete by the year 2031. In fact, it is primarily due to this assumption that acceptable levels of service are reported at certain study locations for cumulative conditions. For example, operations at the study intersection of Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road will be M R O ENGINEERS Ms. Carmen Borg February 20, 2013 Page 7 substantially improved when the Donner Pass Road Extension project is completed, as the left- turn volume from Glenshire Drive onto Donner Pass Road will be greatly reduced. However, this critical roadway system improvement project is beyond the control of the Canyon Springs project. In fact, it is beyond the control of the Town of Truckee, as the Donner Pass Road Extension project is directly tied to the private sector Railyard Master Plan project. Consequently, there is simply no guarantee that the road improvement will occur. The Town has committed only a small portion of the total cost of the extension project. If, therefore, the developer of the Railyard Master Plan project fails to act on that development (due to a failure to obtain project financing, for example), the Donner Pass Road Extension will not be completed. If that occurs, the entire cumulative conditions traffic analysis presented in the DEIR will be inaccurate, presenting an overly-optimistic view of traffic operations in the year 2031. Consequently, additional cumulative conditions traffic impacts are likely to be found. In short, the finding of acceptable cumulative conditions LOS is dependent upon completion of the Donner Pass Road Extension, and there can be no assurance that the extension project will actually be constructed. Ultimately, whether this improvement occurs is dependent upon whether the railyard developer proceeds with the development project and funds its substantial portion of the road improvement. To ensure consideration of a reasonable “worst case” scenario, the revised DEIR must include a cumulative conditions analysis to reveal traffic impacts and related mitigation measures if the Donner Pass Road Extension project is not completed. CONCLUSION Our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed Canyon Springs project in Truckee, California revealed several issues potentially affecting the validity of the conclusions and recommendations presented in that document. Further, our review indicates that the proposed project may have additional significant impacts on the environment beyond those identified in the DEIR, particularly with respect to intersection and roadway level of service, freeway system operations, and safety. These issues should be addressed prior to approval of the proposed project and its related environmental documentation. We hope this information is useful. If you have questions concerning anything presented here, please feel free to contact me at (916) 783-3838. Sincerely, MRO ENGINEERS, INC. Neal K. Liddicoat, P.E. Traffic Engineering Manager M R O ENGINEERS 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D, Emeryville, CA 94608 | P: (510) 420-8686 | F: (510) 420-1707 | www.baseline-env.com 21 February 2013 13302‐00.2006 Ms. Carmen Borg Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Subject: Canyon Springs Project, Town of Truckee, Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Borg: At your request, BASELINE Environmental Consulting (“BASELINE”) has reviewed the Hydrology and Water Quality section (and related technical documentation) of the Canyon Springs Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”), dated January 2013, prepared for the Town of Truckee Planning Division. In order to provide a meaningful context for the analyses in the Hydrology and Water Quality section, we also reviewed the Project Description. Our comments are presented below. COMMENTS ON DEIR Project Description On page 3‐5 of the Project Description, the DEIR states that “Juniper Creek, a tributary of the Truckee River, flows through the site from east to west and serves as a wildlife corridor.” Juniper Creek does not cross the project site, but flows to the north of Martis Peak Road, more than 1,000 feet northeast of the project site. In accordance with current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) regulations, the project would be required to incorporate Low Impact Development (“LID”) principles into sitewide drainage design. The goal of LID is to reduce runoff and mimic a site’s predevelopment hydrology by minimizing disturbed areas and impervious cover and then infiltrating, storing, detaining, evapotranspiring, and/or biotreating stormwater runoff close to its source. Practices used to adhere to these LID principles include measures such as rain barrels and cisterns, green roofs, permeable pavement, preserving undeveloped open space, and biotreatment through rain gardens, bioretention units, bioswales, and planter/tree boxes. The DEIR Project Description indicates that the project would comply with LID requirements (DEIR page 3‐31 as follows): Surface drainage from impervious surfaces, such as residential roofs and driveways located within the proposed restricted building envelopes, will be collected, treated, and contained on‐site using low impact development (LID) methods of drainage treatment. Infiltration trenches, rainwater gardens and small retention, or subsurface structures Ms. Carmen Borg 21 February 2013 Page 2 13302‐00.2006‐2/21/13 would be utilized. Figure 3‐11 shows the location of proposed drainage ditches and retention ponds. The first two sentences quoted above from the DEIR refer to accepted LID drainage features. However, the third sentence refers the reader to a drainage plan that shows only drainage ditches and centralized retention ponds (referred elsewhere in the DEIR as “detention basins”), which are not LID features. Based on our review of the DEIR (Project Description, Hydrology and Water Quality section, and the Hydrology and Hydraulics Report included in Appendix K), it appears that the actual drainage plan for the site was prepared and completed in 2003,1 prior to the inclusion of LID requirements in NPDES permits (and the widespread recognition of their benefits). The first two sentences from the DEIR excerpt above are describing some other drainage plan that is not presented in the DEIR. Without a clear, consistent, and detailed description of the proposed drainage plan, the reader of the DEIR cannot understand what the project is proposing and cannot effectively evaluate potential environmental impacts. Hydrology and Water Quality Much of the discussion of “existing conditions” related to hydrology and drainage appear to be based on work done approximately ten years ago, including a site reconnaissance conducted by Geocon2 in 2004 (DEIR page 4.9‐15) and the previously mentioned 2003 Hydrology and Hydraulics Report.3 It is unclear whether conditions observed 9‐10 years ago are still representative of existing conditions. The DEIR should be revised to, at minimum, include documentation of a more recent site reconnaissance and an updated drainage plan. The DEIR states that “for the two main ephemeral drainages on the project site, 100‐year floodplain limits and 50‐foot setbacks are shown on Figure 3‐6” (DEIR page 4.9‐16). Neither the 100‐year floodplain nor the 50‐foot setback limits are shown on Figure 3‐6 (or on any other figure in the Hydrology and Water Quality section). Figure 3‐6 appears to show the area of encroachment into the 50‐foot setback from the floodplain, but does not actually show the floodplain limits (or even all the creek alignments). Without this information, the reader cannot verify compliance with specified setbacks and encroachment related to bridge foundations. On page 4.9‐16, the DEIR states: Prior to initiation of construction, the project proponent would need to demonstrate that the post development design storm hydrograph leaving the project is not changed from pre‐project conditions such that downstream drainage structures (culverts, 1 CFA, 2003, Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report, Tahoe Boca, October 3. 2 Geocon, Inc is a geotechnical and environmental engineering firm, but their role in this development plan is not clearly explained in the DEIR, nor are any reports or supporting documentation prepared by them included in the DEIR attachments. 3 The DEIR refers to a 2007 Geocon report, but this document is not included in the DEIR and was not available for review. Ms. Carmen Borg 21 February 2013 Page 3 13302‐00.2006‐2/21/13 bridges, etc.) remain adequate post‐development. To this end, 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. The above excerpt from the DEIR appears to indicate that Geocon reviewed the project and suggested revisions to the drainage plan. Yet this Geocon report has not been included in the DEIR, nor has a summary of the suggested project revisions been described. Once again, the Project Description and the Hydrology and Water Quality section provide incomplete and potentially conflicting descriptions of the project. How is the reader of the DEIR supposed to understand what the drainage plan is if it is being revised by reports that are not included in the public record? Similarly, the DEIR (page 4.9‐16) indicates that “a revised site/drainage plan was prepared in April 2011, reflecting 37 fewer building lots than the original 2003 plan.” This revised plan was not included as part of the DEIR and was not available for this review. Page 4.9‐18 of the DEIR states that “the project would include construction of vegetated, earthen swales on both sides of the site’s crowned, paved roads to convey flows to decentralized treatment and infiltration facilities.” Collection and conveyance of stormwater to centralized treatment facilities is exactly the opposite of LID principles. The DEIR is internally contradictory and the 2003 drainage plan that was included in the DEIR appendix has not been designed to be fully compliant with an LID approach, as required under the current NPDES permits. The project drainage plan (and to the extent the LID drainage requirements affect the site plan and layout) should be redesigned. The Hydrology and Water Quality section of the DEIR has failed to demonstrate that an LID‐ type drainage approach is feasible at this site. For example, do the on‐site soils have an adequate infiltration capacity (since LID focuses on keeping runoff on‐site and infiltrating it)? The recently adopted Phase II General Permit4 specifies that any proposed LID treatment facilities be at least as effective as a bioretention system with: 1) a maximum surface loading rate of 5 inches per hour, based on the flow rates calculated (a sizing factor of 4 percent of tributary impervious area may be used); and 2) minimum surface reservoir volume equal to surface area times a depth of 6 inches (General Permit, page 110). It is unclear whether the drainage plan as proposed meets these criteria. The Hydrology and Water Quality section fails to address potential impacts to stormwater and snowmelt runoff water quality related to application of road salt. When snow and ice melts, the applied salt goes with it, potentially entering surface receiving waters (in this case Glenshire Pond) and/or underlying groundwater. Water quality degradation and related stress 4 State Water Resources Control Board, 2013, WDRs for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems General Permit, adopted February 5. Ms. Carmen Borg 21 February 2013 Page 4 13302‐00.2006‐2/21/13 and mortality to flora and fauna is an established result of road salt application.5,6 The DEIR makes no mention of this potential impact, which is particularly surprising since the project proposes to collect and convey road drainage to centralized detentions basins where the water would be infiltrated. This practice, of concentrating runoff into a few locations would increase the pollutant loading at those locations and increase the risk to groundwater quality degradation. Similarly, the DEIR fails to analyze potential construction period (e.g., sedimentation) water quality impacts to Glenshire Pond in the Hydrology and Water Quality section (Glenshire Pond is located approximately 4,000 feet west of the project site). Since most of the runoff from the site would drain to this pond, it is puzzling that the DEIR does not discuss potential impacts to this receiving water body in any way. The setting should provide all the relevant information that is needed for the reader of the DEIR to understand the current water quality conditions of this water body and its potential sensitivity to a new pollutant load, which would include sediment, nutrients (e.g. fertilizers), oil and grease, pesticides, and road salt. Overall, the DEIR fails to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation measures provided to address project construction and operation period water quality impacts would be effective. Mitigation measures HYDRO‐1 and HYDRO‐2 provide no specific performance standards by which to measure the effectiveness of the BMPs that the applicant might select. This is unacceptable under CEQA because it leaves for later critical decision‐making that could affect the effectiveness of the water quality measures, with no performance standard to ensure or gauge success. The DEIR acknowledges the uncertainty of the feasibility of adequately treating runoff by infiltration (which is touted as the primary treatment approach throughout the discussion) at this site by stating “other control measures may be considered if site constraints are such that construction of infiltration features is not feasible (DEIR page 4.9‐31). Relying on infiltration throughout the mitigation measures, and then indicating that it may not be feasible leaves the reader of the DEIR to wonder what types of measures will be used if infiltration is not feasible. Deferment of this feasibility analysis is unacceptable under CEQA. The feasibility analysis should be conducted now and the DEIR recirculated so that the reader of the DEIR has a clear, concise, and feasible drainage and stormwater treatment plan to review and comment upon. The DEIR states (page 4.9‐15) that “one well was observed on the site during the field reconnaissance, the well appeared to be capped and not in service.” The DEIR fails to provide any information about the location of the well relative to proposed grading and development is provided. During grading and construction, wells are frequently unnoticed and the wellhead 5 USEPA, 2013, The Influence of Road Salts on Water Quality in a Restored Urban Stream, website accessed 2‐ 12‐13: http://www.epa.gov/ada/eco/pdfs/road_salts.pdf 6 Cooper, C.A., P.M. Mayer, and B.R. Faulkner, (2008), The Influence of Road Salts on Water Quality in a Restored Urban Stream, in 16th National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Workshop. Edited by J. D'Ambrosio. Ms. Carmen Borg 21 February 2013 Page 5 13302‐00.2006‐2/21/13 sheared off or damaged. This can provide a preferential flowpath for contaminants at the surface to be introduced to groundwater, thereby degrading water quality. This potential should be identified as a significant impact and measures required to either properly abandon (i.e., seal) the well, or protect it during grading and construction. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, Bruce Abelli‐Amen Senior Hydrogeologist Cert. Hydrogeologist No. 96 BAA:km Canyon Springs SierraBluffsSF Flycasters TDLT/CDFW Tru c k e e R i v e r J u n i p e r C r e e k Gray C r e e k Ma r t i s C r e e k We s t F o r k G r a y C r e e k Bronco Creek We s t J u n i p e r C r e e k Prosser Creek Rivers & Streams Lakes & Reservoirs Town of Truckee Nevada Co. Parcels Nevada Co. Boundary Legend 00.511.520.25 Miles TDLT/TTAD Ü Canyon Springs Hydrology Map by: S. Taddo Jones 2/25/2013Sources: Nevada County, State of CA, USGS 1 INTERSTATE DEER PROJECT Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Report and Management Plan Update (Habitat Sections Only) 2010 Table of Contents Introduction …………………………………………………………………………. 2 Land Ownership …………………………………………………………..….……. 3 Vegetation/Land Cover ………………………………………….………….…...… 5 Grazing …………………………………………………………………………..…. 7 Fire History ………………………………………………………………….…….… 8 Seasonal Ranges …………………………………………………………….……. 10 Human Population Change ……………………………………………………..… 14 Exurban Growth ………………………….………………………………………… 15 Land Use Planning …..………………………………………………………..…… 18 Telemetry Studies ……………………………………………….…………..…...... 19 Resident versus Migratory Deer …………………………………………………. 28 Summary …………………………………………………………………….……… 29 Literature Cited …………………………………………………………..……….… 31 2 Introduction In April of 2009 the Interstate Deer Herd Committee of California and Nevada met to establish 2009 tag allocations for the interstate deer herds, and to discuss a project to identify areas of concern within interstate deer herds. The purpose of this project is to produce habitat related information to guide interactions with land management agencies, planning commissions, etc., in regards to mule deer, and possibly other species (sage grouse, antelope). Attending this meeting were California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) staff from the Deer Management Program in Sacramento: Craig Stowers, Mary Sommer, and David Casady; CDFG Regional biologists: Richard Callas, Terri Weist, Sara Holm, and Tim Taylor: and Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) biologists Mike Cox, Jason Salisbury, Chris Hampson, and Carl Lackey. The discussions about the project revolved around the need to document and quantify what habitat we have now as compared to what we used to have, and identifying the most obvious threats on summer and winter range. This project was initiated in 2007, but little work was accomplished due to work loads and other agency priorities. To get the project (now called the Interstate Deer Project) going, Mary Sommer was designated as the lead. The long term goal of the Interstate Project is to investigate all the interstate deer herds, however the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd was chosen as a pilot project due to the belief that development, especially in the Nevada portion of the herd range and in the Truckee, California area, and other issues have led to a critical situation in this herd. These concerns are shared by biologists from CDFG and NDOW. The Loyalton-Truckee deer herd is an interstate herd with winter ranges in both California and Nevada, and summer ranges in California. This herd comprises the bulk of California’s deer zones X7a and X7b, two highly sought after deer hunting areas. A secondary goal of this document is to update habitat related sections in the 1982 Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Management Plan. The plan contains information about the herd and its environment that was current in 1982, but much has changed in the years since its writing. While the main elements of vegetation, grazing, fire, seasonal ranges, and land ownership have remained of interest, the details and importance of each has changed over time. Other topics such as human population change, exurban growth, land use, and results of telemetry studies have been added to this report to supplement the original topics. The following sections are intended to accomplish two things: 1. Describe various habitat related issues and their progression over the past 20-30 years. 2. Update sections of the original Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Plan relating to habitat and migration patterns of the deer herd. 3 Land Ownership The states of California and Nevada share the land that comprises the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd, with approximately 77% within California and 23% Nevada. In California the vast majority is owned by the US Forest Service (50%) and private landowners (44%). Nevada’s portion of the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd range consists primarily of Private (38%), BLM (32%), and US Forest Service (29%). Land ownership is shown in Table 1 and the map in Figure 1. CALIFORNIA OWNERSHIP ACRES PERCENTAGE Bureau of Land Management 17,027.76 2.71% CA Dept. of Fish and Game 16,896.64 2.69% CA Dept. of Parks and Rec 3,164.17 0.50% Department of Defense 47.43 0.01% CA State Lands Commission 996.29 0.16% Private 277,164.7244.05% USDA Forest Service 313,902.2749.89% 629,199.27 100.00% NEVADA OWNERSHIP Bureau of Land Management 61,274.2632.23% Department of Defense 1,732.33 0.91% Forest Service 54,773.4628.81% Private 72,298.1538.03% Regional Park 37.75 0.02% 190,115.95 100.00% CA & NV COMBINED Private 349,462.8742.65% USDA Forest Service 368,675.7245.00% Bureau of Land Management 78,302.03 9.56% Department of Defense 1,779.75 0.22% Regional Park (Nevada) 37.75 0.00% CA Dept. of Fish and Game 16,896.64 2.06% CA Dept. of Parks and Rec 3,164.17 0.39% CA State Lands Commission 996.29 0.12% 819,315.21 100.00% 76.80%CA 23.20%NV Table 1. Land Ownership within the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Boundary Data sources California: Public and Conservation Lands, California Resources Agency Legacy Project, data relevant up to 2003. Nevada: Land Status Nevada, U.S. Dept. of the Interior – BLM - Nevada State Office – Mapping Sciences, data relevant for 1998-2007. 4 Figure 1. Land ownership of the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd. 5 Vegetation/Land Cover The general land cover types that characterize the habitat of the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd are listed in Table 2 below, and illustrated in Figure 2. The shrub/scrub classification is the most extensive, covering approximately 47% of the range mostly in the northeastern section, and dominating the Nevada portion. The next most common land cover type is the Evergreen Forest (36%), occurring in the south and central part of the range, as well as all along the western border. The Herbaceous type occupies approximately 10% of the herd range, mostly in the area of Sierra Valley. Land Cover for the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd LANDCOVER TYPEACRESPERCENTAGEOpen Water6,941.970.84%Developed, Open Space10,593.531.29%Developed, Low Intensity12,827.381.56%Developed, Medium Intensity4,183.340.51%Developed, High Intensity980.730.12%Barren Land3,541.360.43%Deciduous Forest106.070.01%Evergreen Forest298,325.4236.31%Shrub/Scrub385,249.0446.88%Herbaceous85,728.0010.43%Hay/Pasture6,070.800.74%Cultivated Crops1,490.630.18%Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands5,679.430.69% 821,717.70 100.00% Developed28,584.993.48%Agriculture (Hay/Pasture/Crops)7,561.420.92% Data Source: Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC)2001 National Land Cover Database Source data 2001 remote sensing imageryPublication_Date: 20030901 Table 2. Vegetation/land cover types of the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd 6 Figure 2. Land Cover types within the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd boundary. 7 Grazing When the 1982 Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Plan was written, livestock grazing on USFS and BLM grazing allotments had improved from a historical high level of overuse to a more moderate level of grazing. Since that time the numbers of livestock grazed has continued to decrease within the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd boundary. According to Roberta Lim, East Zone Range Management Specialist for the Tahoe National Forest, this is due in large part to the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970, and the resulting assessment of the effects of grazing on Federal lands. Standards that were set at NEPA’s inception have been modified over the years and are continually changing, with the trend being more stringent grazing standards. In the 1990’s the health of each individual grazing allotment was evaluated to see if standards were being met, and action was taken to ensure compliance to the latest grazing requirements (personal communication, 4 June 2010). The majority of grazing allotments within the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd area lie within the Tahoe National Forest. Reports generated by Roberta Lim, East Zone Range Management Specialist, Tahoe National Forest, 4 June 2010, show that there are currently 14 active allotments for a total of 7,849 AUM’s. The 1982 Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Plan lists 24 active allotments for the Tahoe National Forest with 14,257 AUM’s. This represents a substantial reduction in grazing over a large portion of the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd range. Of the grazing allotments on the Toiyabe National Forest that were listed in the 1982 plan, it has been confirmed by Courtney Priess, Range Management Specialist, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, that all are currently in vacant status and most have not been grazed since the 1990’s. Two other allotments that used to be BLM allotments (Peavine Watershed S&G and Peavine/Blacksprings S&G) have been permanently closed to grazing (personal communication, 3 June 2010). BLM grazing allotments also show a decline from a total of 16,294 AUM’s (from the 1982 Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Plan) to a current number of 13,095 AUM’s (Katrina Leavitt, BLM Carson City District, personal communication, June 2010). While grazing trends on private property are largely unknown, the decrease in competition from livestock grazing on public lands is most likely of benefit to the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd. 8 Fire History Despite active fire suppression efforts, fire is a common occurrence on the landscape of the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd. The majority of the winter range is composed of sagebrush and bitterbrush communities that are vital to deer populations. The East Side Pine community is an intermediate habitat type that includes conifers with sagebrush and mountain mahogany understory. Deer use this habitat type primarily in the summer. While a cool/light fire can rejuvenate vegetation, particularly in the conifer forest, fire on the shrub dominated winter range tends to burn hot and destroy habitat that recovers slowly at best. Figure 3 shows the locations of fires that burned in the years 1980-2008. Cheatgrass invasion Fire in sagebrush plant communities not only destroys brush forage species that deer depend on, but also opens the way for invasive plants such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) to become established. Cheatgrass is an exceptionally competitive annual grass due to its early germination in the fall and winter, well developed root system for water uptake, abundant seed production, and extended seed dormancy. This grass takes over after fire and outcompetes brush and other grasses. Cheatgrass also provides a fine textured, early maturing fuel that increases the incidence of fire (deVos et al. 2003). Cheatgrass has typically become established following fires in the sagebrush dominated plant communities of the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd range. A relatively small portion of the Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area burned in the Chilcoot fire of 2003, leaving an area of pure cheatgrass (Figure 4). In 2007 the Balls Canyon fire burned a much larger area of HJWLA, destroying 4,400 acres of prime deer habitat. This fire prompted extensive re-vegetation efforts, but it will still be decades before the range has anywhere near the value to deer that it did historically. Cheatgrass appears to be a relatively new addition to the landscape of the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd, as there is no mention of it in the 1982 Deer Herd Plan but it is now considered a serious invasive plant problem. 9 Figure 3. Fire perimeters recorded for 1980 – 2008. Data sources: Fire Perimeters (fire08_2), frap.cdf.ca.gov; Nevada Fire History, USDOI BLM Nevada State Office Geographic Sciences (NV_firehistory). 10 Figure 4. Photo of Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area showing cheatgrass invasion after fire. Fire area is on the left, unburned area on the right. Seasonal Ranges The 1982 Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Plan lists 3 well defined, geographically separate winter ranges used (5,000 – 6,000 ft. elevation) All of these winter ranges are dominated by bitterbrush-sagebrush habitat types: 1) Verdi Basin – 5 key ranges: 1)Sunrise basin, 2)Guest Ranch (Donner Trails), 3)Peavine Mtn, 4)Garson, 5)Belli 2) Sierra Valley 3) South Petersen Mtn, including Sand Hills Verdi Basin The Verdi Basin is an important wintering area for deer in the southern portion of this deer herd. The Verdi Basin winter ranges are located mostly in Nevada, and have been impacted extensively by development. 11 Sara Holm, CDFG Associate Wildlife Biologist describes impacts to these key areas: Garson Road is the present day Cabela's exit and runs mostly parallel to Hwy 80. The area is built up but deer are seen there. Beli Ranch is now a series of ranchettes on the south side of Hwy 80 but it does abut the open land as you go up the hill towards the Mt. Rose Wilderness Area. There is lots of use on the hillside but the ability for deer to get water from the Truckee River is very impacted with all the homes, streets and activity along the river. Peavine Mountain is mostly what you see to the north of Hwy 80 and is what we fly for comp counts. We see a lot of deer there but considering it also runs down into Somerset, which is a huge development, it has been highly impacted. This is also the site of the Verdi fire and a lot of habitat was wiped out from that too (personal communication, 14 September 2010). Mike Cox of NDOW estimates the percent loss of winter range in Nevada compared to historic in the following: Development has destroyed 40% (most critical because it was the lowest elevation and key during the killing winters), and severely comprised another 10%, with wildfires destroying 30% and another 10% having severely limited value due to older fires with ever-so-slight vegetation recovery (causing only a handful of deer to survive in it vs. several hundred), leaving only 10% intact winter range left (that could be generous). Some historic deer migrations most likely were all the way into Reno wrapping around to the southeast, but much of that is severed by development (personal communication, 14 September 2010). According to Carl Lackey of NDOW, the herd used to migrate all the way into the Truckee Meadows and east of Reno into the Virginia Range (personal communication, 17 September 2010). The 1982 Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Plan mentions that the construction of Hwy 80 in the 1960’s created a barrier to intermingling deer populations on the north and south sides of the Truckee River. There have been no deer collaring projects on the Verdi Basin deer since the 1982 Deer Herd Plan, and no movement studies since the 1970’s. However, a study was initiated in the fall of 2009, which is designed to answer questions regarding the movements of the deer that use the Verdi Basin. Preliminary data show that at least two of the collared does cross Highway 80 to travel between their summer and winter ranges. For more information on this study, see “Telemetry Studies” in this report. The Truckee River Wildlife Area is a complex of CDFG owned units totaling 3,880 acres in Nevada, Placer and Sierra counties, approximately 2 to 7 miles east of Truckee. While these units are located along the Truckee River and were mainly acquired for fisheries values, some provide valuable habitat for deer. The Canyon Unit and Union Ice Unit are the largest and most useful to deer. Recent collaring data show the Union Ice Unit to be a summer concentration and fawning area. 12 Sierra Valley There are two CDFG owned Wildlife Areas that provide important winter habitat to the deer in the Sierra Valley area. These are the Antelope Valley Wildlife Area and the Smithneck Creek Wildlife Area, both located in Sierra County near Loyalton, south of Highway 49. These Wildlife Areas were designated after the 1982 Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Plan was written. The Antelope Valley Wildlife Area is 5,616 acres largely covered by sagebrush interspersed with rabbit brush and bitterbrush at the lower elevations. The upper slopes are populated by Jeffrey pine, juniper, mountain mahogany, and chaparral plants. It is considered prime deer winter range, and was acquired to preserve critical deer winter range and migration corridors from development. The wildlife area is considered by sportsmen and the Department as a premier hunting area in California (California Department of Fish and Game, 2008). The Smithneck Creek Wildlife Area consists of 1,395 acres of a variety of habitats typical of the east side of the Sierra. The sagebrush-bitterbrush habitat is a critical deer winter-range area for migratory deer. Limited stands of yellow pine, mountain mahogany and juniper provide additional habitat for resident deer. Wet and dry meadows are found along Bear Valley Creek. Riparian habitat consisting of alders, willows and aspen provide cover along Bear Valley, Smithneck and Badenaugh Creeks. South Petersen Mountain The 1982 Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Plan lists South Petersen Mountain in Nevada as a winter range area, although it also stated that during mild winters deer may not cross 395 into Nevada, and instead winter in the Balls Canyon, Evans Canyon, and Coulee Canyon of Sierra County, California. At that time the NDOW fall composition counts in November and December showed large numbers of deer on top of Petersen Mountain. Chris Hampson, the NDOW biologist for the Petersen Mountain area, describes current conditions: “We have a much smaller resident herd now than what we had back in the early 80's. Continued human disturbance and encroachment, plus numerous wildfires have really impacted the Petersen's and surrounding areas. I do see mule deer in the fall but it certainly would not be large numbers by any means, and numbers are generally pretty low as far as the resident herd. Habitat changes on the ground along with the warmer/drier climate have hurt most deer herds in western Nevada.” Chris also points out that fire has been prevalent on the Petersen Mountains, with close to 10,000 acres lost in 2009. Some of the area that burned had been burned previously, but some good unburned habitat was also lost. There is “some important winter range on the SW corner still intact that is keeping some deer alive through the winter and some on 13 the Northern 1/3 of the range as well. Most in between has burned” (personal communication, 26 September 2010). The Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area is owned and managed by the CDFG, and is an important locale for wintering deer. This Wildlife Area covers 13,394 acres, is located in Lassen and Sierra Counties, and includes part of Balls Canyon and Evans Canyon. The habitat is a mosaic of sagebrush scrub, bitterbrush, Juniper woodlands, wet meadows and wetland habitats. The primary purpose of this land acquisition was the preservation of critical deer winter range and migration corridors from development (California Department of Fish and Game, 2009). This property was acquired after the 1982 Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Plan was written. Intermediate and Summer Ranges According to the 1982 Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Plan, intermediate and summer ranges cover 67% of the total range, of which 47% is publicly owned. Elevations range between 6,000 and 9,000 feet, and are typically dominated by sagebrush and Jeffrey pine vegetation types. Primary forage species are perennial grasses, green leaf manzanita, sagebrush, bitterbrush, and various species of Ceanothus (California Department of Fish and Game, 1982). While the area of intermediate and summer range is larger than that of the winter range, the quality of much of the habitat is thought to be degraded to a point where all summer range is important and can be considered essential to this deer herd. Patches of relatively rare habitat types such as meadows and aspen are critical as they are often used in summer for fawning. There have been land acquisitions and conservation easements within the summer range negotiated by the Truckee Donner Land Trust, a nonprofit organization that works to preserve and protect important historic, recreational, and scenic open spaces in the greater Truckee Donner region. To date, the Truckee Donner Land Trust has protected 16,296 acres, including 2,000 acres surrounding Independence Lake and 983 acres in Perrazo Meadows. In summary, while many habitats have been severely degraded by development and fire, there have been steps taken to preserve blocks of important deer range. 14 Human Population Change Growth of the human population is an important factor to consider due to the need for resources that an ever-growing population requires. Impacts from various aspects of human population growth, from residential development to recreational use, can influence wildlife populations. Human encroachment on deer habitat can impact habitat suitability in three ways: displacing deer through habitat occupation, reducing habitat suitability by altering the physical characteristics of that habitat, and displacing deer through disturbance, such as noise and activity (Sommer et al. 2007). Deer are displaced when their habitat is occupied by the construction of buildings, roads and other related development, or habitat is converted to another use such as agriculture. With these changes may come additional concerns to deer such as fences, livestock, and dogs. Increased roads can limit access to important habitats and increase mortality by vehicle collisions. Habitat suitability may be decreased when the physical characteristics of that habitat are altered. Unregulated off-highway vehicle (OHV) use can alter habitat characteristics through destruction of vegetation, soil compaction, and increased erosion. Excessive livestock grazing may alter habitat suitability by removing forage and cover species that deer rely on. Other land uses such as mining, energy developments, and landfills can alter habitat suitability by changing vegetation composition and new road installation. Deer are also displaced through disturbance, such as noise and activity. The U.S. Forest Service estimated that OHV use increased 7-fold during a recent 20 year period (Wisdom et al. 2005). Hiking, mountain biking, and ATV use are examples of other disturbances that are common on deer ranges. Recreational use, especially on public lands, occurs primarily in critical summer months, during fawning and lactation periods. Recreational use continues to grow as human populations expand. Table 3 shows the human population change by decade in each county that is part of the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd area. While much of the growth in California counties has occurred outside the boundaries of the deer herd (closer to the Sacramento area), local growth such as in the Truckee area and that of Washoe County near Reno has expanded into important habitats of the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd. 15 California 20001990198019701960 Lassen County33,82827,59821,66116,79613,597Nevada County92,03378,51051,64526,34620,911Placer County248,399172,796117,24777,63256,998Plumas County20,82419,73917,34011,70711,620Sierra County3,5553,3183,0732,3652,247 NevadaWashoe County339,486254,667193,623121,06884,743 California 1990 to 20001980 to 19901970 to 1980Total 30 year change Lassen County22.6027.4029.0079.00Nevada County17.2052.0096.00165.20Placer County43.8047.4051.00142.20Plumas County5.5013.8048.1067.40Sierra County7.108.0029.9045.00 NevadaWashoe County33.3031.5059.90124.70 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Percent Change of Population HUMAN POPULATION CHANGE FOR COUNTIES OF THE LOYALTON-TRUCKEE DEER HERD Population Table 3. Census data comparison by County. Exurban Growth Residential development beyond the urban fringe, sometimes called exurban sprawl or rural residential development, has resulted in extensive and widespread changes to the landscape across the United States. Theobald, 2005, describes this trend: “the general notion of urban sprawl is that the spatial spread of development proceeds at a greater rate than population growth, resulting in dispersed, low-density development”. As undeveloped rural areas are converted to exurban or possibly urban/suburban land use, natural resource values rapidly diminish. Theobald’s work has shown that nationwide, exurban land use occupies five to ten times more area than urban and suburban densities, and has been growing at a rate of about 10–15% per year, which exceeds the rate of urban development. These exurban areas are often located adjacent to or nearby protected lands, which may expose these lands to growth related impacts. 16 Theobald has produced a nationwide, fine-grained database of historical, current, and forecasted housing density, which can be used to quantify changes in growth patterns to infer possible ecological effects (Theobald, 2005). This database was used to quantify habitat altered by development on the privately owned land within the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd from 1960 to 2000 (Table 4). Within the deer herd boundary, undeveloped private land has decreased from 73% in 1960 to 46% in 2000. This represents a loss or conversion of 90,986 acres (26%) of undeveloped private land. This acreage has been redistributed among the other three classes shown in the table below. The greatest increase by percentage however, is in the exurban/urban/built-up classification which includes development of up to 10 acres per housing unit, plus commercial, industrial, and transportation. This is the most intensive type of development of the classes listed, and is the most detrimental to the deer herd. CLASS 2000 Percentage 1980 Percentage 1960 Percentage Undeveloped private 46%55%73%40 acres and above per unit 32%28%21%10 - 40 acres per unit 6%9%3%Exurban/urban & Urban/built-up 15%8%3% Exurban/urban/built-up = Up to 10 acres per housing unit, plus commercial, industrial, and transportation. Table 4. Percentages of development classes for selected years on privately owned land of the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd. The extent and growth of exurban sprawl within the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd area is striking. Figure 5 maps the spatial distribution of the changes in development class that have occurred from 1960 to the year 2000. In addition, the model used by Theobald to forecast future development shows an increasing trend in all development for the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd in 2010 (Table 5). Roads and sprawling neighborhoods are replacing and altering deer habitat, putting the survival and reproduction of portions of this deer herd at risk. Habitats have shrunk, fragmented, and in some cases disappeared altogether. Extensive and widespread land-use changes have occurred and are likely to continue. Class Name 2010 Acreage Percentage Undeveloped private Rural 1 111,961 32%40 acres and above per unit Rural 1 142,691 41%10 - 40 acres per unit Rural 2 15,177 4%Exurban/urban & Urban/built-up Exurban/urban/built-up 80,030 23% TOTAL 349,859 100% Table 5. Forcasted pattern of development classes for 2010. 17 Figure 5. Levels of development on privately owned land within the boundaries of the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd from 1960 to 2010. Blank areas (in white) are public lands. 18 Land Use Planning The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a statute passed in 1970 that requires California state and local agencies to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of the potential environmental impacts of development projects. Because CEQA makes environmental protection a mandatory part of every California state and local agency's decision making process, it has been somewhat effective in protecting the environment from some development issues. Nevada, unfortunately, does not have the same type of environmental protection. Each county within the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd boundary was contacted in an effort to obtain GIS data that could be used to map general plans and/or zoning for the herd area. Due to differences in classification systems between counties, and the absence of current GIS data for some areas, mapping proved to be problematic. However the information collected provides an overview of the trends in land use planning for each county. Following is a summarization of that information. The portion of the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd that lies within Washoe County Nevada is heavily impacted by development. Virtually all private property within that area is either under development or there are plans for it in the future. The land within the city limits of Reno is no exception. The City of Reno Master Plan Land Use shows the vast majority of property within the city to be slated for development incompatible with deer use. Plumas County in the northwest corner of the herd area has been zoned for various development levels up to 160 acre lots. Most of the area is zoned for lots of 20 – 160 acres, with some smaller areas zoned for lots less than 20 acres. To the east of Plumas County is a small area of Lassen County within the herd area. The best data available shows this to all be assigned lot size of less than 20 acres, however the reliability of the data are unknown. The Sierra County portion of the deer herd is comprised primarily of public lands and open space, with smaller localized areas zoned for 20 acres or less around Loyalton, Sierraville, Sattley, Calpine, and just west of Verdi. Nevada County has a good amount of public land and open space north of Truckee, however within the city limits of Truckee zoning is all parcels of 20 acres and less, and to the east and west of the city limits are areas of planned development. Placer County in the southern end of this deer herd includes the north and west shore of Lake Tahoe. The Lake Tahoe area, the southern half of Martis Valley, and several ski resorts along highways 89 and 267 comprise the bulk of the development in this county. USFS land is interspersed with private property which is zoned mostly for 20-160 acre parcels, with localized areas of smaller than 20 acre parcels. 19 Telemetry Studies There have been 3 deer telemetry collaring studies conducted on the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd since the writing of the 1982 Herd Plan; one in 1992-94, another in 2002-05, and the latest beginning in 2006 and is ongoing. CDFG Associate Wildlife Biologist Syd Kahre conducted the 1992-94 study in an effort to define migration corridors and seasonal use areas for the deer herd. 25 deer were captured at the Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area and fitted with VHS collars. Aerial surveys were used to track the collared deer, and locations were recorded using GPS. The resulting location information is shown in Figure 6. Jim Lidberg followed Syd Kahre as the next CDFG Associate Wildlife Biologist that worked with the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd. The collaring effort Jim conducted during 2002-2005 was a joint effort between the CDFG Sacramento Valley and Central Sierra Region (Region 2) and the Wildlife Programs Branch. The purpose of the study was three fold: 1) provide “markers” for locating individuals in the herd prior to conducting helicopter composition counts in December and March of each year; 2) collect data on distribution of the deer herd at various times of the year; and 3) determine habitat use by the herd. Deer were captured by a net gun fired from a helicopter and by herding deer with the helicopter into linear drive-nets. Deer were captured and fitted with VHS collars made by Telonics, which have a design life of up to 4 years. In 2002 there were 29 deer with collars, in 2003 there were 50, in 2004 there were 42, and in 2005 there were 18 deer with collars. Data were collected on flights conducted regularly over the period of the study. Location information collected for all collars is illustrated in Figure 7. 20 Figure 6. Deer locations from 1992-94 telemetry study. Locations were recorded by GPS during aerial flights. 21 Figure 7. Deer locations from 2002-05 telemetry study. 22 CDFG Associate Wildlife Biologist Sara Holm was the next biologist to study the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd with the Hwy 89 Stewardship Team telemetry study, initiated in 2006. This project is an ongoing effort by the Highway 89 Stewardship Team to identify crossing, migration corridor, summer and winter range boundary, and fawning areas. Through a series of grants the Team has completed the first of several anticipated mitigation underpass structures on Hwy 89 between Truckee and Sierraville, and will complete fencing to ensure safe passage across the highway for mule deer in the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd as well as other wildlife species. The overall 20-year plan for the Team includes research, mitigation and outreach. The collaring of 15 deer each year has helped to identify priority areas along the highway for crossing structures. The movement seen by these deer will impact land acquisition choices, habitat connectivity and restoration, tag quotas for the draw zones and interstate decisions about the herd. For this project deer were captured on the Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area, the Antelope Valley Wildlife Area, and a small number on summer ranges, beginning in 2006. Deer were captured by darting from the ground, and immobilized using the drugs telazole and zylazine. All but two of the collared deer were does, and each deer was fitted with a GPS collar. Collars were set to collect data every hour for a month and a half during migration (November and May) and once a day the rest of the year. Deer locations from 2006 through January of 2010 are shown in Figure 8. Using the location data collected in this study, seasonal use areas were delineated using Hawths Tools in ArcGIS. First the fixed kernel density estimator was used to calculate a grid of kernel density, and then 95% volume contours were created for summer and winter use areas. The 95% volume contour contain on average 95% of the points that were used to generate the kernel density estimate. Figures 9 and 10 illustrate summer and winter use areas for the portion of the herd covered by this study. 23 Figure 8. Locations collected by GPS collars 24 Figure 9. Summer contours – 95% of collar locations in July, August, and September occurred within the areas in red. 25 Figure 10. Winter contours – 95% of collar locations in January, February, and March occurred within the areas in blue. 26 Analysis of the telemetry data from 2006 – January 2010 also revealed information regarding the number of deer that did and did not migrate. In 2006, 1 of the 4 collared deer did not migrate (25%), and stayed at Antelope Valley Wildlife Area (AVWLA) near Palen Reservoir. This doe was captured and collared at AVWLA on 5/10/06. All locations recorded for this doe were within approximately 550 meters of each other. In 2007, 4 of the 7 collared deer did not migrate (57%), and all stayed at AVWLA where they were captured and collared. The 3 deer that migrated were captured at locations other than AVWLA. The 4 deer from AVWLA stayed within a 4-5 mile area. In 2008, 2 of the 10 collared deer did not migrate (20%), and stayed at Hallelujah Junction WLA and the private land just south of the WLA, all within 8 miles. Records show both were captured on 3/28/08 at EHJ Guz1 (East Hallelujah Junction, Guzzler 1?). In 2009, all 10 collared deer migrated. These data show that some deer do not migrate in the spring, and remain on what we have considered winter range all year. The data also show that for this sample of collared animals, all that did not migrate stayed in the area where they were captured. Verdi sub-unit The 1982 Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Plan describes two sub-units of the herd, the Sierra Valley sub-unit in the north and the Verdi sub-unit in the south. The studies mentioned so far in this report focused on the Sierra Valley sub-unit. A supplemental collaring project was initiated in October of 2009, which intends to track the movements of deer in the Verdi sub-unit. Specific movement related issues will be analyzed such as: 1) how the two sub-units interact, if at all; 2) how much deer movement occurs across hwy 80: and 3) How much movement into Nevada occurs. Initially the captures were conducted by CDFG wildlife staff on the Truckee Wildlife Area, plus a small number captured in the Glenshire area. NDOW has added at least 6 collared deer that were captured by helicopter. Figure 11 illustrates location information collected by 5 satellite collars as of summer 2010. These preliminary data show that the collared deer summer and give birth to their fawns along the Truckee River east of the town of Truckee, and use the Truckee River Wildlife Area extensively. In winter they migrate approximately 10 miles north and east to areas near Verdi. Two of the does cross Hwy 80 to move back and forth between their summer and winter ranges. Further data will be needed to determine where these deer cross the freeway, and where their specific migration routes are. Fall migration occurred in late November through December, and spring movements occurred in May for these collared does. 27 Figure 11. Location information from 5 satellite collared does. 28 Resident versus Migratory Deer There are both migratory and resident deer within the Loyalton-Truckee deer herd, with the resident population generally occupying portions of the winter ranges. Varying proportions of migratory and resident deer within a herd have been observed by researchers studying seasonal movements of deer (Stephenson et al., 2009, Kufeld et al., 1989; Loft et al., 1984). There are a variety of factors involved in determining if migration is advantageous. Migration typically provides access to habitats of higher quality which in turn results in increased nutrition, and often better resting and escape cover. Deer under these conditions potentially would be in better condition, leading to healthier fawns and increased reproductive success (Nicholson et al., 1997). However the possible drawbacks involved with migration may include increased predation, increased energetic costs, and disruption to migration corridors by human disturbance and barriers such as roads, residential development, and recreational use. For migration to be beneficial the costs of making the migration to and from the summer range must be outweighed by the gains associated with using that range. This balance often changes over time, as is illustrated by the following description of the Round Valley Deer study. Deer that winter in Round Valley (Mono and Inyo Counties) have undergone a substantial change in the proportion of deer that migrate over the past 20-25 years. Some of these deer travel over the Sierra Crest to summer on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada range, and the rest remain on the east side all year long. The west side summer ranges are much more mesic and forested compared to the sagebrush dominated habitats on the east side. In 1987 it was determined that >85% of the mule deer wintering in Round Valley migrated to occupy summer ranges west of the Sierra Crest, however by 2009 the proportion of does occupying summer range on either side of the Sierras had shifted to approximately 50:50 (Stephenson et al., 2009). In a long term study of Round Valley deer spanning 1997 – 2009, it was found that does summering on the east side of the Sierras have significantly higher fawn recruitment than the does summering on the west side. The same study revealed that causes of fawn mortality differ between the east and west side, with a large percentage (67%) of fawn mortality due to bear predation on the west side, and only 8% by bears on the east side. The main mortality factor on the east side was coyote predation (25%). In this instance, increased predation on the west side outweighed the benefits of the better habitat conditions, resulting in fewer fawns recruited to the population. The report points out that while bear control on the west side may result in improved fawn recruitment, the increased number of deer on the winter range would only serve to exacerbate the effects of an already forage limited winter range (Stephenson et al., 2009). 29 Each deer population has its own unique set of factors that influence migration. In some areas resident deer appear to be on the increase, and have the potential to severely impact winter range that is already overstocked with deer. During harsh winters the range may not be able to support all deer present, leading to high levels of winter mortality. Increased densities of malnourished deer also provide an environment that invites the spread of disease. Meanwhile summer range may be under-utilized by deer. Lack of deer in the forest in summer and fall is recognized by hunters as well as those that value deer for their intrinsic significance. Summary The Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd has experienced various changes since the writing of the 1982 deer herd plan, not all of which have been detrimental to deer. Land acquisitions targeting deer habitat have conserved and protected prime deer range. Of particular note are three areas that are used extensively by this deer herd; the Hallelujah Junction and Antelope Valley Wildlife Areas in the north and the Truckee River Wildlife Area in the south. In addition, decreased livestock grazing on US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management property may be of benefit to the deer herd. Nevertheless, issues remain that have significant negative consequences to this deer herd. The 1982 Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Plan described a severe decline in deer numbers during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, and cited “a combination of factors including, but not limited to, loss of habitat through human encroachment, significant mortality on highways and railroads, reduced habitat productivity resulting from natural vegetational changes, and harassment caused by greatly increased human recreational use.” These issues still exist today, although in some cases in a slightly modified form. Fire continues to be an issue, especially in brush dominated habitats which are vital to the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd. A relatively new complication in the fire regime is the introduction of the invasive annual cheatgrass, which often takes over after fire and out-competes native vegetation. Once established, cheatgrass is prone to burning, decreasing the time between fires and preventing establishment of shrub species. Mortality due to highways and railroads may have decreased as the size of the deer herd has declined, however it is still a significant problem in certain areas. The Highway 89 Stewardship Project is addressing this problem in a particularly lethal stretch of Highway 89 that lies across the herd’s migration route in Sierra County. Climate has always been of concern in the context of too little or too much precipitation, and/or excessively cold winter conditions. Current views are also recognizing the issue of climate change and its possible affects on wildlife. For 30 the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd, there is speculation that migration into Nevada is decreasing due to warmer, drier winters. It is believed that the more severe the winter, the farther into Nevada these deer travel to reach suitable winter habitat. Habitat changes resulting from residential development and recreational use are currently the biggest concern for the future of this deer herd. Approximately 43% of the land supporting the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd is privately owned. A significant issue impacting this herd today involves changes in land use on private land. While changes due to development are most visible around the Reno, Nevada and Truckee, California areas, there are many areas subject to less obvious changes that nonetheless impact deer. The concept of exurban growth (rural residential development) is relatively new, and this type of development has been expanding even more quickly than human population growth. It is fortunate that there exists a large amount of US Forest Service owned land located along the main migration route to and from seasonal ranges in the northern portion of the area. This will help prevent habitat fragmentation, such is occurring in the southern part of the range, and allow migration of a major portion of this deer herd. The Verdi sub-unit of the herd appears to be in trouble, and the future of these migratory deer is not as hopeful. While there are numerous concerns regarding the health of the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd, there is significant work being done to ensure the long term viability of the herd. Telemetry studies are essential to expand our knowledge regarding current migration routes and seasonal use areas. Identification of areas used by deer on both public and private property will help to focus conservation efforts efficiently to support this deer herd. Within the Habitat Element of the 1982 Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd plan the main objective is to “improve fawning success and summer range habitat capacity through habitat alteration and improvement. Protect critical winter ranges from further encroachment due to human activities; improve the capacity of winter habitats wherever possible.” These objectives are still valid, and should continue to guide acquisition and habitat improvement projects. Specific recommendations will need to be coordinated with agency biologists for the project areas. 31 Literature Cited California Department of Fish and Game. 2009. Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area Land Management Plan. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, USA. California Department of Fish and Game. 2008. Antelope Valley and Smithneck Creek Wildlife Areas Final Land Management Plan, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, USA. California Department of Fish and Game. 1982. Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Plan. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, USA. deVos, Jr. J. C, M. R. Conover, and N. E. Headrick. 2003. Mule Deer Conservation: Issues and management Strategies. Berryman Institute Press, Utah State University, Logan, USA. Kufeld, R. C., D. C. Bowden, and D. L. Schrupp. 1989. Distribution and movements of female mule deer in the Rocky Mountain foothills. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 53:871-877. Loft, E. R., J. W. Menke, and T. S. Burton. 1984. Seasonal movements and summer habitats of female black-tailed deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 48:1317-1325. Nicholson, M. C., R. T. Bowyer and J. G. Kie. 1997. Habitat Selection and Survival of Mule Deer: Tradeoffs Associated with Migration. Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 78, No. 2. (May, 1997), pp. 483-504. Sommer, M. L., R. L. Barboza, R. A. Botta, E. B. Kleinfelter, M. E. Schauss and J. R. Thompson. 2007. Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: California Woodland Chaparral Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Stephenson, T. R. and K. L. Monteith. 2009. Form 872 Post-Project Evaluation Report for Project #608.08 Population Dynamics of an Eastern Sierra Deer Herd, and Assessment of Impacts Associated with Development. Deer Herd Management Plan Implementation Program, California Department of Fish and Game. Theobald, D. 2005. Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecology and Society 10(1): 32. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art32/ Wisdom, M. J., A. A. Ager, H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, and B. K. Johnson. 2005. Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer and elk. Pages 67-80 in M. J. 32 Wisdom, technical editor. The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. Environmental Health Perspectives • volume 120 | number 6 | June 2012 831 Research Tropospheric ozone and black carbon (BC), a component of fine particulate matter (PM ≤ 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter; PM2.5), have been associated with deleterious effects on human health (e.g., Jerrett et al. 2009; Laden et al. 2006; Pope et al. 2002), agriculture (e.g., Ashmore 2005), and climate (e.g., Ramanathan and Carmichael 2008). Methane, a relatively short-lived greenhouse gas (residence time 8–10 years), is an ozone precursor that affects background ozone concentrations. Controlling methane emissions may be a promising means of simultaneously mitigating climate change and reducing global ozone concentrations, compared with controlling shorter-lived ozone precursors [nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs)] (West et al. 2006, 2007). The latter may have larger and more immediate air quality and health benefits near the areas with emission reductions but smaller benefits (CO, NMVOC) or net disbenefits (NOx) for climate. Major anthropogenic sources of methane include fossil fuel production and distribution, landfills, livestock, rice cultivation, and wastewater treatment. BC is a product of incomplete combustion from sources such as biomass burning, transportation (mainly diesel vehicles), residential combustion, and industry, and is coemitted with other pollutants, including NOx, NMVOCs, CO, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and organic carbon. Climate benefits of reducing BC may be partially offset by associated reductions of coemitted pollutants that may have a net cooling effect on climate (and a net warming effect when reduced), either directly (organic carbon) or after chemical transformation in the atmosphere (organic carbon, SO2, and NOx). However, all emission reductions leading to reduced ozone and PM2.5 concentrations would be expected to have health benefits. Mitigating ozone and BC may ben- efit climate and health simultaneously (e.g., Jacobson 2002; Smith et al. 2009; West et al. 2006); because methane and BC are short- lived relative to the long-lived greenhouse gases [e.g., carbon dioxide (CO2)], mitigation would reduce the rate of climate change in the near-term (Jackson 2009; Ramanathan and Carmichael 2008). Although a recent series of studies has examined the ancillary health benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation (Haines et al. 2009), the health benefits of mitigating ozone and BC as climate forcers have been studied less extensively. Studies examining the health impacts of all fossil fuel and biofuel emissions (Jacobson 2010), percentage reduc- tions in ozone precursors (West et al. 2006) and BC (Anenberg et al. 2011), and adoption of European vehicle emission standards in the Address correspondence to S.C. Anenberg, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, MC-6301A, Washington, DC 20460 USA. Telephone: (202) 564-2065. Fax: (202) 564-1543. E-mail: anenberg.susan@epa.gov *Current address: Eurasia Institute of Earth Sciences, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey. Supplemental Material is available online (http:// dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104301). We thank the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) for making this work pos- sible. We also thank the many coauthors and review- ers of the UNEP/WMO Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone for their con- tributions along the way. The opinions expressed in this article are the authors’ and do not necessarily represent those of their employers, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The authors declare they have no actual or potential competing financial interests. Received 4 August 2011; accepted 14 March 2012. Global Air Quality and Health Co-benefits of Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change through Methane and Black Carbon Emission Controls Susan C. Anenberg,1 Joel Schwartz,2 Drew Shindell,3 Markus Amann,4 Greg Faluvegi,3 Zbigniew Klimont,4 Greet Janssens-Maenhout,5 Luca Pozzoli,5* Rita Van Dingenen,5 Elisabetta Vignati,5 Lisa Emberson,6 Nicholas Z. Muller,7 J. Jason West,8 Martin Williams,9 Volodymyr Demkine,10 W. Kevin Hicks,6 Johan Kuylenstierna,6 Frank Raes,5 and Veerabhadran Ramanathan11 1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA; 2Department of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; 3NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA; 4International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria; 5European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy; 6Stockholm Environment Institute, Environment Department, University of York, York, United Kingdom; 7Department of Economics, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont, USA; 8Environmental Sciences and Engineering Department, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA; 9Environmental Research Group, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom; 10United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya; 11Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California–San Diego, San Diego, California, USA Background : Tropospheric ozone and black carbon (BC), a component of fine particulate matter (PM ≤ 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter; PM2.5), are associated with premature mortality and they disrupt global and regional climate. oB jectives : We examined the air quality and health benefits of 14 specific emission control measures targeting BC and methane, an ozone precursor, that were selected because of their potential to reduce the rate of climate change over the next 20–40 years. Methods : We simulated the impacts of mitigation measures on outdoor concentrations of PM2.5 and ozone using two composition-climate models, and calculated associated changes in premature PM2.5- and ozone-related deaths using epidemiologically derived concentration–response functions. results : We estimated that, for PM2.5 and ozone, respectively, fully implementing these measures could reduce global population-weighted average surface concentrations by 23–34% and 7–17% and avoid 0.6–4.4 and 0.04–0.52 million annual premature deaths globally in 2030. More than 80% of the health benefits are estimated to occur in Asia. We estimated that BC mitigation mea- sures would achieve approximately 98% of the deaths that would be avoided if all BC and methane mitigation measures were implemented, due to reduced BC and associated reductions of non- methane ozone precursor and organic carbon emissions as well as stronger mortality relationships for PM2.5 relative to ozone. Although subject to large uncertainty, these estimates and conclusions are not strongly dependent on assumptions for the concentration–response function. conclusions : In addition to climate benefits, our findings indicate that the methane and BC emission control measures would have substantial co-benefits for air quality and public health worldwide, potentially reversing trends of increasing air pollution concentrations and mortality in Africa and South, West, and Central Asia. These projected benefits are independent of carbon dioxide mitigation measures. Benefits of BC measures are underestimated because we did not account for benefits from reduced indoor exposures and because outdoor exposure estimates were limited by model spatial resolution. key words : air quality, climate change, health impact analysis, outdoor air, particulate matter. Environ Health Perspect 120:831–839 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104301 [Online 14 March 2012] Anenberg et al. 832 volume 120 | number 6 | June 2012 • Environmental Health Perspectives developing world (Shindell et al. 2011) sug- gest that controlling methane and BC emis- sions may substantially benefit global public health, particularly in Asia where large popu- lations are exposed to high PM2.5 and ozone concentrations (Ramanathan et al. 2008). The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) there- fore initiated an integrated assessment of the potential climate, health, agricultural, and economic benefits that would be achieved by further implementing methane and BC mitigation measures already employed in vari- ous parts of the world (UNEP 2011). In the present study, we used emissions scenarios developed for the UNEP/WMO assessment to examine the potential air quality and health benefits of methane and BC mitigation mea- sures in more detail. Methods Emission scenarios and modeling. We used five emissions scenarios developed for the UNEP/ WMO assessment to examine methane and BC mitigation impacts on air quality and health globally and in five world regions [see Supplemental Material, Figure 1 (http://dx.doi. org/10.1289/ehp.1104301)]. These scenarios include a present-day (2005) reference case, a 2030 reference scenario that incorporates International Energy Agency energy projec- tions (International Energy Agency 2009) and all presently agreed upon (but no additional) policies affecting emissions (see Supplemental Material, Table 2 and Figure 2), and three dif- ferent policy scenarios in which varying degrees of additional emission controls are imple- mented by 2030. To isolate the impacts of anthropogenic emission changes, all scenarios assume identical meteorology and natural emissions [including open biomass burning (i.e., wildfires); year 2000]. The emission sce- narios and their projected effects on climate are detailed by Shindell et al. (2012) and are sum- marized in Supplemental Material, pp. 4–9. We selected the three policy scenarios based on an evaluation of the potential cli- mate impacts of approximately 2,000 mitiga- tion measures defined in the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies (GAINS) model (Amann et al. 2011). Climate impacts of each measure were classified according to CO2 equivalence, which was calculated based on global warm- ing potential (GWP) over a 100-year time horizon for predicted methane, CO, SO2, NOx, NMVOCs, BC, organic carbon, and CO2 emission changes following implemen- tation of the control measure (Shindell et al. 2012). Based on this evaluation, we identified 14 individual methane and BC control mea- sures that would achieve approximately 90% of the climate benefits feasible for all of the evaluated measures combined (according to the CO2 equivalence metric). The 14 measures were grouped into three increasingly strin- gent policy scenarios for 2030 [Table 1; see also Supplemental Material, pp. 4–8 (http:// dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104301)]. The first scenario includes seven technological mea- sures for controlling methane emissions. The second adds four technological measures (BC group 1) for reducing emissions of incomplete combustion, including implementation of Euro 6 and Euro VI equivalent vehicle emis- sion standards (requiring installation of diesel particulate filters) (European Union 2010, 2011) and improving traditional biomass cook stoves in developing countries. We assumed that emission factors for cook stoves would decline in all regions to levels consistent with emissions from rocket stoves, resulting in a 25% decrease in BC and 80–90% decreases in other species, including organic matter, CO, NMVOC, methane, and direct PM2.5, relative to emissions from traditional stoves (MacCarty et al. 2008). Realistically, emission reductions from cookstoves could be lower depending on stove adoption and use; however, other stove technologies may also be more effec- tive at lowering emissions. Finally, the third and most stringent policy scenario adds three regulatory measures (BC group 2) to eliminate high-emitting vehicles, biomass cook stoves (in developing countries), and agricultural waste burning. We simulated ozone and PM2.5 concen- trations using two global composition-cli- mate models, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) model for Physical Understanding of Composition-Climate INteractions and Impacts (GISS-PUCCINI; Shindell et al. 2006), and the ECHAM- HAMMOZ model (Pozzoli et al. 2008), referred to here as GISS and ECHAM. We assumed that mitigation measures would be fully implemented and their impacts on con- centrations fully realized by 2030. Methane concentrations (accounting for chemical and biological loss processes) were averaged over years 15–19 of each simulation to realize the steady-state effects of methane reductions, although additional minor impacts may occur beyond this period. GISS has a horizontal res- olution of 2° latitude × 2.5° longitude with 40 vertical layers from the surface to 0.1 hec- topascal (hPa). ECHAM has a horizontal reso- lution of 2.8° × 2.8° and 31 vertical layers up to 10 hPa. Both models simulate BC, organic carbon, SO4, sea salt, and dust. GISS also includes nitrate (NO3). We multiplied simu- lated organic carbon concentrations by 1.4 to estimate total organic matter concentrations (Cooke et al. 1999). Using a different conver- sion factor would affect organic matter concen- trations proportionally. Because these coarse model resolutions cannot capture fine con- centration gradients, particularly for primary PM2.5 species (BC and organic carbon) around urban areas, we allocated BC and organic carbon to 0.5° × 0.5° resolution according to population density, following Shindell et al. (2011; see their Supplemental Information). All other species, including ozone, SO4, and NO3, were simply regridded to 0.5° × 0.5° resolution, because secondary pollutants are generally more spatially homogeneous. For the main results, we excluded dust and sea salt (which are assumed to be natural) and use the health impact function described below. We also examined the sensitivity of mortality results to inclusion of dust and sea salt and to Table 1. Description of the 14 methane and BC mitigation measures included in the three increasingly stringent policy scenarios for 2030. Scenario Mitigation measure Methane measures: technical measures for methane emissions Extended pre-mine degasification and recovery and oxidation of methane from ventilation air from coal mines Extended recovery and use—rather than venting—of associated gas and improved control of unintended fugitive emissions from the production of oil and natural gas Reduced gas leakage from long-distance transmission pipelines Separation and treatment of biodegradable municipal waste through recycling, composting, and anaerobic digestion as well as landfill gas collection with combustion/utilization Upgrading primary wastewater treatment to secondary/tertiary treatment with gas recovery and overflow control Control of methane emissions from livestock, mainly through farm-scale anaerobic digestion of manure from cattle and pigs Intermittent aeration of continuously flooded rice paddies BC group 1: technical measures for reducing emissions of incomplete combustion Diesel particle filters as part of a Euro VI package for road and off-road diesel vehicles Introduction of clean-burning stoves for cooking and heating in developing countries Replacing traditional brick kilns with vertical shaft kilns and Hoffman kilns Replacing traditional coke ovens with modern recovery ovens, including the improvement of end-of-pipe abatement measures in developing countries BC group 2: nontechnical measures to eliminate the most polluting activities Elimination of high-emitting vehicles in road and off-road transport (excluding shipping) Ban of open field burning of agricultural waste Substitution of clean-burning cook stoves using modern fuels for traditional biomass cook stoves in developing countries Health impacts of black carbon and methane controls Environmental Health Perspectives • volume 120 | number 6 | June 2012 833 different magnitudes and shapes of the health impact function. Health impact assessment. We used epidemiologically derived health impact functions to estimate changes in premature PM2.5- and ozone-related mortality between the 2030 reference scenario and 2005, and between the 2030 reference scenario and the three policy scenarios individually, using 2030 population projections for all scenario comparisons to isolate the impacts of simulated concentration changes. We assumed log-linear relationships between PM2.5 or ozone concentrations and relative risks (RR), following Anenberg et al. (2010), and calculated the fraction of baseline deaths attributable to a given change in concentration (attributable fraction; AF) as AF = (RR – 1)/RR = 1 – exp–β∆X, [1] where β is the concentration–response factor (CRF, the estimated slope of the log-linear relation between PM2.5 or ozone concentra- tion and mortality) and ∆X is the change in pollutant concentration. We multiplied AF by the baseline mortality rate (y0) and population size (Pop) to estimate the change in premature deaths (∆Mort) that would result from a given change in concentration (∆X): ∆Mort = y0 × Pop × (1 – exp–β∆X). [2] Because disease survival times vary among populations, we estimated the change in years of life lost (∆YLL) due to a change in prema- ture deaths using the baseline YLL (YLL0) per death: ∆YLL = ∆Mort × YLL0/y0. [3] We applied Equations 2 and 3 in each 0.5° × 0.5° grid cell using corresponding population sizes, baseline mortality and YLL rates, and the simulated changes in PM2.5 and ozone concentrations. We calculated CRFs for PM2.5 based on long-term RR estimates starting from the American Cancer Society (ACS) cohort study (Pope et al. 2002). Specifically, for a 10-µg/m3 increase in annual average PM2.5, RRs for all-cause, cardiopulmonary disease, and lung cancer mortality were 1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02, 1.11), 1.09 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.16), and 1.14 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.23), respectively, when averaged based on data for 1979–1983 and 1999–2000. Although the ACS cohort was large compared with other PM2.5 cohort studies [e.g., the Harvard Six Cities Study (Laden et al. 2006)], results may underestimate the PM2.5–mortality relationship because well-educated affluent populations are overrepresented in the cohort and because exposure was measured with greater error than in other studies. A 2008 expert elicitation (including ACS authors) produced a mean all-cause mortality CRF estimate [approximately 1.1% mortality increase per 1-µg/m3 increase in PM2.5 (Roman et al. 2008)] that was between the CRFs calculated from the ACS (~ 0.6%) and Harvard Six Cities Study (~ 1.6%) RR estimates. The expert elicitation (Roman et al. 2008), however, did not estimate cause- specific RRs, which may be more applicable globally than all-cause mortality. We therefore multiplied the cause-specific CRFs calculated from the Pope et al. (2002) RR estimates by 1.8, the factor difference between the all-cause CRFs from the expert elicitation mean and Pope et al. (2002). A newer ACS reanalysis reported 40% higher cardiopulmonary effect estimates with tighter confidence intervals for all RR estimates (Krewski et al. 2009), but Figure 1. Estimated changes in annual average PM2.5 (µg/m3) and seasonal (6‑month) average 1‑hr daily maximum ozone (ppb) concentration for the 2030 reference scenario relative to 2005, based on the GISS and the ECHAM models. GISS, PM2.5 GISS, ozone ppbµg/m3 ECHAM, PM2.5 ECHAM, ozone –5 50 010–10 Anenberg et al. 834 volume 120 | number 6 | June 2012 • Environmental Health Perspectives these results were not available for the expert elicitation. Therefore, we examined the effect of these RRs in a sensitivity analysis only. Other recent cohort studies have reported considerably larger estimated effect sizes than the expert mean judgment (e.g., Miller et al. 2007; Puett et al. 2009), suggesting that our approach is conservative. Although some BC-rich PM2.5 mixtures may be more toxic than other mixtures (Maynard et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2009), we assumed that all PM2.5 components and mixtures are equally toxic because evidence for differential toxicity is currently inconclusive. For ozone, we used long-term RR esti- mates from the ACS cohort (Jerrett et al. 2009) based on a two-pollutant model that controlled for PM2.5, in which ozone was sig- nificantly associated only with death from respiratory causes. For a 10-ppb increase in the seasonal (6-month) average of 1-hr daily maximum ozone, the RR of respiratory dis- ease was 1.04 (95% CI: 1.010, 1.067). The study by Jerrett et al. (2009) was the first major study to find a significant positive rela- tionship between chronic ozone exposure and mortality in a general population; biologi- cal plausibility for this result is supported by evidence from toxicology and human expo- sure studies showing that ozone affects air- way inflammation, pulmonary function, and asthma induction and exacerbation (National Resource Council 2008). Global extrapolation of U.S.-based RR estimates for both PM2.5 and ozone is supported by generally consis- tent short-term PM2.5 and ozone mortality relationships around the world (e.g., Health Effects Institute 2010). We used simulated concentrations in the first model layer for surface concentrations, and used annual average concentrations for PM2.5 and the maximum 6-month average of the 1-hr daily maximum for ozone, consistent with the epidemiology studies. We projected population growth (global population is pro- jected to increase to 8.4 billion in 2030) based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) B2 scenario, which is near the center of projected population growth estimates for the different SRES scenarios (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000). We esti- mated mortality only for the fraction of the population ≥ 30 years of age to be consistent with the age range of the ACS cohort, and we used present-day baseline mortality and YLL rates from the World Health Organization as described previously by Anenberg et al. (2010). Results Impacts of the future reference scenario. Both the GISS and ECHAM models indicated that PM2.5 and ozone concentrations would change dramatically, and with great spatial variability around the world, in the 2030 reference sce- nario relative to baseline estimates for 2005 (Figure 1). Projected concentration changes are solely due to emission changes because meteorology was held constant. Changes in climate would also impact concentrations to a lesser degree (e.g., Jacobson 2008). We estimated that these concentration changes would substantially affect air pollution- related mortality around the world. Unless otherwise specified, ranges reported for expected changes in mortality and YLL represent the lowest and highest 95% CI bounds estimated using either the GISS or the ECHAM model, where the 95% CIs reflect uncertainty in the CRF. We expect that regulations that are currently in place or planned in North America and Europe will reduce PM2.5 and ozone concentrations substantially, resulting in 0.1–0.8 million avoided PM2.5-related deaths per year (0.5–4.8 million YLL) in 2030, with the majority of avoided deaths in Europe [Figure 2; see also Supplemental Material, Figures 4 and 5 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ ehp.1104301)]. Regulations are also expected to reduce PM2.5 concentrations in East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific, resulting in 0.1–1.1 million avoided PM2.5-related deaths (0.4–7.7 million YLL) annually, based on 2030 population projections. However, we estimated Table 2. Global simple and population‑weighted (Pop‑wt) average reductions in annual average PM2.5 (µg/m3) and maximum 6‑month average 1‑hr daily maxi‑ mum ozone (ppb) concentrations, avoided PM2.5 cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deaths and ozone respiratory deaths (millions), and avoided YLL (millions) based on 2030 population projections for increasingly stringent mitigation policies relative to the baseline scenario for 2030. Methane measures Methane and BC group 1 measures Methane, BC group 1, and BC group 2 measures Result PM2.5 Ozone PM2.5 Ozone PM2.5 Ozone Simple average GISS –0.01 3.08 0.15 5.34 0.22 5.66 ECHAM –0.03 3.60 0.18 4.00 0.27 3.92 Pop-wt average GISS –0.03 2.82 2.90 9.95 3.98 11.0 ECHAM –0.12 4.09 3.59 4.96 4.92 4.71 Avoided deaths GISS –0.02 (–0.01, –0.03)0.07 (0.02, 0.11)1.39 (0.46, 2.47)0.28 (0.09, 0.47)1.93 (0.63, 3.48)0.31 (0.10, 0.52) ECHAM –0.06 (–0.02, –0.11)0.10 (0.03, 0.17)1.74 (0.57, 3.12)0.13 (0.04, 0.21)2.42 (0.78, 4.40)0.12 (0.04, 0.20) Avoided YLL GISS –0.12 (–0.04, –0.21)0.61 (0.20, 1.01)11.8 (3.85, 21.0)2.54 (0.82, 4.28)16.2 (5.25, 29.3)2.81 (0.90, 4.74) ECHAM –0.59 (–0.20, –1.01)0.94 (0.31, 1.56)14.9 (4.86, 26.6)1.15 (0.38, 1.92)20.5 (6.63, 37.4)1.06 (0.35, 1.76) 95% CIs (shown in parentheses) reflect uncertainty in the CRFs for PM2.5‑ and ozone‑related mortality only. Estimates are based on simulations using the GISS and ECHAM models. Figure 2. Estimated changes in premature PM2.5‑related mortality (cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deaths) and ozone‑related mortality (respiratory deaths) for the 2030 reference scenario and assuming implementation of methane plus BC group 1 and BC group 2 (all) measures relative to 2005, based on 2030 population projections. 95% CIs reflect uncertainty in the CRF only. 2 1 0 –1 –2 –3 Pr e m a t u r e d e a t h s ( m i l l i o n s ) Africa Latin America and Carribean North America and Europe South, West, and Central Asia East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Pacific 2030 reference, GISS 2030 reference, ECHAM All measures, GISS All measures, ECHAM Health impacts of black carbon and methane controls Environmental Health Perspectives • volume 120 | number 6 | June 2012 835 that increased ozone concentrations in East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific would cause 0–0.2 million additional premature ozone-related deaths (0.1–1.4 million YLL) per year. In addition, increased PM2.5 and ozone concentrations in South, West, and Central Asia resulting from rapid emissions growth would cause an estimated 0.1–1.8 million (1.2– 15.9 million YLL) additional PM2.5-related premature deaths and 0–0.2 million (0.1–2.4 million YLL) additional ozone-related premature deaths annually. Benefits of the mitigation measures. Relative to the 2030 reference scenario, implement- ing the methane measures (Table 1) would decrease seasonal (6-month) average 1-hr daily maximum ozone concentrations by 3–4 ppb (Table 2 and Figure 3). Projected ozone con- centrations decreased fairly evenly across the globe due to the relatively longer lifetime of methane compared with other ozone precur- sors (e.g., NOx, VOCs). However, simulated annual average PM2.5 concentrations increased slightly from northern Africa to the Indian subcontinent in response to the methane mea- sures due to particle formation resulting from changes in oxidant concentrations (Table 2 and Figure 4), as demonstrated previously by West et al. (2006). However, when BC and methane measures were applied together, these increases Figure 3. Estimated changes in seasonal (6‑month) average 1‑hr daily maximum ozone concentration (ppb) in 2030 for successive implementation of methane measures, methane plus BC group 1 measures, and methane plus BC group 1 and BC group 2 (all) measures, relative to the 2030 reference scenario, based on the GISS and the ECHAM models. GISS, methane measures ECHAM, methane measures GISS, and BC group 1 measures GISS, all measures –30 300 ECHAM, all measures ECHAM, and BC group 1 measures ppb Anenberg et al. 836 volume 120 | number 6 | June 2012 • Environmental Health Perspectives were projected only by the ECHAM model and were limited to a small area off the coast of eastern Africa and India. Adding the BC measures would reduce population-weighted PM2.5 concentrations by 4–5 µg/m3 compared with the 2030 reference scenario. Adding BC measures would also decrease ozone concen- trations due to reductions in coemitted ozone precursors, but GISS projected larger reduc- tions (11 ppb reduction when methane and BC measures were applied together) than did ECHAM (5 ppb reduction). Projected reduc- tions in ozone concentrations resulting from the BC measures were localized near the emis- sions sources (primarily in South and East Asia where emissions are largest) because of the short atmospheric lifetime of the ozone precur- sors that are affected by the BC measures [NOx and CO; see Supplemental Material, Figure 3 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104301)]. Spatial patterns of simulated concentration changes were similar for both models, but GISS projections for ozone were more sensi- tive to precursors that would be affected by BC measures, whereas ECHAM projected greater reductions in ozone in response to the methane measures and greater reductions in PM2.5 in response to BC measures. We estimated that implementing all mea- sures would avoid 0.6–4.4 million PM2.5- related deaths (5.3–37.4 million YLL) and 0.04–0.52 million ozone-related deaths (0.35–4.7 million YLL) in 2030 [Table 2; see also Supplemental Material, Figures 6–9 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104301)]. For both models, > 80% of the estimated mortality benefits from implementation of all three groups of measures would occur in Asia, where large populations are exposed to high Figure 4. Estimated changes in annual average PM2.5 concentration (µg/m3) in 2030 for successive implementation of methane measures, methane plus BC group 1 measures, and methane plus BC group 1 and BC group 2 (all) measures, relative to the 2030 reference scenario, based on the GISS and the ECHAM models. GISS, methane measures ECHAM, methane measures GISS, methane and BC group 1 measures GISS, all measures –5 50 ECHAM, all measures ECHAM, methane and BC group 1 measures µg/m3 Health impacts of black carbon and methane controls Environmental Health Perspectives • volume 120 | number 6 | June 2012 837 concentrations (Table 3). BC groups 1 and 2 measures (four technological measures for reducing emissions of incomplete combustion and three nontechnical measures to reduce the most polluting activities, respectively) would account for 72% and 26% of avoided deaths globally for either model. In contrast, estimated global mortality benefits of the methane mea- sures were an order of magnitude smaller than those of the BC measures (approximately 2%), because of reductions of non-methane ozone precursor and organic carbon emissions associ- ated with implementation of the BC measures and because of stronger relationships of PM2.5 with mortality. The estimated contribution of each policy measure to the total mortality benefit in each region generally followed the global contributions. When low-carbon CO2 measures (decrease in use of fossil fuel) were included in both the reference and policy sce- narios, estimates showed approximately 10% fewer avoided deaths in East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific and in South, West, and Central Asia [see Supplemental Material, Figure 10 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ ehp.1104301)]. Implementing the methane and BC measures would reduce mortality sub- stantially in all regions, and in some regions (Africa and South, West, and Central Asia) would reverse trends of increasing mortality due to air pollution (Figure 2). Sensitivity analysis. We examined the effect of varying CRF assumptions on esti- mated avoided deaths from implementing all methane and BC measures (Figure 5). In the main results (case 1), we excluded dust and sea salt because evidence for toxicity of these components is weaker than that for particulate products of incomplete combustion. Including dust and sea salt would have increased esti- mated PM2.5 concentrations from a maximum of 62–73 µg/m3 (in the main results) to a max- imum of 269–451 µg/m3. Whereas linearity of the CRF has been demonstrated up to 30 µg/ m3 in the ACS study (Krewski et al. 2009) and up to 40 µg/m3 in the Harvard Six Cities study (Laden et al. 2006), some evidence sug- gests that the PM2.5 mortality relationship may flatten at high concentrations (e.g., Pope et al. 2009). We therefore examined several sensitivity cases in which the shape of the CRF was varied. Case 1 represented our baseline assumptions of linear CRFs from Pope et al. (2002) multiplied by 1.8 to scale up to the mean of the expert elicitation (Roman et al. 2008), that is, that cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality would increase by 1.6% and 2.4% with each 1-µg/m3 increase in PM2.5, as in the main results (case 1). For case 2 we used log CRFs from Pope et al. (2002), multiplied by 1.8, such that the slopes of the relation between log-transformed PM2.5 concentra- tion and cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality, respectively, were 0.2794 and 0.4180 (0.1552 and 0.2322 prior to scaling, as reported by Cohen et al. 2004). Case 3 was identical to case 2, except the log CRFs were modified to be linear below 7 µg/m3. Cases 4 and 5 were identical to cases 2 and 3 except they included dust and sea salt in estimated total PM2.5 concentrations. Because dust and sea salt were not significantly affected by the mitigation measures, using linear functions with dust and sea salt produced results that were similar to case 1. Two additional sensitiv- ity cases examined the effect of using linear CRFs from the latest ACS reanalysis in which cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality increased by 1.3% and 1.4%, respectively, with each 1-µg/m3 increase in PM2.5 (Krewski et al. 2009; case 6) and linear CRFs from the latest Harvard Six Cities reanalysis in which cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortal- ity increased by 2.8% and 2.7% with each 1-µg/m3 increase in PM2.5 (Laden et al. 2006; case 7). The significantly higher RR estimates reported by Laden et al. (2006) are still lower than estimates from other studies with less exposure error (e.g., Puett et al. 2009). Compared with regional avoided deaths estimated using a linear function, those esti- mated using log functions without dust and sea Table 3. Distributions of estimated numbers of avoided premature deaths according to policy measures and world regions, relative to the 2030 reference scenario. Percent of avoided deaths attributed to each group of policy measuresa Percent of all avoided deaths resulting from implementation of policy measuresb Region Methane BC Group 1 BC Group 2 Methane Methane and BC Group 1 Methane, BC Group 1 and BC Group 2 Global GISS 2.36 72.09 25.55 ECHAM 1.62 72.09 26.29 Africa GISS 3.62 74.36 22.01 12.77 8.71 8.32 ECHAM 2.78 72.88 24.34 17.84 10.68 10.40 East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Pacific GISS 2.22 68.52 29.26 38.14 38.48 40.50 ECHAM 6.29 64.27 29.45 130.84 32.34 33.79 Latin America and Caribbean GISS 9.67 64.36 25.96 7.37 1.79 1.80 ECHAM 12.0 54.71 33.26 13.72 1.68 1.85 North America and Europe GISS 6.53 68.76 24.70 11.94 4.36 4.31 ECHAM 3.81 60.63 35.56 12.29 4.58 5.24 South, West, and Central Asia GISS 1.56 75.50 22.94 29.78 46.66 45.08 ECHAM –2.49 79.23 23.26 –74.69 50.73 48.72 aThe individual impact of each group of policy measures is estimated based on the difference in mortality with the imple‑ mentation of the increasingly stringent policy scenarios; the total for each row equals 100%. bProportions of avoided deaths associated with the successive implementation of the policy scenarios; column totals for each model (GISS or ECHAM) equal 100%. Figure 5. Estimated annual PM2.5‑related cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deaths assuming implementa‑ tion of methane plus BC group 1 and BC group 2 (all) measures relative to the 2030 reference scenario using concentrations simulated by the GISS model and different assumptions for the CRF, based on 2030 population projections. Africa Latin America and Carribean North America and Europe South, West, and Central Asia East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Pacific 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Av o i d e d d e a t h s ( m i l l i o n s ) Case 1: Pope et al. (2002) × 1.8, linear Case 2: Pope et al. (2002) × 1.8, log Case 3: Pope et al. (2002) × 1.8, log with linear modification Case 4: case 2 with dust and sea salt Case 5: case 3 with dust and sea salt Case 6: Krewski et al. (2009), linear Case 7: Laden et al. (2006), linear Anenberg et al. 838 volume 120 | number 6 | June 2012 • Environmental Health Perspectives salt (case 2) were 1.2–8.3 times higher and had larger differences in the least polluted regions due to a higher marginal impact of PM2.5 on mortality for the log functions at low concen- trations. When dust and sea salt were included in PM2.5 concentrations (case 4), estimates were 12–29% lower in Asia (where PM2.5 concentrations are high) and 1.4–4.6 times higher in less-polluted regions. Modifying the functions to be linear at low concentrations (cases 3 and 5) reduced the inflated estimates that occurred in relatively unpolluted regions when log functions were used. Using RR estimates from Krewski et al. (2009; case 6) reduced estimated deaths by approximately 25% relative to the main results. Although RR estimates by Krewski et al. (2009) are higher than those reported by Pope et al. (2002), we multiplied CRFs from Pope et al. (2002) by 1.8 for the main results. Using RR estimates from the Harvard Six Cities cohort (case 7) increased estimates by approximately 60%. Uncertainty ranges were large for each case, with the exception of case 6, because Krewski et al. (2009) estimated more precise RRs than the other studies. However, confidence inter- vals overlapped among estimates from all of the sensitivity analyses. Discussion and Conclusion We estimated the potential future air qual- ity and health benefits resulting from imple- menting 14 specific methane and BC emission control measures selected for their near-term climate benefits (Table 1). We estimate that these measures could reduce global population- weighted average surface PM2.5 and ozone con- centrations by 3.98–4.92 µg/m3 (23.0–33.7%) and 4.71–11.0 ppb (6.5–17.0%), respectively, and avoid 0.6–4.4 and 0.04–0.52 million annual premature deaths globally in 2030. More than 80% of the health benefits of these measures are estimated to occur in Asia. Based on our estimates, avoided deaths would repre- sent 1–8% of cardiopulmonary and lung can- cer deaths among those ≥ 30 years of age and 1–7% of all deaths for all ages, assuming con- stant baseline mortality rates. BC mitigation measures would account for approximately 98% of the estimated deaths avoided, because BC mitigation would also reduce emissions of non-methane ozone precursors and organic carbon and because concentration–response relationships are stronger for PM2.5 than for ozone. Our estimates are consistent with pre- vious health impact assessments of BC and methane reductions (Anenberg et al. 2011; Shindell et al. 2011; West et al. 2006) after accounting for methodological differences [see Supplemental Material, p. 16 (http://dx.doi. org/10.1289/ehp.1104301)]. We used two global composition-climate models (GISS and ECHAM) to improve con- fidence in our results, and sensitivity analysis indicated that our results and conclusions are not strongly dependent on assumptions for the CRF. However, we were unable to quantify other uncertainties associated with estimating air pollution mortality on a global scale, including uncertainties in the atmospheric model assumptions and inputs (e.g., emissions) and in estimates of popula- tion growth and baseline mortality rates. We applied U.S.-based CRFs globally, despite differences in concentrations, air pollutant mixtures, and exposure and population sus- ceptibility characteristics. We assumed that all PM2.5 mixtures are equally toxic, despite some evidence that BC-rich mixtures are more toxic than the average (e.g., Smith et al. 2009). These uncertainties may cause under- or over- estimation in the results. The benefits of implementing BC mea- sures are likely to have been underestimated because we did not account for health benefits of reduced indoor exposure from the burning of solid fuel, which has been estimated to cause 1.6 million premature deaths annually (Smith et al. 2004). In addition, while we downscaled modeled BC and organic carbon concentra- tions to a finer resolution grid, observed BC concentrations near highly populated regions that rely on biomass combustion for cooking and heating are orders of magnitude higher than the grid mean values used here (Rehman et al. 2011). We also did not consider ben- efits from reductions in noncarbonaceous pri- mary PM2.5 components (e.g., fly ash) that may result from the BC mitigation measures. We estimate that including noncarbonaceous primary PM2.5 components would reduce total PM2.5 emissions by an additional 18% [see Supplemental Material, Figure 3 (http:// dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104301)] but would have a smaller effect on PM2.5 concentration changes (and associated mortality changes), because some PM2.5 components included in the PM2.5 definition are not emitted directly but are formed in the atmosphere. We did not estimate effects of air pollution on morbidity or infant mortality because of concerns about the quality and availability of concentration– response functions and baseline incidence data globally. We also did not consider health effects of climate change (e.g., direct effects of temperature), which vary across locations and are poorly understood. Finally, we held present-day baseline mortality rates constant to 2030, although economic development around the world is reducing mortality from infectious disease and increasing mortality due to chronic diseases that are more affected by air pollution. Hence the overall health benefits of these interventions are likely to be understated. The UNEP/WMO assessment demonstrated that further implementation of methane and BC emissions control measures currently employed in some parts of the world can slow the rate of climate change in the decades following implementation (Shindell et al. 2012; UNEP 2011). We conclude that these measures can also substantially benefit global public health, potentially reversing trends of increasing concentrations and air pollution-related mortality in Africa and South, West, and Central Asia. These estimated benefits are independent of CO2 mitigation measures. Future research should include both indoor and outdoor concentration changes to quantify the full health and climate benefits of cook stove replacement, and should quantify the benefits and costs of each measure in individual countries or regions to support national-scale policy decisions. Refe R ences Amann M, Bertok I, Borken‑Kleefeld J, Cofala J, Heyes C, Hoglund‑Isaksson L, et al. 2011. Cost‑effective control of air quality and greenhouse gases in Europe: modeling and policy applications. Environ Modelling Software 26:1489–1501. Anenberg SC, Horowitz LW, Tong DQ, West JJ. 2010. An estimate of the global burden of anthropogenic ozone and fine par‑ ticulate matter on premature human mortality using atmo‑ spheric modeling. Environ Health Perspect 118:1189–1195. Anenberg SC, Talgo K, Arunachalam S, Dolwick P, Jang C, West JJ. 2011. Impacts of global, regional, and sectoral black carbon emission reductions on surface air quality and human mortality. Atmos Chem Phys 11:7253–7267. Ashmore MR. 2005. Assessing the future global impacts of ozone on vegetation. Plant Cell Environ 28:949–964. Cohen AJ, Anderson HR, Ostro B, Pandey KD, Krzyzanowski M, Künzli N, et al. 2004. Urban air pollution. In: Comparative Quantification of Health Risks: Global and Regional Burden of Disease due to Selected Major Risk Factors (Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, Murray CJL, eds). Geneva:World Health Organization, 1353–1434. Available: http://www.who. int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/cra/en/ [accessed 24 April 2012]. Cooke WF, Liouss C, Cachier H, Feichter J. 1999. Construction of a 1x1 fossil fuel emission data set for carbonaceous aerosol and implementation and radiative impact in the ECHAM4 model. J Geophys Res 104:22137–22162. European Union. 2010. Emissions from Heavy Duty Vehicles (Euro VI): Certification Rules. Available: http://europa.eu/ legislation_summaries/environment/air_pollution/mi0029_ en.htm [accessed 25 April 2012]. European Union. 2011. Reduction of Pollutant Emissions from Light Vehicles. Available: http://europa.eu/legislation_ summaries/environment/air_pollution/l28186_en.htm [accessed 25 April 2012]. Haines A, McMichael AJ, Smith KR, Roberts I, Woodcock J, Markandya A, et al. 2009. Public health benefits of strate‑ gies to reduce greenhouse‑gas emissions: overview and implications for policy makers. Lancet 374:2104–2114. Health Effects Institute. 2010. Public Health and Air Pollution in Asia (PAPA): Coordinated Studies of Short‑Term Exposure to Air Pollution and Daily Mortality in Four Cities. HEI Research Report 154. Boston:Health Effects Institute. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2000. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios: A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press. International Energy Agency. 2009. World Energy Outlook 2009. Paris:International Energy Agency. Jackson SC. 2009. Parallel pursuit of near‑term and long‑term climate mitigation. Science 326:526–527. Jacobson MZ. 2002. Control of fossil‑fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming. J Geophys Res 107:4410; doi:10.1029/2001JD001376 [Online 15 October 2002]. Jacobson MZ. 2008. On the causal link between carbon dioxide and air pollution mortality. Geophys Res Lett 35:L03809; doi:10.1029/2007GL031101 [Online 12 February 2008]. Jacobson MZ. 2010. Short‑term effects of controlling fossil‑fuel Health impacts of black carbon and methane controls Environmental Health Perspectives • volume 120 | number 6 | June 2012 839 soot, biofuel soot and gases, and methane on climate, Arctic ice, and air pollution health. J Geophys Res 115:D14209: doi:10.1029/2009JD013795 [Online 29 July 2010]. Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Pope CA III, Ito K, Thurston G, Krewski D, et al. 2009. Long‑term ozone exposure and mortality. N Engl J Med 360:1085–1095. Krewski D, Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Ma R, Hughes E, Shi Y, et al. 2009. Extended Follow‑up and Spatial Analysis of the American Cancer Society Study Linking Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. Boston:Health Effects Institute. Laden F, Schwartz J, Speizer FE, Dockery DW. 2006. Reduction in fine particulate air pollution and mortality: extended follow‑up of the Harvard Six Cities study. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 173:667–672. MacCarty N, Ogle D, Still D, Bond T, Roden C. 2008. A laboratory comparison of the global warming impact of five major types of biomass cooking stoves. Energy Sustainable Dev 12:56–65. Maynard D, Coull BA, Gryparis A, Schwartz J. 2007. Mortality risk associated with short‑term exposure to traffic particles and sulfates. Environ Health Perspect 115:751–755. Miller KA, Siscovick DS, Sheppard L, Shepherd K, Sullivan JH, Anderson GL, et al. 2007. Long‑term exposure to air pollution and incidence of cardiovascular events in women. N Engl J Med 356:447–458. National Research Council. 2008. Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. Washington, DC:National Academies Press. Pope CA III, Burnett RT, Krewski D, Jerrett M, Shi Y, Calle EE, et al. 2009. Cardiovascular mortality and exposure to air‑ borne fine particulate matter and cigarette smoke: shape of the exposure‑response relationship. Circulation 120:941–948. Pope CA III, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, et al. 2002. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long‑term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 287:1132–1141. Pozzoli L, Bey I, Rast S, Schultz MG, Stier P, Feichter J. 2008. Trace gas and aerosol interactions in the fully coupled model of aerosol‑chemistry‑climate ECHAM5‑HAMMOZ: 1. Model description and insights from the spring 2001 TRACE‑P experiment. J Geophys Res 113:D07308; doi:10.1029/2007JD009007 [Online 15 April 2008]. Puett RC, Hart J, Yanosky JD, Paciorek C, Schwartz J, Suh H, et al. 2009. Chronic fine and coarse particulate exposure, mortality, and coronary heart disease in the Nurses’ Health Study. Environ Health Perspect 117:1702–1706. Ramanathan V, Agrawal M, Akimoto H, Aufhammer M, Devotta S, Emberson L, et al. 2008. Atmospheric Brown Clouds: Regional Assessment Report with Focus on Asia. Nairobi, Kenya:United Nations Environment Programme. Ramanathan V, Carmichael G. 2008. Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon. Nat Geosci 1:221–227. Rehman IH, Ahmed T, Praveen PS, Kar A, Ramanathan V. 2011. Black carbon emissions from biomass and fossil fuels in rural India. Atmos Chem Phys 11:7289–7299. Roman HA, Walker KD, Walsh TL, Conner L, Richmond HM, Hubbell BJ, et al. 2008. Expert judgment assessment of the mortality impact of changes in ambient fine particulate matter in the U.S. Environ Sci Technol 42:2268–2274. Shindell DT, Faluvegi G, Unger N, Aguilar E, Schmidt GA, Koch DM, et al. 2006. Simulations of preindustrial, present‑ day, and 2100 conditions in the NASA GISS composition and climate model G‑PUCCINI. Atmos Chem Phys 6:4427–4459. Shindell D, Faluvegi G, Walsh M, Anenberg SC, Van Dingenen R, Muller NZ, et al. 2011. Climate, health, agricultural and economic impacts of tighter vehicle‑emission standards. Nat Clim Change 1:59–66. Shindell D, Kuylenstierna JCI, Vignati E, Van Dingenen R, Amann M, Klimont Z, et al. 2012. Simultaneously mitigating near‑term climate change and improving human health and food security. Science 335:183–189. Smith KR, Jerrett M, Anderson HR, Burnett RT, Stone V, Derwent R, et al. 2009. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse‑gas emissions: health implications of short‑lived greenhouse pollutants. Lancet 374:2091–2103. Smith KR, Mehta S, Maeusezahl‑Feuz M. 2004. Indoor air pol‑ lution from household use of solid fuels. In: Comparative Quantification of Health Risks: Global and Regional Burden of Disease Attribution to Selected Major Risk Factors (Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, Murray CJL, eds). Geneva:World Health Organization, 1435–1493. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2011. Opportunities to Limit Near‑Term Climate Change: An Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone and Its Precursors. Nairobi, Kenya:United Nations Environment Programme and World Meteorological Organization. West JJ, Fiore AM, Horowitz LW, Mauzerall DL. 2006. Global health benefits of mitigating ozone pollution with methane emission controls. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:3988–3993. West JJ, Szopa S, Hauglustaine DA. 2007. Human mortality effects of future concentrations of tropospheric ozone. C R Geosci 339:775–783. Report to Congress on Black Carbon March 2012 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 United States Environmental Protection Agency iiiReport to Congress on Black Carbon Highlights y Black carbon (BC) is the most strongly light- absorbing component of particulate matter (PM), and is formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass. y BC is emitted directly into the atmosphere in the form of fine particles (PM2.5). The United States contributes about 8% of the global emissions of BC. Within the United States, BC is estimated to account for approximately 12% of all direct PM2.5 emissions in 2005. y BC contributes to the adverse impacts on human health, ecosystems, and visibility associated with PM2.5. y BC influences climate by: 1) directly absorbing light, 2) reducing the reflectivity (“albedo”) of snow and ice through deposition, and 3) interacting with clouds. y The direct and snow/ice albedo effects of BC are widely understood to lead to climate warming. However, the globally averaged net climate effect of BC also includes the effects associated with cloud interactions, which are not well quantified and may cause either warming or cooling. Therefore, though most estimates indicate that BC has a net warming influence, a net cooling effect cannot be ruled out. y Sensitive regions such as the Arctic and the Himalayas are particularly vulnerable to the warming and melting effects of BC. y BC is emitted with other particles and gases, many of which exert a cooling influence on climate. Therefore, estimates of the net effect of BC emissions sources on climate should include the offsetting effects of these co-emitted pollutants. This is particularly important for evaluating mitigation options. y BC’s short atmospheric lifetime (days to weeks), combined with its strong warming potential, means that targeted strategies to reduce BC emissions can be expected to provide climate benefits within the next several decades. y The different climate attributes of BC and long-lived greenhouse gases make it difficult to interpret comparisons of their relative climate impacts based on common metrics. y Based on recent emissions inventories, the majority of global BC emissions come from Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Emissions patterns and trends across regions, countries and sources vary significantly. y Control technologies are available to reduce BC emissions from a number of source categories. y BC mitigation strategies, which lead to reductions in PM2.5, can provide substantial public health and environmental benefits. y Considering the location and timing of emissions and accounting for co-emissions will improve the likelihood that mitigation strategies will be properly guided by the balance of climate and public health objectives. y Achieving further BC reductions, both domestically and globally, will require adding a specific focus on reducing direct PM2.5 emissions to overarching fine particle control programs. y The most promising mitigation options identified in this report for reducing BC (and related “soot”) emissions are consistent with control opportunities emphasized in other recent assessments. –United States: The United States will achieve substantial BC emissions reductions by 2030, largely due to controls on new mobile diesel engines. Other source categories in the United States, including stationary sources, residential wood combustion, and open biomass burning also offer potential opportunities. –Global: The most important BC emissions reduction opportunities globally include residential cookstoves in all regions; brick kilns and coke ovens in Asia; and mobile diesels in all regions. –Sensitive Regions: To address impacts in the Arctic, other assessments have identified the transportation sector; residential heating; and forest, grassland and agricultural burning as primary mitigation opportunities. In the Himalayas, studies have focused on residential cooking; industrial sources; and transportation, primarily on-road and off-road diesel engines. y A variety of other options may also be suitable and cost-effective for reducing BC emissions, but these can only be identified with a tailored assessment that accounts for individual countries’ resources and needs. y Despite some remaining uncertainties about BC that require further research, currently available scientific and technical information provides a strong foundation for making mitigation decisions to achieve lasting benefits for public health, the environment, and climate. iv Highlights Report to Congress on Black Carbon United States Environmental Protection Agency Health Assessment Document For Diesel Engine Exhaust CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................... xi FOREWORD ............................................................... xiv PREFACE ................................................................. xvi AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS .............................. xvii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................... xxii 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................. 1-1 1.1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................1-1 1.2. COMPOSITION OF DIESEL EXHAUST .................................. 1-1 1.3. DIESEL EXHAUST AS A COMPONENT OF AMBIENT PARTICULATE MATTER ............................................................ 1-2 1.4. ATMOSPHERIC TRANSFORMATION OF DIESEL EXHAUST ............... 1-2 1.5. EXPOSURE TO DIESEL EXHAUST ..................................... 1-3 1.6. HEALTH EFFECTS OF DIESEL EXHAUST ...............................1-3 1.6.1. Acute (Short-Term Exposure) Effects ................................ 1-4 1.6.2. Chronic (Long-Term Exposure) Noncancer Respiratory Effects ............ 1-4 1.6.3. Chronic (Long-Term Exposure) Carcinogenic Effects .................... 1-4 1.7. SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY ......................................... 1-6 2. DIESEL EXHAUST EMISSIONS CHARACTERIZATION, ATMOSPHERIC TRANSFORMATION, AND EXPOSURES .................................... 2-1 2.1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................2-1 2.2. PRIMARY DIESEL EXHAUST EMISSIONS .............................. 2-3 2.2.1. History of Dieselization ........................................... 2-3 2.2.2. Diesel Combustion and Formation of Primary Emissions ................. 2-9 2.2.3. Diesel Emission Standards and Emission Trends Inventory .............. 2-15 2.2.4. Historical Trends in Diesel Fuel Use and Impact of Fuel Properties on Emissions .......................................... 2-25 2.2.5. Chronological Assessment of Emission Factors ........................ 2-29 2.2.6. Engine Technology Description and Chronology ...................... 2-43 2.2.7. Air Toxic Emissions ............................................. 2-53 2.2.8. Physical and Chemical Composition of Diesel Exhaust Particles .......... 2-59 2.3. ATMOSPHERIC TRANSFORMATION OF DIESEL EXHAUST .............. 2-84 2.3.1. Gas-Phase Diesel Exhaust ........................................ 2-84 2.3.2. Particle-Phase Diesel Exhaust ..................................... 2-90 2.3.3. Diesel Exhaust Aging ............................................ 2-93 2.4. AMBIENT DIESEL EXHAUST CONCENTRATIONS AND EXPOSURES ..... 2-94 2.4.1. Diesel Exhaust Gases in the Ambient Atmosphere ..................... 2-94 2.4.2. Ambient Concentrations of DPM .................................. 2-95 2.4.3. Exposures to Diesel Exhaust ..................................... 2-106 2.5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ...................................... 2-118 2.5.1. History of Diesel Engine Use, Standards, and Technology .............. 2-119 2.5.2. Physical and Chemical Composition of Diesel Exhaust ................ 2-120 iii CONTENTS (continued) 2.5.3. Atmospheric Transformation of Diesel Exhaust ...................... 2-123 2.5.4. Ambient Concentrations and Exposure to Diesel Exhaust .............. 2-124 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 ............................................ 2-126 3.DOSIMETRY OF DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER ........................... 3-1 3.1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 3-1 3.2. CHARACTERISTICS OF INHALED DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER ....... 3-2 3.3. REGIONAL DEPOSITION OF INHALED DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER . . . 3-2 3.3.1. Deposition Mechanisms ........................................... 3-3 3.3.2. Particle Clearance and Translocation Mechanisms ...................... 3-9 3.3.3. Translocations of Particles to Extra-Alveolar Macrophage Compartment Sites .......................................................... 3-22 3.4. PARTICLE “OVERLOAD” ............................................ 3-26 3.4.1. Introduction .................................................... 3-26 3.4.2. Relevance to Humans ............................................ 3-28 3.4.3. Potential Mechanisms for an AM Sequestration Compartment for Particles During Particle Overload ............................... 3-30 3.5. BIOAVAILABILITY OF ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS PRESENT ON DIESEL EXHAUST PARTICLES ....................................... 3-31 3.5.1. In Vivo Studies ................................................. 3-32 3.5.2. In Vitro Studies ................................................. 3-34 3.5.3. Modeling Studies ............................................... 3-36 3.5.4. Summary and Bioavailability ...................................... 3-37 3.6. MODELING THE DEPOSITION AND CLEARANCE OF PARTICLES IN THE RESPIRATORY TRACT .......................................... 3-38 3.6.1. Introduction .................................................... 3-38 3.6.2. Dosimetry Models for DPM ....................................... 3-38 3.7. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ........................................ 3-54 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3 ............................................. 3-56 4. MUTAGENICITY ........................................................ 4-1 4.1. GENE MUTATIONS .................................................. 4-2 4.2. CHROMOSOME EFFECTS ............................................. 4-5 4.3. OTHER GENOTOXIC EFFECTS ........................................ 4-7 4.4. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ......................................... 4-8 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4 .............................................. 4-9 5. NONCANCER HEALTH EFFECTS OF DIESEL EXHAUST ...................... 5-1 5.1. HEALTH EFFECTS OF WHOLE DIESEL EXHAUST ....................... 5-2 5.1.1. Human Studies .................................................. 5-2 5.1.2. Traffic Studies .................................................. 5-23 5.1.3. Laboratory Animal Studies ........................................5-24 5.2. MODE OF ACTION OF DIESEL EXHAUST-INDUCED NONCANCER EFFECTS ........................................................... 5-82 5.2.1. Comparison of Health Effects of Filtered and Unfiltered Diesel Exhaust .... 5-82 iv CONTENTS (continued) 5.2.2. Mode of Action for the Noncarcinogenic Effects of DPM ................ 5-89 5.3. INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF DIESEL EXHAUST ......................... 5-90 5.4. COMPARATIVE RESPONSIVENESS AMONG SPECIES TO THE HISTOPATHOLOGIC EFFECTS OF DIESEL EXHAUST ................... 5-92 5.5. DOSE-RATE AND PARTICULATE CAUSATIVE ISSUES .................. 5-93 5.6. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ........................................ 5-97 5.6.1. Effects of Diesel Exhaust on Humans ............................... 5-97 5.6.2. Effects of Diesel Exhaust on Laboratory Animals ...................... 5-99 5.6.3. Comparison of Filtered and Unfiltered Diesel Exhaust .................. 5-102 5.6.4. Interactive Effects of Diesel Exhaust ............................... 5-103 5.6.5. Conclusions ................................................... 5-103 REFERENCESFORCHAPTER5 ............................................ 5-104 6. ESTIMATING HUMAN NONCANCER HEALTH RISKS OF DIESEL EXHAUST . . . 6-1 6.1. INTRODUCTION .................................................... 6-1 6.2. THE INHALATION REFERENCE CONCENTRATION APPROACH .......... 6-3 6.3. CHRONIC REFERENCE CONCENTRATION FOR DIESEL EXHAUST ........ 6-5 6.3.1. Principal Studies for Dose-Response Analysis: Chronic, Multiple-Dose Level Rat Studies .................................... 6-6 6.3.2. Derivation of Human Continuous Equivalent Concentrations, HECs ........ 6-9 6.3.3. Dose-Response Analysis—Choice of an Effect Level .................. 6-11 6.3.4. Uncertainty Factors (UF) for the RFC—A Composite Factor of 30 ........ 6-14 6.3.5. Derivation of the RfC for Diesel Exhaust ............................ 6-16 6.4. EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND NAAQS FOR FINE PM ............. 6-17 6.4.1. Epidemiological Evidence for Fine PM .............................. 6-18 6.4.2. NAAQS for Fine PM ............................................ 6-25 6.4.3. DPM as a Component of Fine PM .................................. 6-30 6.5. CHARACTERIZATION OF THE NONCANCER ASSESSMENT FOR DIESEL EXHAUST ......................................................... 6-30 6.6. SUMMARY ........................................................ 6-32 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6 ............................................. 6-33 7. CARCINOGENICITY OF DIESEL EXHAUST ................................. 7-1 7.1. INTRODUCTION .................................................... 7-1 7.1.1. Overview ...................................................... 7-1 7.1.2. Ambient PM-Lung Cancer Relationships ............................. 7-1 7.2. EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF THE CARCINOGENICITY OF EXPOSURE TO DIESEL EXHAUST ................................................ 7-3 7.2.1. Cohort Studies .................................................. 7-6 7.2.2. Case-Control Studies of Lung Cancer ............................... 7-32 7.2.3. Summaries of Studies and Meta-Analyses of Lung Cancer .............. 7-61 7.2.4. Summary and Discussion ......................................... 7-66 v CONTENTS (continued) 7.3. CARCINOGENICITY OF DIESEL EXHAUST IN LABORATORY ANIMALS ......................................................... 7-83 7.3.1. Inhalation Studies (Whole Diesel Exhaust) ........................... 7-84 7.3.2. Inhalation Studies (Filtered Diesel Exhaust) ......................... 7-108 7.3.3. Inhalation Studies (DE Plus Cocarcinogens).........................7-109 7.3.4. Lung Implantation or Intratracheal Instillation Studies ................. 7-111 7.3.5. Subcutaneous and Intraperitoneal Injection Studies ................... 7-117 7.3.6. Dermal Studies ................................................ 7-119 7.3.7. Summary and Conclusions of Laboratory Animal Carcinogenicity Studies . 7-121 7.4. MODE OF ACTION OF DIESEL EXHAUST-INDUCED CARCINOGENESIS ................................................ 7-128 7.4.1. Potential Role of Organic Exhaust Components in Lung Cancer Induction . 7-129 7.4.2. Role of Inflammatory Cytokines and Proteolytic Enzymes in the Induction of Lung Cancer in Rats by Diesel Exhaust .................. 7-132 7.4.3. Role of Reactive Oxygen Species in Lung Cancer Induction by Diesel Exhaust ..................................................... 7-133 7.4.4. Relationship of Physical Characteristics of Particles to Cancer Induction . . 7-136 7.4.5. Integrative Hypothesis for Diesel-Induced Lung Cancer ............... 7-137 7.4.6. Summary .................................................... 7-139 7.5. WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE EVALUATION FOR POTENTIAL HUMAN CARCINOGENICITY ....................................... 7-140 7.5.1. Human Evidence .............................................. 7-141 7.5.2. Animal Evidence .............................................. 7-142 7.5.3. Other Key Data ............................................... 7-143 7.5.4. Mode of Action ............................................... 7-143 7.5.5. Characterization of Overall Weight of Evidence: EPA’s 1986 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment .................................. 7-144 7.5.6. Weight-of-Evidence Hazard Narrative: EPA’s Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (1996b, 1999) ...................... 7-144 7.6. EVALUATIONS BY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ........................ 7-146 7.7. CONCLUSION ..................................................... 7-147 REFERENCESFORCHAPTER7 ............................................ 7-148 8. DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT: CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS ................. 8-1 8.1. INTRODUCTION .................................................... 8-1 8.2. MODE OF ACTION AND DOSE-RESPONSE APPROACH .................. 8-2 8.3. USE OF EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES FOR QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT .................................................. 8-4 8.3.1. Sources of Uncertainty ............................................ 8-4 8.3.2. Evaluation of Key Epidemiologic Studies for Potential Use in Quantitative Risk Estimates .......................... 8-5 8.3.3. Conclusion .................................................... 8-11 8.4. PERSPECTIVES ON CANCER RISK ................................... 8-11 8.5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ....................................... 8-16 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 8 ............................................. 8-17 vi Additionally, several cities had passed laws barring steam locomotives within the city limits because the large quantities of smoke obscured visibility, creating a safety hazard. The first prototype diesel locomotive was completed in 1917. By 1924 General Electric (GE) was producing a standard line of switching locomotives on a production basis. Electro-Motive Corporation was founded the same year to produce diesel locomotives in competition with GE. This company was purchased in 1929 by General Motors (GM) and became the Electro-Motive Division. After this acquisition, GM began to develop the two-stroke engine for this application. Up to this time, all locomotive diesel engines were four-stroke. Two-strokes offered a much higher power-to-weight ratio, and GM’s strategy was to get a large increase in power by moving to the two-stroke cycle. The first true high-speed, two-stroke, diesel-electric locomotives were produced by GM in 1935. However, because of the economic climate of the Great Depression, few of these were sold until after the Second World War. At the end of the war, most locomotives were still steam-driven but were more than 15 years old, and the railroads were ready to replace the entire locomotive fleet. Few, if any, steam locomotives were sold after 1945 because the entire fleet was converted to diesel (Coifman, 1994). The locomotive fleet has included significant percentages of both two- and four-stroke engines. The four-stroke diesel engines were naturally aspirated in the 1940s and 1950s. It is unlikely that any of the two-stroke engines used in locomotive applications were strictly naturally aspirated. Nearly all two-stroke diesel locomotive engines are uniflow scavenged, with a positive-displacement blower for scavenging assistance. In 1975, it was estimated that 75% of the locomotives in service were two-stroke, of which about one-half used one or more turbochargers in addition to the existing positive-displacement blower for additional intake boost pressure. Almost all of the four-stroke locomotive engines were naturally aspirated in 1975. Electronic fuel injection for locomotive engines was first offered in the 1994 model year (U.S. EPA, 1998b). All locomotive engines manufactured in recent years are turbocharged, aftercooled or intercooled four-stroke engines. In part, this is because of the somewhat greater durability of four-strokes, although impending emissions regulations may have also been a factor in this shift. The typical lifespan of a locomotive has been estimated to be more than 40 years (U.S. EPA, 1998b). Many of the smaller railroads are still using engines built in the 1940s, although the engines may have been rebuilt several times since their original manufacture. 2.2.2. Diesel Combustion and Formation of Primary Emissions A basic understanding of diesel combustion processes can assist in understanding the complex factors that influence the formation of DPM and other DE emissions. Unlike SI combustion, diesel combustion is a fairly nonhomogenous process. Fuel is sprayed at high 2-9 Figure 2-6. HD diesel truck engines. these applications by the early 1980s. A comparison of IDI (A) and DI (B) combustion systems of high-speed DI engines almost completely replaced IDI engines for pressure into the compressed cylinder contents (primarily air with some residual combustion products) as the piston nears the top of the compression stroke. The turbulent mixing of fuel and air that takes place is enhanced by injection pressure, the orientation of the intake ports (inducement of intake-swirl tangential to the cylinder wall), piston motion, and piston bowl shape. In some cases, fuel and air mixing is induced via injection of the fuel into a turbulence- generating pre-chamber or swirl chamber located adjacent to the main chamber (primarily in older, higher speed engines and some LD diesels). Examples of typical direct injection and indirect injection combustion systems are compared in Figure 2-6. Diesel combustion can be considered to consist of the following phases (Heywood, 1988; Watson and Janota, 1982): Figure 2-6. A comparison of IDI (A) and DI (B) combustion systems of high-speed HD diesel truck engines. DI engines almost completely replaced IDI engines for these applications by the early 1980s. (IDI = indirect injection, DI=direct injection) 2-10 " A n i g n i t i o n d e l a y p e r i o d , w h i c h s t a r t s a f t e r t h e i n i t i a l i n j e c t i o n o f f u e l a n d c o n t i n u e s u n t i l t h e i n i t i a t i o n o f c o m b u s t i o n . T h e d e l a y p e r i o d i s g o v e r n e d b y t h e r a t e o f f u e l a n d a i r m i x i n g , d i f f u s i o n , t u r b u l e n c e , h e a t t r a n s f e r , c h e m i c a l k i n e t i c s , f u e l v a p o r i z a t i o n , a n d f u e l c o m p o s i t i o n . F u e l c e t a n e r a t i n g i s a n i n d i c a t i o n o f i g n i t i o n d e l a y . " R a p i d , p r e m i x e d b u r n i n g o f t h e f u e l a n d a i r m i x t u r e f r o m t h e i g n i t i o n d e l a y p e r i o d . " D i f f u s i o n - c o n t r o l l e d b u r n i n g , w h e r e t h e f u e l b u r n s a s i t i s i n j e c t e d a n d d i f f u s e s i n t o t h e c y l i n d e r . " A v e r y s m a l l a m o u n t o f r a t e - c o n t r o l l e d b u r n i n g d u r i n g t h e e x p a n s i o n s t r o k e , a f t e r t h e e n d o f i n j e c t i o n . E n g i n e s p e e d a n d l o a d a r e c o n t r o l l e d b y t h e q u a n t i t y o f f u e l i n j e c t e d . T h u s , t h e o v e r a l l f u e l - t o - a i r r a t i o v a r i e s g r e a t l y a s e n g i n e s p e e d a n d l o a d v a r y . O n a m a c r o s c a l e , t h e c y l i n d e r c o n t e n t s a r e a l w a y s f u e l - l e a n . D e p e n d i n g o n t h e t i m e a v a i l a b l e f o r c o m b u s t i o n a n d t h e p r o x i m i t y o f o x y g e n , t h e f u e l d r o p l e t s a r e e i t h e r c o m p l e t e l y o r p a r t i a l l y o x i d i z e d . A t t e m p e r a t u r e s a b o v e 1 , 3 0 0 K , m u c h o f t h e u n b u r n e d f u e l t h a t i s n o t o x i d i z e d i s p y r o l i z e d ( s t r i p p e d o f h y d r o g e n ) t o f o r m E C ( D e c a n d E s p e y , 1 9 9 5 ) . I n a d d i t i o n t o E C , o t h e r c a r b o n a c e o u s m a t t e r i s p r e s e n t , l a r g e l y f r o m u n b u r n e d f u e l . T h e a g g l o m e r a t i o n o f e l e m e n t a l a n d O C f o r m s p a r t i c l e s t h a t a r e f r e q u e n t l y r e f e r r e d t o a s s o o t p a r t i c l e s . I n t h i s d o c u m e n t , t h e t e r m s E C a n d O C a r e u s e d t o r e f e r t o t h e c a r b o n - c o n t a i n i n g c o m p o n e n t s o f D P M , a n d c o l l e c t i v e l y , t h e y a r e r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e c a r b o n a c e o u s f r a c t i o n o f a d i e s e l p a r t i c l e . C a r b o n a c e o u s p a r t i c l e f o r m a t i o n o c c u r s p r i m a r i l y d u r i n g t h e d i f f u s i o n - b u r n p h a s e o f c o m b u s t i o n , a n d i s h i g h e s t d u r i n g h i g h l o a d a n d o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i g h f u e l - a i r r a t i o s . M o s t o f t h e c a r b o n a c e o u s m a t t e r f o r m e d ( 8 0 % t o 9 8 % ) i s o x i d i z e d d u r i n g c o m b u s t i o n , m o s t l i k e l y b y h y d r o x y l r a d i c a l s ( K i t t e l s o n e t a l . , 1 9 8 6 ; F o s t e r a n d T r e e , 1 9 9 4 ) . D P M i s d e f i n e d b y t h e m e a s u r e m e n t p r o c e d u r e s s u m m a r i z e d i n t h e C o d e o f F e d e r a l R e g u l a t i o n s , T i t l e 4 0 C F R , P a r t 8 6 , S u b p a r t N ( C F R 4 0 : 8 6 . N ) . T h e s e p r o c e d u r e s d e f i n e D P M e m i s s i o n s a s t h e m a s s o f m a t e r i a l c o l l e c t e d o n a f i l t e r a t a t e m p e r a t u r e o f 5 2 � C o r l e s s a f t e r d i l u t i o n o f t h e e x h a u s t w i t h a i r . D P M i s f o r m e d b y a n u m b e r o f p h y s i c a l p r o c e s s e s a c t i n g i n c o n c e r t a s t h e e x h a u s t i s c o o l e d a n d d i l u t e d . T h e s e a r e n u c l e a t i o n , c o a g u l a t i o n , c o n d e n s a t i o n , a n d a d s o r p t i o n . T h e c o r e D E p a r t i c l e s a r e f o r m e d b y n u c l e a t i o n a n d c o a g u l a t i o n f r o m p r i m a r y s p h e r i c a l p a r t i c l e s c o n s i s t i n g o f s o l i d c a r b o n a c e o u s ( E C ) m a t e r i a l a n d a s h ( t r a c e m e t a l s a n d o t h e r e l e m e n t s ) . T o t h e s e , t h r o u g h c o a g u l a t i o n , a d s o r p t i o n , a n d c o n d e n s a t i o n , a r e a d d e d o r g a n i c a n d s u l f u r c o m p o u n d s ( s u l f a t e ) c o m b i n e d w i t h o t h e r c o n d e n s e d m a t e r i a l ( F i g u r e 2 - 7 ) . B e c a u s e o f 2 - 1 1 Solid Carbonaceous/Ash Particle with adsorbed hydrocarbon/sulfate layer Sulfuric Acid Particles Hydrocarbon/Sulfate Particles 0.2 µm Figure 2-7. Schematic diagram of diesel engine exhaust particles. Source: Modified from Kittelson, 1998. their size, <0.5 mm, these particles have a very large surface area per gram of mass, which makes them able to adsorb large quantities of ash, organic compounds, and sulfate. The specific surface area of the EC core has been measured to be approximately 30–50 m2/g (Frey and Corn, 1967). Pierson and Brachaczek (1976) report that after the extraction of adsorbed organic material, the surface area of the diesel particle core is approximately 90 m2/g. The organic material associated with diesel particles originates from unburned fuel, engine lubrication oil, and small quantities of partial combustion and pyrolysis products. This is frequently quantified as the SOF, which is discussed in much more detail in Section 2.2.7. The formation of sulfate in DE depends primarily on fuel sulfur content. During combustion, sulfur compounds present in the fuel are oxidized to sulfur dioxide (SO2). Approximately 1% to 4% of fuel sulfur is oxidized to form sulfuric acid (H2SO4) (Wall et al., 1987; Khatri et al., 1978; Baranescu, 1988; Barry et al., 1985). Upon cooling, sulfuric acid and water condense into an aerosol that is nonvolatile under ambient conditions. The mass of sulfuric acid DPM is more than doubled by the mass of water associated with the sulfuric acid under typical DPM measurement conditions (50% relative humidity, 20–25 °C) (Wall et al., 1987). 2-12 Emissions from combustion engines produce oxide of nitrogen (NOx) primarily (at least initially) as of NO. High combustion temperatures cause reactions between oxygen and nitrogen to form NO and some NO2. Most NO2 formed during combustion is rapidly decomposed. NO can also decompose to N2 and O2, but the rate of decomposition is very slow (Heywood, 1988; Watson and Janota, 1982). Thus, almost all of the NOx emitted is NO. Some organic compounds from unburned fuel and from lubricating oil consumed by the engine can be trapped in crevices or cool spots within the cylinder and thus are not sufficiently available to conditions that would lead to their oxidation or pyrolysis. These compounds are emitted from the engine and either contribute to gas-phase organic emissions or to DPM emissions, depending on their volatility. Within the exhaust system, temperatures are sufficiently high that these compounds are entirely present within the gas phase (Johnson and Kittelson, 1996). Upon cooling and mixing with ambient air in the exhaust plume, some of the less volatile organic compounds can adsorb to the surfaces of the EC agglomerate particles. Lacking sufficient EC adsorption sites, the organic compounds may condense on sulfuric acid nuclei to form a heterogeneously nucleated organic aerosol (Abdul-Khalek et al., 1999). Although not unique to DE, the high content of EC associated with typical DPM emissions has long been used by some investigators to distinguish diesel engine sources of this particle from other combustion aerosols. Diesel particles from newer HD engines are typically composed of ~75% EC (EC can range from 33% to 90%), ~20% OC (OC can range from 7% to 49%), and small amounts of sulfate, nitrate, trace elements, water, and unidentified components (Figure 2-8). Metallic compounds from engine component wear, and from compounds in the fuel and lubricant, contribute to DPM mass. Ash from oil combustion also contributes trace amounts. Ambient PM2.5 measured in the eastern United States is dominated by sulfate (34%), whereas ambient PM2.5 in the western United States is dominated by OC (39%) (Table 2-3) (U.S. EPA, 1999a). Many sources contribute to ambient PM2.5, and these sources and their relative contribution to ambient PM2.5 can be identified on the basis of the chemical species present. The OC fraction of DPM is increasingly being used to assist investigators in identifying the contribution of diesel engine emissions to ambient PM2.5. In particular, hopane and sterane compounds (aromatic compounds, >C30) have been used in addition to other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and long-chain alkanes to distinguish DPM from other mobile source PM and from ambient PM (Schauer et al., 1996; Fujita et al., 1998). Although PAH compounds make up 1% or less of DPM mass, diesel emissions have been observed to have elevated concentrations of methylated naphthalenes and methylated phenanthrene isomers compared to other combustion aerosols (Benner et al., 1989; Lowenthal et al., 1994; Rogge et al., 1993). Enrichment of benzo[a]anthracene and benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) in DPM has also been 2-13 Figure 2-8. Typical chemical composition for diesel particulate matter (PM2.5) from new (post-1990) HD diesel vehicle exhaust. Table 2-3. Typical chemical composition of fine particulate matter Eastern U.S. Western U.S. Diesel PM2.5 Elemental carbon 4% 15% 75% OC 21% 39% 19% Sulfate, nitrate, ammonium 48% 35% 1% Minerals 4% 15% 2% Unknown 23% – 3% Source: U.S. EPA, 1999a. 2-14 observed under some conditions and has been used to assess the relative contribution of DE to ambient PM. Although specific OC species are being used to help distinguish DPM aerosols from other combustion aerosols, up to 90% of the organic fraction associated with DPM is currently classified as unresolvable complex material. Ultrafine DPM (5–50 nm) accounts for the majority (50% to 90%) of the number of particles but only 1% to 20% of the mass of DPM. A study conducted by Gertler (1999) in the Tuscarora Mountain tunnel demonstrated an increase in 20 nm diameter particles as the fraction of diesel vehicles in the tunnel increased from 13% to 78%. The contribution of nuclei-mode particles from a freeway on an ambient aerosol size distribution was reported by Whitby and Sverdrup (1980). In summary, four main characteristics of DPM are (1) the high proportion of EC, (2) the large surface area associated with the carbonaceous particles in the 0.2 :m size range, (3) enrichment of certain polycyclic organic compounds, and (4) 50%–90% of the number of DPM particles in diesel engine exhaust are in the nuclei-mode size range, with a mode of 20 nm. 2.2.3. Diesel Emission Standards and Emission Trends Inventory EPA set a smoke standard for on-road HD diesel engines beginning with the 1970 model year and added a carbon monoxide (CO) standard and a combined hydrocarbon (HC) and NOx standard for the 1974 model year (Table 2-4). Beginning in the 1979 model year, EPA added a HC standard while retaining the combined HC and NOx standard. All of the testing for HC, CO, and NOx was completed using a steady-state test procedure. Beginning in the 1985 model year,EPA added a NOx standard (10.7 g/bhp-hr), dropped the combined HC and NOx standard, and converted from steady-state to transient testing for HC, CO, and NOx emissions. EPA introduced a particulate standard for 1988 model year diesel engines using the transient test (0.6 g/bhp-hr). Transient testing involves running an engine on a dynamometer over a range of load and speed set points. Since the 1985 model year, only the NOx and particulate standards have been tightened for on-road diesel engines. For truck and bus engines, the particulate standard was reduced to 0.25 g/bhp-hr in 1991, and it was reduced again in 1994 for truck engines to 0.1 g/bhp-hr. For urban bus engines, the particulate standard was reduced in 1994 to 0.07 g/bhp-hr and again in 1996 to 0.05 g/bhp-hr. The NOx standard was reduced to 4.0 g/bhp-hr in 1998 for all on-road diesel engines (bus and truck engines). The standards for nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) and NOx combined were further lowered in a 1997 rulemaking, to take effect in 2004. EPA has recently finalized a regulation that will further reduce NOx, NMHC, and PM emissions from diesel engines starting in 2007. 2-15 Showcasinga120-acreregional multi-purposepublicpark,pedestri- an-friendlydesign,anda1500+acre wetlandsystem,theBuckwalterPUD andtheBuckwalterPlaceurbancen- terinBluffton,SouthCarolinapro- motemultipleaspectsofsustainable development. Ma t t G r e e n UnderstandingPlannedUnitDevelopment Aplannedunitdevelopment(PUD)isalarge,integrateddevelopmentadheringtoacomprehensive planandlocatedonasingletractoflandorontwoormoretractsoflandthatmaybeseparatedonly byastreetofotherright-of-way.PUDisaformofdevelopmentthat,althoughconceiveddecadesago, canbeusedtodaytoadvanceanumberofimportantsmartgrowthandsustainabilityobjectives.PUD hasanumberofdistinctadvantagesoverconventionallot-by-lotdevelopment.Properlywrittenand administered,PUDcanofferadegreeofflexibilitythatallowscreativityinlandplanning,sitedesign, andtheprotectionofenvironmentallysensitivelandsnotpossiblewithconventionalsubdivisionand landdevelopmentpractices.Moreover,properlyapplied,PUDiscapableofmixingresidentialand nonresidentiallanduses,providingbroaderhousingchoices,allowingmorecompactdevelopment, permanentlypreservingcommonopenspace,reducingvehicletrips,andprovidingpedestrianand bicyclefacilities.Inexchangefordesignflexibility,developersarebetterabletoprovideamenitiesand infrastructureimprovements,andfinditeasiertoaccommodateenvironmentalandscenicattributes. PUDisparticularlyusefulwhenappliedtolargedevelopmentsapprovedinphasesoveranumberof years,suchasmasterplannedcommunities.PUDsaretypicallyapprovedbythelocallegislative body(citycouncil,boardofsupervisors,countycommissioners)afteracomprehensivereviewand recommendationbytheplanningboardorcommission,whichnormallyincludesapublichearing. CommunitiesconsideringadoptionofaPUDordinanceshouldbemindfulthatwhileplanning boardsandcommissionsaregivenagooddealofdiscretionarypowerinactingonPUDs, appropriatestandardsareessential.Moreover,adelicatebalancemustbefoundbetweenthedesire tobeflexibleinordertotakeintoaccountuniquesitecharacteristicsandtheneedtospellout concretestandardsandcriteria. WHYPLANNEDUNITDEVELOPMENTISPOPULAR PUDhasgrownincreasinglypopular,inpartbecausestandardsubdivisionandzoningordinances haveseriouslimitations.Manyoldervintagezoningordinancesprohibitmixeduse.Singlefamily, multifamily,andnonresidentialusesareoftennotallowedinthesamezoningdistrict.Older conventionalordinancesalsocontainuniformsitedevelopmentstandardsthattendtoproduce monotonousoutcomes.Subdivisioncontrolordinancesdealwithnarrowconcerns,suchasstreet, curb,andsidewalkstandardsandlotandblocklayout.Thelackofmeaningfulamountsofwell- placed,accessibleopenspaceandrecreationalamenitiesisanothershortfallofconventional developmentcontrols. TYPESOFPLANNEDUNITDEVELOPMENT Plannedunitdevelopmentscantakemanyforms,rangingfrommodestresidentialdevelopments wherehousingunitsareclusteredandopenspaceisprovided,tomixedusemasterplanned communitiesthatcoverthousandsofacres. SimpleResidentialCluster.Simpleclustersubdivisionsallowsmallerlotsonsomepartsofthesite inexchangeforpermanentlypreservedcommonopenspaceelsewhereonthesite.Planningboards orcommissionsnormallyrequiretheopenspacetobeconfiguredinamannertoprotectsensitive naturalfeaturessuchasstreamsandriparianareas,vernalpools,ponds,andlakes,andtotakeinto accounthazardareasandareasofsteepslope. Communitiesmayeitherlimitthegrossdensityofthetracttowhatwouldbepermittedunder conventionalzoning,ormaychoosetoofferadensitybonusallowingmoreunitsthanwouldother- Planningfundamentals forpublicofficialsand engagedcitizens APublicationoftheAmericanPlanningAssociation|PASQuickNotesNo.22 OUICKNOTES ThisPASQuickNoteswaspreparedby APAresearchstaffwithcontributions fromnationalplanninglawexperts. wisebeallowed.Byallowingabonus,thecommunitycanrequireagreaterpercentageofthetract ascommonopenspace.Theoretically,communitiescanchoosetoallowanyresidentialtype(or combinationoftypes)onaparcelintheclusterplan—single-familyhouses,attachedhouses,town houses,gardenapartments,orhighrises.Asapracticalmatter,however,clustersubdivisionsare developedmostlyforsingle-familyhomesonindividuallots. MixedUses.PUDbuildsonthesimpleresidentialclusterideabyallowingnonresidentialuses,often athigherdensities.Retailandserviceestablishments,restaurants,schools,libraries,churches, recreationfacilities,offices,andevenindustrialusescanbeincludedinPUDs.Downtownorvillage centerdevelopmentwithapartmentsaboveshopsandlive-workarrangementsarealsopossible. Theextremecaseisthemasterplannedcommunity,whichusuallyinvolvessubstantialacreageand combinesemployment,office,retail,andentertainmentcenterswithassociatedself-contained neighborhoods.Thiscanincludediversehousingtypesaswellasretail,entertainmentand officecenters. WHICHORDINANCE,WHICHAGENCY? Individualstateplanningstatutescontrolhowcommunitieshandlethedeliberativeprocess leadingtoadecisionaboutaPUD.InmoststatesaPUDprovisioncanbemadepartofthezoning ordinanceoritmaybewrittenasastand-aloneordinance.Ineithercase,thedecisiontoapprove, approvewithconditions,ordisapproveaPUDfallstothelegislativebranchoflocalgovernment. SomecommunitiespermitaPUDthroughadiscretionaryreviewprocess,suchasaconditionalor specialusepermit.Thesepermitscanbeapprovedbythelegislativebody,planningcommission, orboardofadjustment,dependingonthestateenablinglegislationandlocalpolicies.Some communitiesprovidefortheadministrativeapprovalofmixedusedevelopmentsthatnormally requireadiscretionaryPUDprocess. Thezoningordinanceisthemostappropriateplacetolocateplannedunitdevelopmentregulations. Basiclegislativedecisionsonuseanddensityarenormallytheresponsibilityofthelegislativebody. StreetdesignandinfrastructurecouldalsoberesolvedthroughPUDapproval,thoughthese considerationsarenormallybuiltintoaunifieddevelopmentordinance.Decisionsaboutplandetails canbelefttotheplanningboardorcommissionandplanningstaff. ZONINGFORPUD Communitiesfaceanumberofquestionswhendecidinghowtofitplannedunitdevelopment regulationsintotheirzoningordinances.Onealternativeistoprovideforplannedunitdevelopment as-of-right.Underthisguidelinetheordinancewouldspecifytherequirementsforaplannedunit development,anddiscretionaryreviewandapprovalprocedureswouldnotbenecessary. Stand-alonePUDordinancesarenowfairlycommon.Althoughtherearevariations,atypical ordinancewillincludeapurposeclause;astatementofthetypeortypesofPUDthatare authorized;zoningprocedures;andstandardsforapproval.Theordinancemaycontaindefinitions. CONSISTENCYWITHTHECOMPREHENSIVEPLAN Consistencywiththecomprehensiveplanshouldberequired,especiallyifthePUDhasamajoreffect ongrowthanddevelopmentinthecommunityandonpublicfacilities.Thiswillbetrueofmaster plannedcommunities.Manystatutesnowrequirezoningtobeconsistentwithacomprehensive plan,andconsistencycanberequiredbyordinanceevenifthereisnostatutorymandate.☐ PASQuickNotesisapublicationoftheAmericanPlanningAssociation'sPlanningAdvisoryService(PAS).Copyright©2009. VisitPASonlineatwww.planning.org/pastofindouthowPAScanworkforyou.AmericanPlanningAssociationstaff: W.PaulFarmer,FAICP,ExecutiveDirectorandCEO;WilliamR.Klein,AICP,DirectorofResearchandAdvisoryServices; TreJerdon,QuickNotesEditor;TimMennel,SeniorEditor;JulieVonBergen,AssistantEditor;SusanDeegan, SeniorGraphicDesigner. APublicationoftheAmericanPlanningAssociation|PASQuickNotesNo.22 REFERENCES 1.PublishedbyAmerican PlanningAssociation Mandelker,DanielR.2007.PlannedUnit Developments.PlanningAdvisoryService Reportno.545.Chicago:American PlanningAssociation. Mandelker,DanielR.2007.“PlannedUnit DevelopmentsandMasterPlanned Communities:ReviewandApproval Process.”ZoningPractice,March. 2.OtherResources AmericanPlanningAssociation.2006. “LegalFoundations:PlannedUnit Development.”Pp.599–601inPart6: ImplementationTechniques,inPlanning andUrbanDesignStandards.Hoboken, N.J.:JohnWileyandSons. t5 . r : L ã . / 2 9 i 1 t lE t '; 3 51 ì E r 5 4 , i : ¡ - ? 7 . LA H S { l ' ¡ ì l . l pA G E : É1 / 1 1 E¡ l m u n d G. Br o w n Jr Ça ç ¿ ¡ r , ô ¡ Li n d n S - . û t l ¡ r n t lc t t n g Se ö r c t d Þ ' l Ð t Ë* v i r an fi èü l ¿ 1 1 Í' r ß l c c t ¡ în Ca l i f a r n i a Re g i o n a l ' I 4 l a t e r Qu * l í þ ' Co n t r * I So n r d L* h a n t a n Re g i o n 25 0 1 L¡ k c T¿ h o c Bo ' ¡ l e ç ¡ r d , So u ü r L ç r k c Tc t l o c . Cn t i l o ¡ r t l t t S6 ì 5 f i (1 1 0 t 54 : . 5 ¡ 1 0 0 t n: ¡ x iJ J 0 ) 54 4 ' 2 7 ' ] t wq ' w , n gt q r l ¡ o 1 l d ¿ . c c ' go t / l uh o n t a n M* y 1S , 2 0 1 1 Po s þ i t à Fa x l' . l o t e De n y e l l e Ni s h [ r n o r i Tr u c k e e Co n r r n u n i t y De v e l o p m e n l De p a ú m e n 10 1 8 3 Tr u c k e e Ai r p o r t Ro a d Tr u c k o e , CA 9S 1 6 1 TC } M M E N T S RE G A R O I N G fH E NO T I C E TT PR S P A R A T I O N OF å üR A F T EI { V I R O N M Ë N T A L IM P A C T RE P O R T FÕ R TH E CA N Y O N SP R I N G S SU g D I V I $ I T N PR O J E Û T , l. ¡ Ê v A D A CÐ U N T Y {S T A T Ê CL E A R I I { G H O U S E No . 2Û 0 4 0 5 ? 0 6 0 } Ca l i f o r n i a Re g i o n a l W a t e r Qu a l i t y Co n t r a l Bo a r d , L a h o n l a n Re g i o n (L a h o n t a n Wa t e r Bo a r d ) st a f f rã c e i v e d th e No t i c e of P r e p a r a t i o n (N O P ) of a n en v i r o n r n e n t a l do c u r n e n t fo r rh e a b o v e - r e f e r e n c e d pr o j e c t (P r o j e c t ) on Ap r i l 19 , 20 1 1. Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c { in v e ¡ l v e s de v e l o p i n g 17 7 m a r k e t - r e i t e si i r g l e fa n r i l y lo t s an d 6 af f o r d a b l e ho u s i n g lo t s on 28 3 ' 7 6 ac r ê s wi t h i n t h e no r i h - e a s t e r n cr J r n e r of t h e Ts w n of Tr u c k e e ' s bo u n d a r l e s ' Ðu r c o m m e n t s ar e su b m i t t e d in c* m p f i a n c e wi t h C a l l f o r n i a En v i r o n m e n t a l Qu a l i t y Ac t (C E A A ) Gu r i d e l i n e s , Ca l i f o r n i a On d e of Re g u t a t i o n e , ti t l e 14 , se c t i o n 15 0 9 6 , wh i ö h ie q u i r e i re s p o n s i b l e ag e n c i e s to sp e c i f u th e sc r : p e än c l co n t e n t of th e en v í r o n m e n t â l in f à r m a t i o n ge r m â n e tı t¡ r e i r st a t r i t o r y re s p Ð n s i b i t i t i e e , an c l ie a d a g e n c i e s to in c l u d e th a t in f o r m a T i o n in th e i r Ê n v i r o n m e n t a l lm p a c t Re p o r t {E l R ) , Th e $ t a t e Wa t e r Re s o u r ç e s G o r r i r o l Bo a r c i ($ t a t e W e t e r Bo a r d ) an d th e La h o n t a n Wa t e r Bo a r d re g u l a t e di s c h a r g e s rf vr c ì s t e to pr o t e c t th e qu E l i t y of wa t e r s of th e S t a t a , br o a d l y de f i n e d a s ' 1 h e ch e r . n i c a l , ph y ç i c a l , bi o l o g i c a l , ba c t e r i o l o g i c a l , ra d i o l o g i c a l , an c l ot h e r pr o p e r t i e s an d ch a r a c t e r i s t i c b of wa t e r wh i c h a f f e c t s it s us e " (ü a l i f c r r n i a \ / a t e r tl o c l e $t j O S O ) . Th e La h o n t a n Wa t e r Bo a r d im p l e m e n t s th e Wa f e r Qu a l i t y Qc n _ t t o l Pl a n fo r th e 'L a h o n t a n Re g i o n (B a s i n Pl a n ) an d i0 a re s p o n s i b i e ag e n c y pu r s u a n i to ÇE Q A fo r th e pr o p o s e d pr o j ç c t , Ae su c h , th e Wa t e r Ëi c a r c l mu s t e n s u r e co r n p l i a n c e wi t h CE Q A wh e n ta k i n g di s c r e t i o n a r y ac t i o n s on th i s pr o j e c t . Wa t e r Ba a r d st a f f , ac t i n g âs a re $ p o n s i b l e ag e n c y , h a s re v i e w e d tl - r e in f o ¡ m a t i a n pr o v i d e d in ih e F. I O P in c ô n t e x t t o th o pr o p o s e d Pr o j e c t ' s po t e n t i a l ir n p a c t s tó wå t e r qu a l i i y an d b e n e f i c i a l u * e e of ul a t e r s of th e $t a t e . Th e r e a nu m b e r tf pc t e n t i a l l y si g n i f i c a n t im p a c t s to wa t e r qu a l l t y an d wa t e r re s Ð u r c e s th a t m u s t be ad e q u a t e l y ar J c i r e s s e d i n th e en v i r o n m e n t a l re v i e w , Wi t h o u t ad e q u a t e mi t i g a t i o n , Pr o j e c t im p l e n r e n t a t i c n cc u l d re s u l t ir r si g n i f i c a * i ad v e r s e im p a c t s to r¡ ¡ a t e r qu a l i t y an d rî a y re s u l t in cu m u l a t i v e im p a c l s th a t ha v e th e po t e n t i a l to pe r r n a n e n t l y al t e r th * hy d r c l o g i c a l an d ec e l o g i c a l fu n c t i q n of th e aq u a t i c wã l ê r rs s o u r c e $ wí t h i n ih e Pr ç J e c t ar e a . th e r e b y ad v e r s e i y af f e c t i r t g b e n e î ' i c i a l us e s of wa t e r s of th e St a t e . C* lí f o rn i r E* vi r on m en t c l f ' r n t e c lì a n Á g m qv 76 7 1 Fl ì t n ¡ ) Fh o . r å f ra x r { g r ¡ ¡ ") ¿ fa {þ tf c . t t r * ! Pe p a ì tr 5 . r l i, ' : u . i ! LF - , : :l ; ' l !J 3 n i , I ! ' 2 2 7 : Lå H t r . l l " É 1 1 ' l PÊ I G E rr - t ' ; : ¡ 1 . ! De n y e l l e Ni s h i m o r i -¿ ^ AU T H O R I T Y $t a l e la w a s s i g n s re s p o n s i b i l i t y fo r pr o t e c t i o n of wa t e r qu a l i t y i¡ t th e La h o n t a ¡ r re . q r ô n to th e La h o n t a n Wa t e r Bo a r d . Th e Ba s i n Pl a n c o n t a i n s po l i c i e s th a t t h e Wa t e r Bo a r d ue e s wi l h o t h e r la w r an d re g u l a t i o r t s to pr o t e c t v, , a t e r qu a l i t y t¡ ¡ i t h i n th e re g t o n . Al l Eu r l a c e wa t e r s an d gr o u n d lv a t e r s ar e *o n s i d e r e d wa t e r s of th e $t a t e . Su r f a c e wâ t e r e i¡ t c l u d e , tr u t ar e nc t li m i t e d to , dr a ì n a g e s , gt r e a m s , Wâ s h â s , po n d s , po o l s , or we t l a n d s , an d ma y be pe r r r r a n e n t or in t e r m i t t e n t . Ai l w a t e r e of th e $t a l e ar e pl o t e c i t e d fo r be n e f i c i a l us e s un d e r ta l i f o r n i s !a w . Ad d i t i o n a l pr o t e c { i o n ma y be Br o v i d e d fo r wa t e r s s f th e Un ì t e d Si a t e s {U . S , ) un d e r th e Fe d e r a l Õl e a n l J a t e r Ac t {C W A ) if th e wa t e r s in tl i e ar e ; t ar e fe d e r a i l y ju r i r d i c t i o r r a l . Ba s e d cn ou r re v i e w o f th e NC I P , pr o j e c t co m p c n e n t s tT ã y in v o l v e al t e r a t i o n , dr e d g i n g , fi l l i n g , an d l o r ex c a . v â t ¡ n g ac t i v i t i e s in wa t e r s of th e $t a t e . Sr . r c h ao t i v i t i e s cs n E t i t u t e a di s c h a r g e of wo s t e ' , as de f i n e d in Ca l i f c r n i a Wa t ç r Oo d e {C W C ) , se c t i o n 13 0 5 0 , an c l cc u l d af f e c t th e qu a l i t y of wa t e r s of th e $t a t e . l' h e $t a t e Wa t e r Re s o u r c e s Co n t r i ¡ l Bo a r c í (S t a t e Wa t e r Bo a r d ) an d th e La h o n t a n Wa t e r Bo e r d re g u l a t e di e c h a r g e s in or d e r to pr o t e c t th e wa t e r qu * f i $ fo r þe n e f i c i i a l us e s of wa t e ¡ s of ih s .$ t a t e . Th e Ba s i f l Pl a n pr o v i d e s gu i e l a n c e re g a r d i n g v¿ a t e r qu a l i i y an d ho w th e La h o n t a n 'r  / a t e r Bo a r d ma y re g u l a t e ac i i v i t i e c tl ¡ a t ha v e th e pc t e r r t i s l ta af f e c t wa t e r ir i , -' r t - ! - - ir - - -- - ! - . ^ fi ^ ^ n - - : * ñ l - . . : - - 1 , . J ^ - -- ^ L : L : a l - - - .. . ^ ! - e -. . - l i : . ^¿ - - - l - - J ^ qu a l l r y wt l n l n In e re g t ç n . ! il e Ì: 1 4 $ ! f I rt a l l lt ì r J t u u Ë i ' pt u ! ! t [ J ! u u ! r ì i t wi á r E ! qu i á u 1 ] r Þr , á f rL ¡ L 1 f u* , an d po l i c i e s fo r im p l e m e n t a t i o n of st a n d a r d e . Th e Ba s i n Pl a n ca n be a e c e s s e d vi a th e Vl a t e r Bo a r d ' s we b si t e at ht t p ' Í w r ¿ r w , W - a t g r þ p Ê { d å . C å g g { l g b g g l 3 n i w a t e r - i F s u S s l o r o g r a * i g ¿ b å q 3 ¡ - i i - l g U t e j g r e qn i r ! . We re q u e s t th s t th e en v i r o r r m e n t a l d o c u m e n t *n a l y z e co m p l i a n c e wi t h po l i c i e s in th e Ëa s i n Pl a n in th e hy d r o l o g y , bi o l o g i c a l re s o u r c e s , an d wa t e r qu a l i t y an a [ y s e s an d rc q u i r e fh a t th e Pr o j e c t pr o p o n Ë n l co n r ¡ . r l y wi t h al l ap p l i c a b i e w a t e r . q u a r l i l y rt a n d a r d s an d pr o h i b i t i o n s , in c l u d i n g pr o v i s i o n s cl th + B* s i n Fl a n co n c e r n i n g in d u s t r i a l r , v a s t e s , we t l a n d s , fl o o d p l a i n s , cc n s t r u c t i o n ad i v i t i e s , an c l la n d ri e v e l c p m e n t . PE R M I T S A nu m b e r of a e t i v i t i e s af j s s c i a t e d wl t h th e F r a j e c i rn a y r e q u í r e pe r m i t s or ot i r ê r or ç e r s is s u e d by e i t h e r th e St a l e Wa t e r Ee a r d or La h o n t a n Wa t e r Bo e r d þe ç a u s e th e y ha v e th e po t e n t i a l to im p a c t wa t e r s of th * $t a t e . Th e re q u i r e m e n t s ma y in c l u d * th e fo l k : w i n g : Di s c h a r g e of fi l l or dr e d g e ma t e r i a l t a a sr . ¡ r f a c e wä t e r ma y r e q u i r e ¿c CW A s e c t i o n 40 1 wa t e r qu a l i t y E: c r t i f i c a t i o n ff V A C ¡ or c l e r fo r im p a c t s to fe d e r a l wa t * r s (r r , r a t e r s of th e U $, ) , or dr e d g e an d fi l l Wa s t e Ði s c h a r g e Re q u i r e m e n t s (W Þ R s ) fo r ¡m p a c t $ tr . ¡ no n - f e d e r a I wa t e r s . - tl * ' å â l ¡ ¡ " is {t c f ì n e c J !r th e B å s i n Pl å ñ to i n c l þ d e at y u ' ü s l f or dÊ ' e t Ê r i o u s tî E : e , ì ; ¡ r in c l u d l n g . b u t n o l :i r , } ' ! e ¡ J ió . wâ $ i e ea d h e n f i ¿ t e r ì a h * (s u c t r as sí i l , sí l l . sa r x ¡ , cl ã y , r¡ c k . or o t h e r or g a n i c ç¡ nr i n e ¡ e I rì å t e r i ð l ) nn c an y ot h e r we r $ t e â- 3 de f i n e d in th e ta l i f r v n i a lV a l e r Co d e , se c i i r : ¡ r 1S t t C I { d } . { a I if o nt i ø E t t v ir ç wr ? e n ts . l P r ç te $i or t Å g en c }t t $ I{ r c . : z r r l Pa ¡ e r ú5 , 1 1 ,' ! t 3 L l ' 1t : ?' j 5. J ü t 4 ' : ? ? ? ¡ lJ e n y e l l e Ni s h í r n c j r i I l- A r - i L { . r T A þ l Få { : i E Ui ¡ ' i I -3 t Di s c h a r g e of ðn y wâ s t e fi ì a t e f i a l a n d i û r Fe r m â n ê n t or ìe r n p o r a r y di s t u r b a n c e wi t h i n th e 10 O - y e a r fl o o d p l a i n af th e Tr r . ¡ c k e e Ri v e L or Í n y tr i f l u t å r y to th e Tr u c k e * Ri v e r m a y r e q u i r e ar r ex e m p t i o n ro th e 10 t - y e a r fl o o c l ¡ la i n di s c h a r g e pr o l r i b i t i o n in th e Bs s i n Pl a n (p r o j e c t rn u s t me e t al l e x e m p t i o n cr i t , : r i å sp e c i f i e c l ìn th e Ba s i n Pl a n ) . Se e se c t i o n I be l o w f o r ad d i t i o n a l co m l n e n t s , l- a n d ( u p l a n d ) di s t u r b a n Ê e of on e ac r ê or rn o r e ma y n; q u i r e a CV V A , se c t i ç n a0 2 ( p ) s t o r m w a t e r pe r m i t , in c l u d i n g a Na t i o n a l Po l l u t t r n t D i s c h a r g e El i m i n a t i o n $y s t e n r (N F D E S ) Ge n e r a l Ço n s t r u c t i o n St o r m y ¡ a t e r l- ' e r m l t o b t a i n e d f r o m th e St a t e Wa t e r Bo a r d , or a n in d i v i d u a l si o r m w a t ê r pe r m ' t qþ t a i n e d fr s m th e l- a h o n t a n Wa t e r Bo a r d . Cu v e r a g e un c l e r th e La h o n t a n Wa t e r Bo a r d ' s Sm a i l 'l o n s t n ¡ c t i o n Fe r r n i t Or d e r No . R6 T - 2 t 0 3 - 0 0 0 4 ma y be r e q u i r e d if up l a n d di s t u ¡ b a n c e is L : e t w e e n ' 1 û , l J 0 t sq u a r e fe e t an d on e ac r e . $e e ht t S t : / / y u q n i l - . w a t - ë - r þ g g ¡ d s . c g . a a y / l a h ó n t a n Hg y 3 t þ . þ l è * C s - c . w n e $ g [ g [ - ?" 8 0 ? - * Q ! ! 4 _ a t A e h É þ 1 m ! fo r a cc p y of th i s O r d e r an ¡ l it s at t a c h m e n t s . No t e , t h i s pe r m i t ma y be u s e d to a u t h s r i z e tw o ki n d s of ac t i v i t ' ¿ s : (1 ) up l a n c l ir n p a c t s be t w e e n 10 , 0 0 0 $q u ä r e fe e t an d o n e sc r e , (2 ) dr e d r ¡ e an d fi l l ac t i v i t í e s tc we t e r s of t h e St a t e th a t a r e ns t al s o wa t e r s of th e U. 8 . Di s c h a r g e of lo w th r e a t wa $ i e s to a s u r f a c e wa t e r , in c f u d i n g , bu t no l li n r i t e r J to . di v e r t e d st r e a m fl o w s , co n s t r u c l i o n an d l o r dr e d g e sp o i l , $ de v l a t e r i n g , an d we l l co n s t r u c t i o n an d hy d r o s t a t i c te s t i r r g di s c h a r g e , ma y re q u i i e a n NP I J E $ pe m i t fo r Li m l t e d Th r e a t Di s c h a r g e s to $u r f a c e W a t e r s is s u e d tr y th e Wa t e r Bo a r ¡ l . r Di s c h a r g e of lo w th r e a t wa s t e s to la n d , i n c l u d i n g cl e a r wa t e r di s c h a r g e s , sm a l l de w a t e r i n g pr ö j e Ç t s , an d in e Ë wa s t e s , ma y r e q u i r e Êe r r e r a l W a s t e Þi s c h a r g t : Re q u l r e m e n t s {W D R s } fo r Ði s c h a r g e s to La n d wi t h a l. o w Th r e a t ta Wa t e r Qu a l i t y ir e s u e d by th e W a t e r Bo a r d . $o m e '" v a t e r s of th e S t a t e ar e "í s o l a t e c Í " fr o n r wa t e r s of th e U. $ . ; de t e r r n i n a t i o r t s o{ th s ju r i s d i c t i o n a l ex t e n t of t h e wa t e r s of th e U, $ . a r e ma d e b y th e Un i t e d $i a t e e Ar r n y C o r p s of En g i n e e r s (I J S A C E ) . Pr o j e c t s th a t ha v e th e po t e n t i a l to ir r p a c t su r f a c e v¡ a t e r e wi l l re q u i r e th e ap p r c p r i a ' t e ju r i * d i c i i ç n a l ci e t e i m i n a t i o n s . Wa t e r 3c ¡ a r d an a l y s e s ty p i c a l l y fo l l c w on d e t e r m i n a t i o n s by th e US A C E an d / s r ss m e t i r r e e th e Ca l i - f r r r n i a De p a * m s r r t of Fi s h an d G a n t e (C D F G ) co n c e r n i n g aq u a t i c ha b i t a t s . Th e s e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s âr e nê c e s c ä r y to di s c e r n if th e pr a p o s e d su d a c e wa l e r im p a e t s lv r l l be r e g u i a t e d un d e r se c t i o n 40 1 of th e C W A or th r o u g h WD R s is s u e d by th e Wa t ; r Bo a r d . Th e La h o n t * n Wa t e r Bo a r d rn a y r e q u í r e hy d r o l o g i c an a l y s i s to de t e r m l n e 13 0 - y e a r fl o o d p l a i n bo u t r d a r i e s in wa l e r s h e d s wh e r e fl o o d p l a i n rn â p s ar e no t av a i i a þ l e (e . 9 . , fo r fe d e r a l Íl ç o d in s u r a n c e ) . We t e q u e s t th a t P r o j e c t pr C I p ç r ì e n t co r i s u l t wi t h th e US A C E Ln d GÐ F G an d pe r f r : r n r th e ne c e $ s â r y ju r i s c l i c t i o n a l de t e r ¡ n i n a t i o n g To r su r f a c e wa t e r s v r .n i n th e Pr o j e c t ar e a . ln t af t f o rn i a En v i r tt n n rc n t* I P r a I e c I í ç n tl . " c t t c ): ' fr Êa 4 v b d f u p e r *5 . ' ' 1 i l ! e ' l t 1 Ë : ? ' l 5. l e r 1 4 d ? ? 7 i . Ðe n y e l l e Ni s h i m o r i LA H ü { T A I . I -4 - C a I if o rn id Er w i y o nt n e tú * I Pm I e et i o t t f- år i E . ll ¿ , i 11 ad d i t i o n , we re q u e s i : th a t th e en v i r o n m e n t a l do c u r n e r . ¿ li s t t h e pe r m i t s th a t rn a y be re q u i r e d . a s o u t l i n e d aþ o v e , an d id e n t i f f th e sp e c i f ì r . op e r a t i o n s , nr a i n t e n a n r e , ân d / o r mi n o r co n s t r u c t i û n ac t i v i t ¡ e s ar r r J ti r * Í r im p a c t mi t i g l t i o n mê â s u r e s t h a t wi l l be em p l o y e e l un d e r th e s e pe r m i t t i n g ac t i o n s in th e a p p r o p r i a t e s e c t i o n s o f tl r e en v i r e n m e n t â l do c u n e n t . In f o m a t i o n re g a r d i n g th e s e pe r m i t s in c l u d i n g ap p l i c a t i o n f o r r n s , ca n be do w n l o a d e d fr o n ' ; ou ¡ we b si t e a t ht t p : i l v 4 U r , v , W - i g r _ þ s g l ü q , ç a . ç r g v / l â h o n t a n . PO T E N T I A L II J I P A C T S TO SU R F A C E WA T E R S Su r l a c e tv a t e r s pe r f o r m a va r i e t y oi in r p o r t a n t hy d r o l o g i 6 an d b i o g e o ê h e m i ô ä l fu n c t i o n s th a t af f e c t l r ' ¿ t e r qu a l i t y . ln pa d i c u l a r . si r e a m eh a n n e l co r r i e l o r s an d r i p a r i a n â r € ä s as s o c i a t e r J wi t h bo t h pe r e n n i ä l s t r e a r n s an d e p h e m e r a l dr a i n a g e s pr o v i d e a nä t u r a l hu f f e i an d he l p mi t i g a t e an d c o n t r o l r ' ât L 5 r qu a l i t y im p a o t s b y r e m o v i n g po l l r " r t a n t s ar r d se d i r n e n t fr o r n s u r f a c e ru n o f f . 4¡ 1 ¡ s : , g i 1 th e pr o p o s e d r. l e v e l o p m e n t la y o u t a p p e a r s to av o i c l we t l a n e l s an d dr a i n a g e s (e x c e l , t fo r on e r o a d c r o s s i n g an d se v e r a l l r a i l er o s s i n g s ) an in c r e a s e in ìm p e r v i o u E su r f a c e r, . * t h th e d e v e l o p m e n t of ro a d s an d st r u c l u r e s co u l c i ch a n g e th e hy d r o l o g y of lh e s e ne a r b y wa t e r re s o u r c ê s b y i n c r e a s i n g w a t e r fl o r . r va l o c i t y , wh i c h in tu r n le a d s to in c r e a s e c rn th a se v e r i t y o f pe a k di s c h a r g e s . Th e s e hy r . l r o l o g i c ch a n g e s te n d l o ex a c e r b a t e fr c d i n g , er û s i o n , sc o u i l n g , se d i m e n t a t í o ¡ t an d lo g s of ñ, f + r r t s â l { ¡ r n ¡ l i n n a a n J t ¡ a h ¡ a e . ' { ^ . - - L - a , ¡ ¡ ! r ¡ r * + l a s . . l + ' f L ^ ã ¡ E -. . - ¿ -l J - - ^ - ¡L ^ ^! . . . , - . t¡ s r u r q . ¡u t r ì ¡ r r v r l e q! l v Yq l u ç e v r (/ t ç ç ¡ l ê ãl ¡ r J V v ç l l ø l l \ J C r , I l! E f . ; l I \ ll l U ù L at l . ¡ L l l t : ü ¡ t t l ç A l , ¡ { . l v q , - ci t e d po t e n t i a l im p a c t s . wh l c h ar e c o n s i d e r e d si g n i f i c a n t . BE N E F I C I A L U$ E S Oi , W A T E R ts e n e f l c i a l us e s as s r c i a t e d wi t h Hy d r o f o g i c Ar e a of J u n i p e r Cr e e k , ln wh i c h th e Pr e j e c t is l o c a l e d , in c l u d e mu n i c i p â l a n d d o m e s t i c su p p l y (M U N ) ; ag r i c u l t u r a l su p p l y (A G R ) ; gr o u n d l t a t e r re e r t a r g e (G W R ) ; w a t e r ec ' n t â c t re c r e a t i o n {R E C - 1 ) ; no n - c o n t a c , t wa t e r re e i e a t i o n lR E C - z ) ; co m m a r c i e l an c l s p o r t 4 í s h i n g (C C M M ) ; co l d fr e s h w a t e r ha b i t a t (C O L D ) ; wi l ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ E h a b i t a t fl ¡ v l L D ) ; ra r e . th r s a t e n e d , or en d a n g e r e d sp e c i e s (R A R F ) ; an c l sp a v r n i n g re p r o d u c t i o n , an d de v e l o p m e n t ($ P W N ) . Th c EI R mu s t id è n t i f y th e pr e s c r i b " J be n e f i c i a l us e s af su r f a c e wa t e r s wi t h i n th e Pr o j e c t ar e a , ev a l u a t e th e Pr o j e c t ' : , Þ* t e n t l â l im p a c t s to wa t e r qu a l i t y wi t h re s p e c t t o ih o s e be n e f i c i a l us e $ , a n d pr o v l d , : al t c r n e t i v e s to av o i d th o s e i m p a c t s or de s c r i b e sp e c i f ì c m i t i g a t i o n ri l e a s u r e s th a t , ,v h e h im p l e m e n t e d , wi l l mi n i m i z e i. ¡ ¡ n a v c i d a b l e im p a c t s to a íe s s th a n s i g n i f i c a r r t le v ¿ , 1 . Sr ' . o p Ê an d Le v e l of A n a l y s e s Ne e d e d . Ur b a n de v e t o p m e n t de g r a d e s wã t ê r qu a f i t y tl , r o u g h a co m p l e x of i n t e n e l a t e d ca u s e s an d ef f e c l s , wh i c h if un n r a n a g e d , ul t i m a t e l y na - r de s t r o y th e ph y s l c a l , ch e r n i c a l , an d bi o l o g i c a l rr r t e g r i t y of th e wa t e i e h e d s in wh i c h iþ r 1 oÇ Ë u r . Th e pr i m a r y ad v e r s e im p a c t s oí pó a r þ pl a n n e à de v e l o p r n e n t pr o j e c t s on wa t e r qu a l i t y ar e : ' Th e {i t ç q t ph y s i c a l im p a c t s to aq u a t i c , }o ¡ e t l a n d , nn d ri p a r i a n ha b i t a l an d ot h e r þe n e f i c i a l us e s ; ' Ge n e r a t i o n of co n s t r u c t i o n - r e l a t e d an c i po s t - c o n s t r { . ¡ c t i o n ur b a n po l l u t a n t * ; " Al t e r a t i o n of fl o w re g i m e e an d gr o u n d w a t Ê r re e h a r g e as a re s u l l o f ir n p e r v í o u s sl ¡ r f a c e s an d s t ç r r n dr a i n c a l l e c t o r sy s t e r n s ; $ R* q t t a d ra V a - , Åg e n r y $5 r i : i 2i j 1 I 1ï ¡ : t3 5? 9 5 4 4 2 2 7 i L¡ I H ü { T ¿ \ I , ¡ De n y e l l e þ, l i * h i n l o r i Di s r u p t i o r r of wa t e r s h e d le v e l aq u a t ¡ c fu n c l i o n s , in c l u d i n g po l l l r t å t ì t re r ì 1 o v a ì , fi o o d w a t e r re t e n t i a n , a n d ha b i { a t c o n n e c t i v i t y . J" h r : s e fa c t o r s ha v e hi s t o r i c a l l y re s u l t e d in a cy ö i e of d e s t a b i l i z e d st r e a m ch a t t n e l e , po o r wa t e r qu a l í t y , an d en g i n e e r e c l so l u t i o n s to di s r u p t e d fl o w pa t t e r n $ , cu l n t i r t a t i n g in lo s s o f na t u r a l fu n c t i o n s an d s o c i e t a l v a k " r e s in th e af f e c t e d ba s i n s . Th c nu m þ e r ên d va r i a b i l i t y of th e f) l î t h w a y s fh r Õ u g h wh i c h wa . t e r qu a l i t y de g r a d a t i o n c' å n æc i l r co m p l i c a t e s an a f y s i s , bu t un d e r s t a n d i n g ho w th e s e pa t h w a y s op e r a t e wi t f i i n th e sp e c i f i c ci r c u r n s t a n c e s o f th i s pr a j e c t is e s s e n t i a l to ef f e c t i v e l y mi t i g a t i n g th e ad v e r s e ef f e c t s , Fo r t u n a t e l y , a v o i d a n c e or m l n i r n i z a t l o n of an y c a u s a l ll n k wi l l ob v l a t e or re d u c e su b s e q u e n t ef f e o i s a n d ne e d e d a n a l y s e s , ãn d ã re l a t i v e l y sm a l l nu r n b e r of ke y va i ' í a b l e s rn e d i a t s mo s t r¡ f th e pa t h w a y s ca u s i n g wa t ç r qu a l i t y de g r a d a t i o n . To ft r l f i l l Õu r $t ã t u t s r y re s p o n $ i b i l i t i e s , th e Wa t e r Bo a r d ne e d s to un d e r s t a n d ho w t h i s pr o J e c t wi l l av C I i d or mi n i m i z e e a c h po t e n t i a l ca u s ç oi w a t e r qu a l i t y de g r a d a t i o n , wh a t ef f e c t s wi l l re r ¡ r a i n un m i t i g a t e d th r o u g h pr o j e c t de * i g n , a n d t h e ma g n i t u d e c¡ f ih e re m a i n i n g ad v e r s e ef f e c t $ . Qu a n t i f i c a t i o n sh o u l d be a s de f i n i t i v e as po s s i b l e , us i n g ap p r o p r i a t e mo d e l i n g an d ad e q u a t e da t a . Mo d e l i n g ap p r o a c h e s sh o u l d be do c u r n e r r t e d an i l da t a de f i c i e n c i e e o r o t h e r fa c t o r $ af f e c t i n g th e re l i a b i l i t y of th e re s u l t s id e n t i f i e d sn d ch a r a c t e r i z e d . Cu r n u l a t i v e im p a c l s mu s t E l s p be a d d r e s s e d , $g e t r i f i c - om m e n t Ð 1. Lo w lm p a c t l. l e v e l o p ¡ n e n t : Re d u c l n g hy d r c l o g i c d i s r u p t i o n tî o m ia n d de v e l o p m e n t or r e d e v e l o p m e n t is of t e n re f e i r e d to as "L o w lm p a c t De v e l o p m e n t " (L l D ) . lt rs ç u l t s in le s s su r f a c e r u n o f f an d le s s po l l u t i o n ro u t e d to re c e i v i n g wa t e r s . Pr i n c i p l e s o f LI D in c l u d e : [/ l a i n t a i n i n g n a t u r a l d r a i n a g e pa t h s an c J la n d s c a p e fe a t u r e $ tù sl t w an c i fi l l e r ru n o f f an d m a x i r n i z e gr o u n d w a t e r re c h a r g e , Re d u c i n g an d di s c o n n e c t i n g th e im p e r v i q r u s co v e r c r e a t e d by de v e l o p m e n t an d th e as s o c i a t e d tr a n s p o r l a t i o n rr e t w c r k , a n d Ma n a g i n g ru n o f f as cl o s e to th e s ô u r c e as pc s e i b l e . LI D de v e l o p m e n t pr a ç t i r ; e s th a t wo u l r l rn a l n t a i n aq u a t i c va h ; e s ce u l d al s o r e d u c e lo c a l in f r a s t r u c t u r e re q u i r e , t r e n t s an d co u l d be n e f i l er ì ê r g y c r ¡ n s e r v a t i o n , ai r qu a l i t y . op e n sp a c e , an d ha b i t a t , Ma n y pl a n n i n g to o l s ex i s t to i m p l e m e n t th e ab ¿ t v e pr i n c i ¡ t l * s , an d a nu m b e r o f re c e n t re p o r t s ar r d mâ n u a l c pr o v i d e sp e c i f r c gu i r l a n c e re g a r d i n g Ll D . Wa t e r Bo a r d st a f f re c o m m e n d th e us e of LI D c l e v e l o p n t e n t pr a c t ì c e s . an d ma n y of ou r ço m r n e n t s ar e ba s e C cn th i s pr i n c i p l e . Ad d i t i o n a l re s o u r c Ê in f a i ' n r a t l o r t ma y be cr b t a i n e d fr o r n t h e Lc w lm p a c t De v e l o p m e n t Ce n i e r ' s we þ s i t e k: c a t e r l st wv / w . l i ç L g l g f u l r c l e l ne ! . 2. ld e n t i f i . r a t i s n sf Af f e c t e d Wa t e r s : Ma p a i l w a t e r ß pô t e n t r â l l y af f e c t e d by th i s pr o j e c i an d li s t th e r n ¡n ap p r o p r i a t e t a b u l a r fo r m a t , or g a n ì z e d by w a t e t l r o c ] y ty p e an d Ç ø I if o rn i a E nv í ra n n t t ¡t tn I P r a k: c li o n, 4 g e tr c¡ t FA 6 [ u5 . t I ¡ 5 a ¡aa då rk ¡ ; ' c i e t l Po r ¿ r 65 , / 1 ã / : ü . L l it s : 2 . 1 53 8 5 4 . i 2 2 ; ' 1 LA H L I ' l l , : ' ' l ' ¡ FA í J F þF . , ' ] - 1 De n y e l l e Ni s h i m û r i su þ - þ a s i n . Fo r e a c h v r a t e r b o d y di r e c t l y af f e c t e d , fo t ex a m p l € 1' o r pr o p o s e d dr e c l g e an d fi l l ae t i v i t y , id e n t i i y th e ac r e a g e ãn d (f o r dr a l n a g e fe a t u r e s ) ih e nu r n b e r of li n e a r fe e t di r e c t l y im p a c t e d . $u r n th e t b t a l af f e c t e d ad r e s , an d li n e a r fe e t by wa t e r þ ô d y ty p e , wi t h i ñ Wa t e r Bo a r d ju r i s d i c t i o n , ân t 1 as pr o i e o t t o t a l . ld e n t i f y an y "i s o l a t e d " r, v e t l a n d s ôr o t h e r wa t e r s no t su b i e c t to fe d e r a l ju r i s d i c t i o n . 3, Av o i d a n c e , Mi n i ¡ r r i r e t i o n , an d fl l l i t i g a t i s n : Th b Pr o j e c t ha s th e pô t e n 1 i ä l f o r ma i o r wâ t e r qu â l i t y im p a c t s . Ho w e v e r , it al s o h a s th e po s s i b i l i t y of im p l e r n e n t ì n g an in t e g r a t e d wâ t e r s h e d pl a n n l n g ap p r o a c h us i n g Lo w lr n p a c t De v e l o p m e n t (L i D ) pr i n ð i p t e s to ml n l m l z e th o s e ln r p a r , ' t s . lv l o s t cc n û t r u c t i o n - r e l a t e d dÍ r e c t im p a c l s to su r f a c e wa t e r s wi l l l i k e l y re q u i r e e i t h e r ïn d i v i c i u a l W D R s or c c v e r a g e u n r i ç r Ge n e r a l \¡ V Ð R s fo r lm p a c ' t s to wa t e r s of th e St a t e , an r i / c r r CW Á $4 0 1 wa f e r qu a l i t y ce r t i f i c a t i o n fr o m th e Wâ t ê r Bo a r d an d CW A $4 0 4 pe r m i t e lr o m t h e U . $ . A r m y Cc t r p s of ãn g i n e e r s (U S A C E ) if th e wa t e r s of t h e St a t e ar e al s c ¡ wa t e r s qf th e U. $ . Th e pr o j e c t pr o p o n e n t is ad v i s e d to ca n d u c t a n a l t e r n a t i v e s an a l y s i s co n s i s t e n t w i t h th e re q u i r e m e n t e öf th e fe d e r a l C l \ ¡ { \ S4 0 4 i b X 1 } G¡ J t d e l i n e s . Wh i l e th e s e Gu ¡ c j s l i n e s nr e nr o ç t di r e c t l y in c u m b e n t ün th ê U$ A C Ë , th e pr i n b l p a l s sf a v o i d a n c e , wh i c h th e y ar t i c u l a t e , ar e di r e c t l y re l e v a n l to th e Wa t e r B o a r d ' s ma n d a t e to pr a t e c t wa t e r qu a l i t y ln c l u r l e a CW A S, 4 0 4 ( b X 1 ) G¿ ¡ i d a / i n e s - l i k e al t e r n a t i v e an a l ' y s i s in th e El R . Th e $l a t e r Bo a r d r e g u Ì a t e s al l w e t l a n d âr e â $ ir r e l t r d i n g , bu t no t li m i t e d to , se a s o n a l al p i n e lv e t l a n d s . Al l w e t l a r r d s (d e f i n e d by U . S , Ar m y C o t p s o f Ë n g l n e e r s 19 8 7 We t l a n d s De l i n e a t i o n Ma n u a l ) ar e wa t e r s o f ih e St a t e as we l l as wa t e r s of th e U. . Ê . , an c l th e Wa t e r B ç a r d ' s Ba s i n P l a n pr o h i b i t s an y , d i s c h a r g e of v¡ a s t e eâ r t h e n ma t e r i a l s or o t h e r pr o j e c t - r e l a t e d po l l u t â n t $ to êl l su $ a c e wa t e r E (i n c l u d i n g is o l a t e d rv e t l a n d s ) . Vi o l a t i n g th i s pr o l ' l i b i t i o n wo u l d cr e a t e a si g n i f i c a n t wa t e r qu a l i t y ir n p a c { . lt sl : o t ¡ l d be no t e d t h a t wa t e r qu a l i t y im p a c t s as s o . r i a t e d r, v i l h av o i d l r i g rv e t l a n d ir n p a c t s ar e s u b s t a n t i a l l y dl f f e r e n t th a n t h o s e ae s c c i a t e d ' w i t h mi n i m i z i n g im p a c t s . Th e fi n a l Ël R do c . u r n e r r t sh o u l d in c l u d e an âp p r o v e d we t l â n d de t i n e a t i o n (w i t h dä t a sh e e t s . a r : d ãô c t r n p a n y i n g ma p of da t a po i n t s ) an d m u s t i d é n t l f u me a s u r e s to pr e v e n t th e cJ i s c h a t g e of po l l u t a n t s to we t l a n d ar e å s pr l o r to de t e r m i n i n g th e le v e l of im p a c t th a t wi l l be ç i e a t E d by th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e e t . An y pr ó p o s e d we t l a n d en c r o a c h n r e n t r n u s t ba id e n t i f i e r l ir ¡ th e f i n a l EI R an d mu s t be ac c o m p a n l e d wi t h ap p r o p r i a t e in f o r n r a t i o n fo r th e Wa t s r Bo a r c l to ev a i : . ¡ a t e wh e t h e ! " or no t gu c h an im p a c t wo u l d qu a f i f y fo r an ex e m p { i o n ic a pr o h i b i t i o n . It ma y be ne c e s s a r y to ob t a i n a tí e a n Wa t e r Ac t Se c t i o n 40 4 pe r m i t fr o m th e Ar n r y Co r ¡ r s o f E n g i n e e r c {A r m y Ca r p s i fo r pr o p o s e e l di s c h a r g e s o f d r e d g e d an d f i l l tn a i e r i a l $ 1o wa t a r s of th e Un i t e c J Si a t e s " lf th e Ar m y Co r p s de t e n n i n e s th a t i i is . ne t e s $ a r y tc re g u l a t e lh e pr o . l e c t un d e r $e c t ì o n 40 4 , th e n lh e pr o j e * t ap p t i c a n i ma y be r e q u i r e d to ob t a i n Cl e a n Wa t e r A c t SE c t i o n 40 1 Wa t e r Q u a l i t y C e r i i f i e a l i o n {4 0 i WA C ) fr o m tl " r e Re g i o n a l Bo a r d . Th e pt o J e c t ap p l i c a n t sh o u l d co n t a c t th e Ar n r y Co r p s ' $a c r a n r e n t o D i s t r i c i Õf r i c e an c l dç t e r m i n a if th e pr o j e c t is su b j e c t to Cl e a n \l a t e r Ac t Se c t i o n 40 4 an t l if so , un d e r wh i c h $ e c t i o n 40 4 pe r r n i t . Th e Þr c j e c t pr o p o n e n t sh o u l d co n t a c t f/ a t e r Bo a r d st a f f to de t e r r n i n e lf ft is ne c e s $ * r y t o rr b t a i n Cl e a n Wa t e r Ac t Se c t i o n 40 1 Wa t e r Qu a t i t y Ce r t i f i c a t i o n fr o r ¡ th e Wa t e r Bo a r d , Ca t i f o r n i a En $ r o n ¡ n e t t t ø | . Pr o t e c t î a n o- ße q t l i t l Pr 4 x t ,l g z t t c ¡ * '_ i ¡ 1 r " ' { , / ' : [ r . ¡ . 1 l6 ; :- : 3 53 8 5 4 4 ? ? ì r ' : LA H ü ' l T A t . l F¡ i ( : L - L l r / r L Þe n y e l l e Ni s h i m o r i -7 - Th e Pr o j e c t wi l l ne e d to ín c l u d e ap p r o p r i â i e Ll D . f e a t u r e s än d / o r be s t nt a n a g ê m ê n l pr a c t i c e s (B M P s ) th a t at a mi n i m u m tr e a t o r re t a i n st o r m vt ä t È r r u n o f f fr Ô m ir n p e r v i o u s su r f ä c e s ge n e r ã t e d by lh e 2 0 - y e a r , l- h o u r st ü r m ev e n t (0 . 7 in c h e s of ia i n ) . Bt u l F s de s l g n e r l to re t a i n st o r n ¡ w¿ : l t e r iu n b f f ar e in i e n d a d to av o i d cr re t l u c e ad v e r s e ef f ê c t s lo su r f a c e wa t e r hy d r o l o g y (e . 9 . in c r e a s i n g pe a k fl o w s , in c r e a s i n g ft o w ve t * c i t i e s , fl o o d i n g , êi e , ) , wh i c h ge n e r a ¡ l y le a d to ad v e r e e ef l e c t s on v" ¡ a t e r qu a l i t y an d th e aq u a t í c en v i r o n m e n t (e . g . ir i c r e a s e d ch a n t r e l ir r s t a b i l i t y , b a n k er o s i o r t , ch a n n e i s c Ð u Í , in c r e a s e d se d i m e n t a t i o n , i n c r e a s e d po l l u t a n t lo a d i n g , et c . ) . Su c h BM P s rn a y in c l u c l e , b u t no t b e li m i t e d to , in f i l t r a t i o n tr e n c h e s , in f i l t r a t i o n ga l l e t i e s . an d i n ; ¡ l t r a t i o n b a s i n s . ln ad c i ; i i o n to ma n a g i n g th e s t o n n wå t e r ru n o { f vo l u r n e ge n e r a t e c l by t l t e ab o v e - re t ' e r e r r r : e ' C st o r m , it is eq u a l l y ir n p o r t a n t to en s u r e th a i th e $t 6 r m v/ ã t Ð i is ad e q u a t e l y tr e a t e ' J pr i o r to di s p o s a l . $t o r m wa l e r ru n o f f co n t a í n s se C i m e n t , pe i r a l e u r r 6r r " o d u c t s ân d Õ t : t e r . ¡ e h i c r ¡ l a r fl u i d s , me t a t s , nu t ¡ i e n l s fr o n ¡ fe r t i i i z e r s an d oi n È r sô u r c e s , pe a t i c r d e s , an d rs a d w a y de i c i n g an d tr a c t i o n pr o d u c t s . Th e s e pr o d u c i s ca r ' r C a lí , f o r n ì c E ¡t vb a il m s il tu l P re ¡ I s c I í o n' 4 g e nt . v 4. l- { y d r o l o g i c Di s r u p t l o n : Be c a u s e in c r e s s e d ru n o f f fr o m sl e v e l o p e d ar e a * is th e ke y vã r i a b l e ãi l v i n g a n u m b e r o f ot h e r ad v e r s e e f f e c t s , at t e n t i o n to ma i n t a i n i n g th e pr e - pr o j e c t hy d r o g - r a p h wi l l pr e v e n t or mi n i r n i z e ot h e r pr o b l e n r s an d wi l l li m i t th e ne e d fo r bt n b r an å t y s * s an O mi t i þ a { o n to be in c l u r j e d in th e El R . We st r o n g l y en c o u t a g e th e us e of l- l D pr i n c i p l e s an d pr a c i i c e s ts e e ll t g l l y r ¡ ¡ ¡ r y ¡ ' e 1 e { þ g a d - : g a , . g l ¿ y A r y a l g t i s Ë l & g la t ç g r a n r g l ] q f l iE r p a c t de v e l o o m F n t / i n Ë Ë & $ h l ) A Na t i o n a i Po l l u t a n t D i s c h a r g e El i r r r i n a t i o n Sy s t e m (N P Ð E S ) ge n e Í d l pe r r n i t fo r st ç n n wä t ê r di o c h a r g e s wi l l b e re q u i r e c l du e to cb n $ t r u Ë t ¡ q n ac t i ' ¡ i t í e s re s u l t i n g in a la n d di s t u r b a n c e of ón e äc r e Õr mo r e . Th e ap p l í c a n t ca n ob i a i n a No t i c e of ln t e n t iN p l l Ë S ge n e r a l pe r m i t ap p l i c a t i o n ) fo r st o m wä t e r di g c h a r g e s as s o c i s t e d wi t h co n s t r u c i i o n s c t l v i t i e s on t h e we b at Ut B { ¡ y l t ¡ g l f l g l e È _ o a r d L q g . g o d w a t e r rå q u a - g / Þ Ct i g l r , g l l ! 0 ! ' As pa r t of th e NP D Ë $ Pe r m i t , th e ap p l i c a n t is r e q u i r e c l to de v e l o p an d in t p l e r n e n l a $t o i r n Wa t e r Po l l u t i o n P r e v e n t i o n PI a n (S W P P P j . Th e SU { P P P is sr r b l e c t to re v i e l v by th e Wa t e r Bo a n 1 . Th e Wa t e r Bo a r d wi l l re q u i r e (i u b m i t t a l of gr a d i n g l d r a i n a g e an d ei o s i o n cc r n t r o l pl â n Ë as pa r t of th e SV ü P P P , in âd d i t i c n to th e ot h e r re q u i r e d SW P P P el e m e r ì t s . ln r : l u d e m ê a s u r e s to rn a i n t a i n th e pr e - p r o j e c t hy d r o g r a p h in th e al t e r r r a t l v e s an a l y s e s in th e EI R (s e e be lo w ) . Al s o , th e dr a f f EI R m u s t cj o c u m e n t po t e r . r t i a l cu m u l a i i v e im p a c t s t o wa t e r s h e d hy d r o l o g y fr a m ex i s t i n g ar r d an y Ôt h e r pl a n n e d de v e l o p m e n t in th e a r e a . At i e n l i s r ì Lo nr a i n t a i n i n g th e pr e ç r o j e g t lr y r i r o g r a p h is al s o re q u i r e d u n d e r th e $t a t e Bo a r d ' s G e n e r a l Pe r r n i l fo r Di s c h a r g e s oi St o r m Wa t e r f r o m $r n a l l M$ 4 s (W Q ûr d e r No . 2 0 0 3 - 0 0 0 S - D W O ) an d un d e r th e $t a t e B o a r d ' s G e n e r a l Pe r m i t fo r Ði ç c h a r g e s of $i o r m Wa t e r As e o c i a t e d wi t h Co n s t r u c t i o n Ac t i v i t y (W 8 Or d e r Ns . 20 0 9 - 0 0 0 9 - D W A ) ; th e pr a j e c t w i l l be re q u i r e d 1o ob t a ¡ n cû v e r â g e un d e r th e ta t t e r Qr d e r . Ag a i n , cr ¡ m u l a t í v e ir n p a c t s mu e t al s o be ad d r e s s e d . {$ tl e q ' ; t t < t Pd p e t rs \ / L ? , t 2 ú i 1 1€ , : ' J 3 ç3 8 ã 4 1 ? ? f 1 L. A H I : $ I T A N De n y e l l e Ni s h i t n o r i -8 - ad v e r s e l y af f e c t bo t h su r f a c e an d gr o u n r J wa t e r qu a f i t y , $t a f f re c o r l r n Ê n d s lh a t a cö m b i n a i l o n tf åo u r o g oo i l t r û l an d tr e a t m e n t BM P s be us e d du r i n g an d fo l l o r r y i n g co n s t r u c t i s n . $u c l ¡ BM P s in c l u d e d b u t a r e n o t li m i t e d to : çç n g t r u tc mi Pe r m a n e n t tr a p s su c l r a s ar e â $ of u n s t a b l e so i l cr ¡ n c l i t i o n s su m p âr e a $ wi t l r i n dr o P in l o t ' * , ba s i n s Mi n i m i z i n g th e ar e a t$ t a l Us ì n g ab s o r t r i n g Pr o d u c t * FA S E I] 8 / 1 7 t ItÅ di s t u r b â n c e $t e b i l í e e d âr e a e of i n g r e s s an d ëg f e s 3 Co n s t ri : e t i a n I' l i as t e Ma n a g e m e n t Pl a n (c o n c r e t e wa s t e , tr a s h , c0 n s t r u c t ¡ ê n eq u i p i l t ê n t wa s t e wl t h i n st s r m wâ t e r at r n e n t an d im p l e r n e n t a Re v e g e t a t i o n Pl a n th a t fp t i l i t a t e s ef f e c t i v e s o i l s t a þ i l i z a t i o n wi t h ¡l ^ . r ^ t ¡ n * ¡ . n l a r ¡ I ^. , ; ^ { . i ^ ^ â. 'F ¡ - Å ^ lJ l t V E l \ J p l I lç l tL ar l lL ¡ ! ; r \ 1 ì ' t l l l L , â u l l f l r . ' Ë wa t e r s ms n t tr a p s a$ De v e l o p i n g an d ir n p a I si i t a t i o n fe n c i n g , fi b e r ro l l s , gr a v e l Êh e m i c a l / l r r i g a t i o n Ma n a ç ¡ e r n e n t Pl a n b be r m g da m g fo r im p l e m e n t a t Ma i n t a i n a) Th e pr o p o s e d pr s j e c t sl r o u f d pr o v i d e Þo t h a d e q u a t e çt o r m wa t e r tr e â t r n e r l t ån r l re t e n t i o n . Th e Dr a f t Ël R sh o u l d id e n t i f u th e pr o b a b l e tr e a t n ' r e n t an d re t e n t i o n BM P s an d d i s c u s s th e po l l u t a n t * th a t th e id e n t i f i e d BM P s wi l l ad d r e ç s . Th e f, i r a f t Ël R eh c u l d ql s c ¡ in c l u d e a di s c u s s i c n re g a r d i n g th e qu a n t i t y of st o r m wa t e r ru n o f f th e s e BM P s wi l l ne e c j to a c c o r n m o d a t e . $u c l t in f o r m a t i o n co u l c l þe in c l u c l e d in a "G o n c e p t u a f " $W P P P , Th e Co n c e p t u a l S W P P P wo u l d al s o pr o v i d e sd d i t i o n a l in f o r m a l i o n c. ) n ot h e r ei * r n e n t s {e . 9 , oo n s t i ' u c t i o n w a s t E mä n Ë g s r n s n t . Ê h i P ma i n t e n a n c e , {r a i n i n g , de w e t e r i n g op e r a t i o r r s , po l l u t a n i so u r c a id e n t i { i c a i i o n ) th a t th e NP D E S St o r m Wa t e r Co n $ t r u c t i o n Ge n e r a l Pe r m ? t re q u i r e t be i n g in s l u d e d in a SW P P P . Su c h in f c n n a t i o n wi l l a * ç l s t s t e f f in de t e r r n i n i n g lf wa t e r qu a l i t y wi l i lr e ad e q u a l e l y pr e t e c t e d , b) Ti r e DE I R sh o u k l in c l ¡ . l d e an y s t o r m wa t e r ru n o f f ct n v e y a n r e or dr a i n a g e an a l y s i s re p o r t s tl r a . t l' ¡ a v e l" r e e n çr a r e re q u i r e d to be pr e p a r e d pr i o r to im p l e m e n t i n g th e pr o j e c t . c) Th e Lt F I R s h o u l d dí s c u ç s if fe ¡ t i l i z e i s ä n d ot h e r e h e m i c a l s wi l l Ll e us e d o n la n c l s c a p e d ar e ı s . lf ch * m i c a l s w i l l b e us e c J tp nl e i n t a i n la n d s c a p e d ar e a a , th e DË l R s h o u l d id e n t i f y ih e rn e ä $ u r e s ( ê . 9 . ir i g a t i o n pr a c t i e e s , eh e m i e a l a p p l i c a t i r : r r pr a c t i c e s i tþ a t wi l l be im p l e m e n t e d to pr â v e n t la n c l s c a p e r r a í r r t e n e r r c e .r c t i v i l i c ; e fr c n r ad v e r s e i y af f e c " i i n g wa t e r qu a l i t y . t a I |þ r n i a E n r ìr t) fi ;' t è n î a{ I' r* I e e tí tx , " l gt n c¡ , iß å. . : c r . ¿ t : s ' i r r r F . x , p: , l l ¡ , ' ? r ! 1 t 1Ë : !3 53 8 - î 4 4 ' - ? ? 7 . ' . De n y e l l e Ni s h i m o r i LÊ r H ü ' { ï f n ' ¡ ". 9 .- Cn l í þ r n i n fi n v * t n m e n I a l Fr o \ e c | í o n .Å g e n c a ' På r l r - ù9 . r 1. 1 5 d) lf ih e pr C I j e ç " t wi l l be re l y i n g up o n a re v s g e i a t i o n ef f ( rt to re s t a b i l i e e âr e a s of ' di s t u r b e d so i l , th e pÉ l R eh o u l c l di s c u s s wh a t me a s L r r e s is e e d i n g , Fl a n l i n g , . iá * p o r a r y so i t st ã b i l i z a t i o n su c h as mu l s h ì n g , te m ' . r o r a r y ir r i g a t i o n , mo n i t o r i n g ' ¡n t e i i m a n d t¡ n a l ur . c e s s cr i t e r i a ) wi l l be im p l e r n o n t e d to en s u r e th a t ve g e t a t i o n is re e s t a þ t i s t r e d i¡ r a ma n n e r th a t ef f e c t i v e l y an c l pe r r n å n e n t l y s t a b i l i z e s di s t u r b e d so ¡ l s . Cl e a n W a t e r Åc t s e c t i o n 3t l 3 { d } Li s t : Cl o s e l y re l l r t e d to st O r m r¡ r a t e r co n t r o l / t r e a l m e n t is er o s i o n co n t i o i . l- h e T r u c k e e r{ i v e r ha s be e n pl a q e d o n t h e cl e a n wa t e r Ac t s e c t i o r r 3C I 3 ( d ) Li s l , a s b e i n g wa ! + r qu a t i t y i m p a i r e d cl u e to . ex c e g g i v e ee d i m e n t ã t i o n . Wa t e r Bo a r d sl a f f co n r id e r s in c r e a s e s in *e d l m e n t li a d i n g to th e Tr u c k e e Ri v e r an d it s tr i b u t a r í e s ã i a po t e n t i a l l y si g n i f i w n t ir n p a c t , Th e DË l R s h o u l d id e n t i t y pr o b a b l e er o s i o n c c n t r a l BM P s an d lo c ¿ r t i o n * wi 1 e r e th e y *o g f O li i e l y be de p l o y e d . Th e Co n c e p t u a l SW P P P co u l d be ue e d t' o pr a v i d e s u c h il r f o r n r a t i o n as th e f i n â l SW P P P wi l l ne e d to id e r r t t f y th e sp e c i f i c er o s i o r l ço n t r Ú i B* ¡ 1 p s th a t wi l l be ue e d ãt th e pr o j e c t gi t e an d th e i r lo c a t i o n s . St a f f re c û r n l ï e n { s th a t th e er o s i o n co n t r o l BM P ç fo c u s ûn sÕ u r c e co n t r o l w i t h tr e a t m e n þ b s g e r l BM P s pr o v i d i r r g a se c o n d li n e of de f e n s e . Mi n i r n i a i n g an d s t a b i l i z i n g ar e a s of d¡ s t u r b è d äo i t , rt o o - t pi l e rr r a n a g a m e n t / p r o t e c t i o n , du s t su p p r e $ s i o n , te m p e l r a r y an d pe r m a n e n t st a b i l i z e d st o r m wa t é r co n v e y a n c e fe a l u r e s , an d se d i m e n t tr a c k i n g co n t r o l s . a r e .ç o m e of th e sû u r c e - , : o n t r o l me a s r ¡ r e s th a l c a n be in c o r p o r a t e c t in t o pr o j e c t de s i g n an d co n s t r u c t l o n . lf pr c p o s e d cl u s t co n t r o l r n e a s l ¡ r e s in o l u d e th e us e of du s t pà l t i . t i u * * in ad d i t i o n to or in li e u o f wa t e r , th e n st a f f le c o m m è n d s th a t th e tl E l R in c l u d e s ht a t ç r i a l Sa f e t y Da t a Sl r e e t s fo r ee l e c t e d sl u s t pa l l i a l i v e s so th a t st a f f ca n be t i e r ev a l u a t e if th e pr o p o s e d pr o d u c t s pr e s e n t po i e n t ¡ å l w a t e r qu a l i t y th r e a t s . St a f f s ex p e r i e n o e s ln d i c a t e th a t it is r¡ o r e ef f e c l i v e to kr : ê Þ th e Eo i l in pl a c e . (s o u r c e co n t r o t ) , ia t h e r th a n tr y i n g to re m o v a it by tr e a t m e n t or . : e it ha s be e n rn o þ i l i z e d by St o r m wa t e r ru n o f f or sn o w me l t . Th i e is wh y s t â f f rê c ' ; t n ¡ n e n d s us i n g LI D an d so u r c è - c o n t r o l rn e a s u r e s âs th e pr i m a r y li n e o f de f e n ¡ e wi t h tr e a t m e n t tn å a s u t e s ir r re d u n d a n c y as th e se c o n d li n e of de f e r t s e . gn o w St o r a g e Ar e a s : Th e in f o r m a t i o n pr o v i d e d do e ' ; no t it l q l i u a t e po t e n t i a l lo c a l i o r r . t f o r f ¡ n o w st O r a g e . Sn o w re m o v e d fr q r n ar s e s as s o c i a t e d wi t h de v e l o p m a n t s of th e pr o þ o s e c l pr o j e c t s n a t u r e of t e , t co n t a i n s se c l i m e n t s , oi l - q , gr e a s e i , pe t r o l e r r m ¡r r o d u c t s , an , i ot h e r "o n . 1 ¡ l u e r r t s th a t wo u l d no r n r a l l y be oo t l e c t e d ar r d tr e a t e d th r o u g h va r i o u s Bf r / i P s . Th e DE I R sh o u l d di s c u s s pr o b a b l e rn e t h o d s t' r a t wi l l be em ¡ r l o y e d to pr o l e c t bo t h su d a c e an d gr o u n d wa t e r qu a l i i y fr o r n po l i u t ' . n t t s as s c c l a t e t i wi t h sn o w re t n o v a l an d dl s p o s a l ac t i i i t i e s . Tt r e OË l R sh o u i d ai s o C, s c u s s pr o p o s e d de i c i n g me t h r : d s fo r ro a d an d pa r k i n g ar e g 3 , de i c i n g ma t e r i a l ', t o l Ë r g ê an d ha n d l i ¡ t g ar e a s , an d as s ç c ¡ a t e c l BM P g . 6 '$ . ., ? * . 1 , ; / e d f o p e " [r 5 . j l l r , ' t ¡ l 1 I 1å r ?i g3 É ] Í 4 ¿ ? ' : 7 1 L- i e n' y e l l e Ni s l r i m or i LA H T Í IT A I . I l3 å L i f "b " l l , -1 0 . 7. Ha l ¡ i t a t Co t r n e c t i v i t y : T, ie Pr o j e c t i* pr o p o s e d fo r an op e n sp a c È a r e a an d ma y po $ e â s i g n i f i c a n t di s r u p : r c n to ha b i l ¿ r l co n n e c t i v i t y , Ri p a r i a n cq r r i d o r s an d c t h e r wa t e r s wi t h i n th e re g u l r i t t ¡ . i pr l a , / i e w of t h e Wa t e r Bo a r d ca n pl a y ir n p o r l a n t ro l e s i¡ r rn a i n t a i n i r r g ha b i t a t co rn e ( ti v i t y , Ën c l o s u r e 3, Te n e s t r i a l Ha þ í t a t Ço n n e c t i v i $ Re / a f e d Ta We t l a n d , Rì p a ía n an r l At h e r A q u a t i c Re s a u ¡ c e s , pr o v i d e s in f o r m a t i o r i an c l re f e r e n Ë e s on ti , i s su ' r j e c t . Aq u a t i c ha h ' i l a t rn a y a l s o be f r a g n r e n t e c l by in r p a c t s to st r e â n ì $ or o t h e r w ¡ t e ' o o r . { i e s , Th e E I B sh o u t d an a l y z e th e re g i o n a l ir r i ¡ : u r t a n c e of m o v e m e n t c o r r i d o r s in a¡ r d al u n g v¡ a t e r þ o c l i e s , th e po t e n . r a l r if e c t of di s n i p t i n g su e h c o r r i d o r s , an d th e po t e n t i a l fo r en h å n c , r t g sl . ¡ c h r ço n rc l o ¡ " s l. ; pr o v i d € pr o j e c t mi t i g a l i o n . ln c l t t d e in f o r m a t i o n re g a r d i n c ¡ ar r y se n s i t i v e pl a n r e, 1 d än ma l e p e c i e ç ih a t li k e l y ut i l i z e th e co r r i d o r s . tr d e n t i f y an y pr o j e e t im p a c t s r¡ r" ' p a r i a i l ,: r ot h e r v¿ a t e r s th a t c o u l d co n r p r o m i s e fi t t u r e ¡e m e d i a t i * n of ex i s t i n g co n : re c i i v i t y ba ¡ r ie r * . To fu r t h e r in f o r m ih e s e an a l y s e s , co n s i d e r th e in f o r m a t i o n a' r d li t e r a t u r e re f e r e n c e d in Ën c l o s u r e 2. in c l u d i n g da t a o¡ ¡ th e ro l e of ri p a r i a n cç r rd ç r s âs r n o v e m e n t cc r r i d o r s in Ca l i f c l n i a . B. 10 0 - y e a i ' F l o o d p l a i n Pr o h i b i t i c n : l" h e La h o n t a n Wa t e r Bc ¡ a r d pr o h i b i t s wa s t e di $ e h s ge * ; du e to if l s t u r b a n c e ot su i l a c e wa t Ê r s a n d th ê i r 10 û - y e a i fl o c , d pl a i n s ii i r- 1 . . - + . - - - 1 . - - ñ: - . ^ . - l l . . J - ^ l - - l - ¡ l * : ¿ ? L - - , . -- - L : l - ! r : - - . :- , i : . ^ ¿ L - i  l - ¡ ^ - II i e ! Uç K e e 11 ! v e ! rl y i l l s l ç U l c r. ! l ¡ ! . . I tr $ $ S F) t O f l l l J l l l t l l l $ äl e CÐ f - r I - ã l t { ] ç A lt ! tl l l ? Vì J ë L t i ¡ El t l r ¡c l ' s B; r s i ¡ r Pl a n an d ca n be v i e w e d rn ou r we b s i t e lo c s t e d at hr - , 8 ' J $ ¡ S Þ . , W a t g l b j â r d g . _ 0 9 * g g g l þ h ç f ! 9 i l , un d e r C h a p t e r 4. 1 of th e Ba s i n Pl a n Ïh e r¡ a $ i ñ Pl a n pr o h i b i t i o n s ap p l y in pa r t to dr a i n a g e sw a l e s an d we t l a n d s , in a d d i t i o n t o la r g e r su r f a c e wa t e l s . Tl r e Ël a s i n Pl a n al s < ¡ co n t e i n s ex e n r p t i o n c r i t e r i a fo r pr o h i b i t i o n 4( c ) ad d r e s s i n g wa s t e d i s e h a r y e s t o th e 10 0 - y e a r fl o a c l p l a i n of th e Tr u c k e e Ri v e r an d it s tr i b u t Ê r i * s . Th e pr o j e c t pr o p o n e n t wi i l ha v e to r l t : m o n s t r â t e th å i åì n y pr o p o s e c l di s t u r þ a n c e to çu r f a c e wa t e r s an d l o r th e i r 1 0 ü - y e * r fl o o d p l a i n u ea t i s l ¡ th + e x e m p t i o n cr l t e r i a . Ho $ r ê v e r , no ex e m p t i o n cr i t e r i a e x i s t s fo r i * o l a t e d su d a c e wa l e r s (i n c f u d i n g is o l a t e d we t l a n d s ) , lf th e pr o p o e e d pr o j e c l in c l u e l e s di s c h a r g e s of rv ä s t e , in c l u d i n g bu t no t li m i t e c l to ea r t h ç n ma t e r i a l e , to ls o l a t e d su r f a c e wê t e r s , r re n nl c ' r e th a n li k e l y , gu c h a di * c h a r g e wi l l þe pr o h i b i t e d ar ¡ c l ih e pr o j e c t wi l l ne e d to -, : re d e s i g n e d to av o i d su * h Si s c h ã r g o $ . . ,s im p o r t a n t tt r u t ih e ÐË l R id e n t i f i e s ai l su r f a c e w â t e r s (e p í r e m e r a l an c i pe r e n r r i a i :h a n n e l s / c r e e k s l s t r e a m e , we t l a n d s , po n d s , la k e s , et c . ) an d as s o c i a t e d '1 0 O - y e a r to Ó d p l a i n s lC I æ t e d Õn th ê pr o B o s e d p r o j e c t si t e . lt is al s o i r ï p e r a t i v e th e t th e DE I F ie n t i f y ea * h kn o w n s u r f a c e wâ t e i as "i ç q l a t e i f ' ' er "t r i b u t a r y to th e Tr u c l c e e Ri v e r . ' lf th e pr o j e c t pr o p o s a l in c l u c l e s di s c h a r g * of wa s t e , in c l u d i n g bu t n c t li ¡ n i t e d to ea r t h e n rn a t g r i a l s , to a su r f a c è wâ t e r th a t iE a tr i b u t a r y of t h e Tr u c k a e Ri ! , , ê r , th e n th e ÐE l R ne e r J s to in c f u d e in f o r m a t i o n de m o n s t r a t i n g ho w th e pr o p o s e r l pr o j e c t {r r l r n p l i e s lv i t h th e ¡* r o h i b i t i o n ex e m p t i o n c r i t e r i a co n l a i n e d ln th e Ba s i n Pl a n . lf gu c r r in f o ' r n a t i o n iE no t pr o v i c , l e d in th e ÐË l R , it wi l l be di f f i c u l t ai be s t to i J e t e r r r i n e if th e ¡: t o p o s e d pr o l e c t co m p l i e s wi t h th e Ba s i n Pl a n . Pl e a s e be ãw ' â r e th a l a B a s i n Pt a r r vi o l a t i o n is co n ç k i ç l e d a si g n i f i c a n t im p a c t . Ç a li t ' o r n i * E nv i r ç n ¡ * e tr t a I P r çt e e I ì. o n, 4 g e n c¡ , $ Åc g r t c o ' P a p e t l; i , ¡ l : , ' i ' l j l l 1t ; 3. i 5? B : d 4 : : ; f " : D* n y e l l e Ni s h i m o r i LA H [ , ¡ ' I T å I ' ¡ På r 3 8 . : l . ' 1 l .1 1 - 9. l¿ V a t e r Su p p l y : Th e pr a p c s e d pr o j e c t wi l l c i e a t e a d d i t l o n a l de m a n d up û n ti r Ê e x i a t i n g wa t e r su p p f y sy s l e m " Pu n r p i n g gr o l n d wa t e r pr o v i d e s th e rn a j o r i g of wa l e r su p p l y wi l h i n ti r e Tr u c k e e ar e a . St a f f i s co n c e r n e r J th a t in c r e a s e s in gr o u n d u, ¡ a t e r pu r n p i n g fr o n r th i t Pr o i e c t ma y b e g i n t o ad v e r s e l y af f e c t s u d a c e wa t ê r re s o u r È e $ an d t h e b* n e f i c i a l re s o u r ü e s as s o c i a t e d wi t h th o s e rë s o u r c e s . $l a f f wo u l d cr : n s ì d e r it to be a si g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t if gr o u n d wa l e r rv i t h d r a w a l s be g a n to de c r e a s e s u r f a c e vv a t e r re å o u r c e s du e to i n d i r e c t im p a c t s su c h a s de s i c c a t i n g we t k : n c l s . Th e IJ E I R s h o u l c l pr o v i d e in f o r m a t i o n th a t da r n o n s t r a t e s th a t th e pr o p o s e c l p r o j e c t , in c i i v i d t - t * l l y an d c u m u l a t i v e l y wi t h ot h e r e x r s t i n g an d pr o p o e ; e d de v e l o p m e i i i w i l l n* t ad ' ; e r s e l y im p a c l su f a c e wâ t ê r re t ç u r c e s . lf th e in f o r m a t i o n an d co r r c l u È i o n s f, r r o v i d e d ín th e DË l R re l y up o n re g i o n a l ci r o u n d wa t e r sl u d i e s , th e n e t s f f re q i l e s l å th a t si t e - s p e c i Í i c in f o r m a t i o n ìs al r o pr o v i d e d to sr . r p p o r t an y re g i o n e l - b a s e d co n c f u s i o n s th a t th e tl E l f ì re l i e s u p o n . Ag a i n , th a n k yo u fc r r th i s o p p c r t u n i t y to co r n n r e n t . At t e r n p t s io nl a n a g ê th e tr c l v e r s e ef f e c t s o f ur b a n de v e l o p m e n t fo r r n a la r q ¡ e pa r f , of th e wo r k l a a d of th e St a t e an r J La h o n t a n Wa t e r Eo a r d no n - p o i n t so u r c e , st c r n w a t e r ' , an d lv a t e r qu a f i t y ce r t i T i ç a t i o n pr o g r a r n s , as w* l l å3 ûu r ef f o r t s tö es t a b l i s h to t â l nr a x ¡ r n r . r m da i l y lo a d s fo r ir n p a i r e d wa t e r l¡ o c l i e s . lv l a n y of th e w a t e r bo d i e s cu r r e n t l y on th e S t a i e ' s li s t of im p a i r e d v¿ a t e r lr Õ d i e s er e a f t e c t e d by c o n d i t i o n s wi t h i n ih e pu r v i e w of lo c a l ag e n c y pl a n n i n g . Ho w e v e r , af i e r - t h e - f a c t re g u l ä t e r y co n t r o l is at be * t a pa r t i a l s ¡ - l þ s t i t u t e fo r pl a n n i n g wh i c h av o i d s wa t e r qu a l i t y de g r a d a t i o n . We th e r e f o r e we l c o r r r e th e o p p o r l u n i t y to wo r k wi t h th e To w n of T r u c k e e to ma k e th e Pr o j e c t de v e l o p m e n i an e x a m p l e of en v i r o n m e n t a l l y - a p p r o p r i a t e pl a n n i n g in C s l i f o r n í a . We lo o k fo r w a r d tc r wo r k í n g wi t h yo u lr r yo u r et T o r t s to pr ç 1 6 6 ¡ wa t e r qu a l i t y . lf yo u ha v e an y qu e s t i o n s , p l e a s e co n t a c t "l o b i T y l e r at (5 å 0 ) S4 Z - ä / r 3 5 . ¡\ ! a n M i l l e r , P. Ë , Ct r ¡ e f , N r : r t h B a ¡ ; i n Re g u l a t o r y Un i t Ën c l o s r ¡ r e : Te r r e s t r i a l Ha b i t a t Co n n e c i i v i i y Re i å t e d to W e t l a n c l , Ri p a r : i a n an d .$ i h * r Aq u a t i c Re s o u r c e s rÇ : $t a t e Çl e a r l n g h o u s e -ñ , T lÕ e r y o n $p r i n g s l- i l i : Pê ¡ 1 l i r g / Nt ! + r d ã Sù b r t ì v l s l o r r NO P co r ¡ . n e n l s 5- ' i å - i l Tr d+ c Cô u n t y , 1 C* n y q n S! r n g s $u t l d i v i s l ¡ ¡ r p¡ r i j e r : ! Ct l iþ r n ia En úr o nn t e t i s I F ro t e cl i o n ,4 9 * n c r -