HomeMy Public PortalAboutCanyon Springs DEIR Public Comment #74 (Holan)March 5, 2013
To: Denyelle Nishimori, Senior Planner
10183 Truckee Airport Rd.
Truckee, CA 96161
dnishimori@townoftruckee.com
Re: Comments for Canyon Springs DEIR
Dear Denyelle Nishimori,
As a 13-year resident of Truckee and a professional biologist, I have grave concerns
about the DEIR for the proposed Canyon Springs housing development.
There is the clear and direct conflict with the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan for
development to be concentrated in the core and not in the “rural fringe”. Please explain
how the proposed development does not constitute “rural sprawl” when 200+ units
are to be located within the “rural fringe”.
The following are some of the goals from the 2025 General Plan that are not aligned with
the large Canyon Springs development proposed at the easternmost fringe of the Town:
COS-P1.5 “…Preserve open space that, to the greatest extent possible, occurs in large
blocks and is contiguous and connected... Provide maximum benefit in terms of habitat
preservation. Enhance the overall character of Truckee as a scenic, mountain
community.”
COS-1 “Preserve existing open space in Truckee, and increase the amount of desired
types of open space under permanent protection”
In addition to the proposed development’s conflicts with the General Plan, I have serious
concerns about the methods and sufficiency of the DEIR biological survey and about the
DEIR’s conclusions regarding the Verdi mule deer subunit.
Biological survey insufficiencies
As documented below, the biological site surveys were not sufficient because they 1)
were conducted in a single, atypical year; 2) were biased against winter-occurring species
and nocturnal species; 3) made use of flawed survey methods.
Single, atypical year survey:
The year the focused plant survey was conducted (2011) was an unusually wet spring
following a high-snow winter. Plants specifically are sensitive to hydrologic conditions
and their presence and abundance can vary greatly from year to year. A single-year
survey conducted in an atypical year is likely not representative of the typical flora of the
area. Surveys conducted in alternate years will likely produce different observations.
Because of the inter-annual variation of environmental conditions and the biota that
respond to these conditions, single-year surveys are not accurate enough or
comprehensive enough to be acceptable in even basic scientific studies. For example, the
designation of “U” (“Unexpected”, Table 4.4-2) for the California rare and endangered
species Ivesia sericoleuca (which prefers drier “mesic” conditions; Table 4.4-2) is not
sound given the focused survey was conducted in a “wet” year. This species has the
potential to occur on the site, and in fact have been observed adjacent to the site, so a
single season of survey data are not sufficient. The supplemental literature reviews of the
general area (Foothill Assoc., Inc., 2004; Eco-Analysts, 1990*) do not provide sufficient
resolution for this specific site. Please provide site-specific survey data from typical as
well as atypical (2011) survey years.
*Eco-Analysts, 1990 – there is no full reference given for this source.
No survey of winter-occurring species or nocturnal species
As stated on page 4.4-9 (“b. Field Surveys”): “Current field surveys were conducted in
the spring and summer of 2011 by Foothill Associates on April 5, by HEC from May 3 to
July 6, and by LSA June 8, June 30, and July 11. HEC also conducted surveys in 2010 on
August 30, September 1-2, and between October 13 and December 16.”
First, no information is provided for the number of surveys conducted “from May 3 to
July 6” or “between October 13 and December 16”. How many surveys were conducted
between these dates? One? Five? Weekly? Monthly? Please provide more detailed
information on the number and dates of site surveys so that survey findings can be
adequately assessed.
Second, no surveys were conducted between Dec 16 and April 5 (most of the winter
month with snow occurring). Many species of birds and mammals change location and
alter foraging behavior in winter. These animals do not respond to the human calendar
but to environmental cues like snow accumulation. Deer, for example, often change
location in response to snow depth and often not until late December even in locations
with severe winter conditions (Nelson, 1995. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 73(6): 1069-
1076). Since Truckee often does not have significant snow accumulation until December
or later, the winter use of the proposed development site by animals has not been
captured by these surveys. Please provide adequate biological survey coverage for the
winter months.
Third, as stated on page 4.4-29 “…lack of records (of bats) is likely due to a lack of
survey effort... No bats… were observed during site surveys, but due to the presence of
suitable roosting and foraging habitat, there is a moderate potential for bats to occur on
the project site.”
There appears to be no site-specific data regarding use of the site by bats and other
nocturnal species. Were night surveys conducted? How is use of the site by bats and
other nocturnal species determined?
Why is the potential for bats to occur only moderate if both suitable roosting habitat and
foraging habitat is present? It appears that designations for species occurrence on the
proposed development site are biased favorably toward the developer. Please explain the
criteria for species potential occurrence to be low, moderate or high. Please explain
why there is only moderate potential for the silver-haired bat to occur on at this
suitable site.
Please provide adequate biological survey coverage for nocturnal species.
Flawed survey methods
As stated on page 4.4-9 (“b.i. General Biology and Focused Plant Surveys”): “The June
8, 2011 survey was conducted by walking meandering transects through the project site
and documenting site conditions…” “The surveys [on June 30 and July 11, 2011 for
Ivesia sericoleuca] were conducted by walking meandering transects through suitable
habitats…”
Meandering transects have been shown to provide biased estimates of biological
densities, and are not an accurate survey tool when used alone (i.e. without corroborative
analytical survey methods; Boafo et al., 2009. Pachyderm no. 45). Please provide
corroborative observations for the meandering transect survey data for the June
2008 general survey, and the June 30 and July 11 focused plant survey.
In summary, the DEIR biological survey fails to:
- address inter-annual variability;
- cover all seasons;
- cover nocturnal species;
- use accurate survey methods.
Illogical conclusions regarding Verdi mule deer subunit
Lastly, the conclusions and recommendations of the DEIR regarding the Verdi mule deer
herd are inherently flawed, illogical and completely unsupported. The DEIR first
enumerates the importance of the project site to the Verdi mule deer subunit as well as
the site’s prominent location within the deer migration corridor:
Page 4.4-27: “Movement and migration corridors are an essential element of home ranges
of a variety of wildlife, including the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer
her. This subunit is known to utilize the project site and surrounding area for migration
purposes. Wildlife corridors are within the project area designated as open space.”
Page 4.4-31: “… the CDFG is particularly concerned about the impacts to habitat
(movement) and migration corridors of the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule
deer herd as a result of residential development and recreational use in the project area.”
Page 4.4-32: “Critical fawning habitat for this heard occurs near Dry Lake, located
approximately 1.5 miles south of the project site…”
Page 4.4-32: “According to the CDFG in their 1988 Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Plan,
Update, the majority of the Canyon Springs site is located within a major migration
corridor of the Loyalton-Truckee deer herd.”
Page 4.4-33: “Bitterbrush, found on the project site, is the most important browse (graze)
species, and fawn survival is closely correlated to browse production…As illustrated in
the 2009 and 2001 mule deer reports, there is a high potential for this mule deer herd to
utilize the project site and surrounding area for foraging, movement, and migration.”
The DEIR further states that the mule deer subunit is of concern because it is declining
due to anthropogenic impacts:
Page 4.4-33: “The various causes for the reduction in deer populations are likely from
habitat loss, fires, development, dams, vehicle collisions, and both grazing and
overgrazing by introduced livestock… The protection and enhancement of key mule deer
winter, foraging migratory and fawning habitat are vital to their long-term survival.”
Please explain how the proposed development is not in direct contradiction to the
protection and enhancement of a key mule deer habitat.
The DEIR then, strangely, seems to claim that the development will not substantially
impact the mule deer subunit:
Page 4.4-33: “However, the critical fawning habitat for this deer herd occurs in two
distinct locations approximately 1.5 miles south and approximately 7 miles southwest of
the project site; therefore there is a low potential for fawning habitat for this mule deer
herd on the project site.”
The importance of the proposed development site has never been as a fawning site for
mule deer, which makes this argument irrelevant.
And:
Page 4.4-32: “However, recent data suggest that only a few individuals use the site as a
corridor or for forage at any time.”
The DEIR uses the strange logic that the site may be less important to the declining deer
subunit because there are fewer deer using it. For a population under pressure, remaining
undisturbed habitat becomes, in fact, more important.
This population is declining due to anthropologic pressures. Please explain how
developing this key habitat (thereby exacerbating habitat loss, vehicle collisions and
disturbance, and reducing forage and migration access) does not negatively impact
the long-term survival of the remaining mule deer subunit.
To frame the proposed development as innocuous to the survival and persistence of the
Verdi mule deer subunit is completely contradictory to the Report’s own text which states
that the site is critically important to the deer for forage and migration. The Report also
states that deer are declining due to development and human impacts and protection of
their habitat is vital to their persistence. The Report also states that the entire Canyon
Springs proposed development is within the deer’s major migration corridor and forage
habitat. The Report then vaguely and confusingly claims that only a few individuals make
use of the site, and that it is not a fawning site and therefore mitigation of the proposed
development’s impact on migration or forage is not required.
The DEIR in no way addresses the proposed development’s impact on the Verdi mule
deer population. Designation of unbuilt areas as open space that the deer can use is
completely inadequate when almost the entire site lies within their migration corridor.
Pregnant females in particular – critically important to the persistence of the population –
are most sensitive to disturbance and development. The fawning site at Dry Lake is less
than 2 miles away, meaning pregnant females and young deer are very likely to use the
proposed development site to forage. Additionally, they must migrate through the
proposed development site in spring (pregnant females) and in fall (young of the year). It
has been shown that “[mule] deer avoided human developments in all seasons...
Migratory females were farther from human disturbance … than nonmigratory
conspecifics.” (Nicholson et al., 1997. Journal of Mammology, 78(2): 483-504).
According to Figures 4.4-3 and 4.4-4, there appears to be no access from the north to the
fawning sites south (Dry Lake) and southwest (Lookout Mountain) of the proposed
development site without crossing both roads and high-density residential property.
As stated on page 4-4.46, “…it is well documented that the Verdi subunit…utilize the
project site and surrounding area for foraging, movement, migration and that critical
fawning habitat occurs approximately 1.5 miles south… Furthermore, there is no direct
evidence that the deer use the site for critical winter habitat or that known major
migratory routes (i.e. migration in substantial numbers) for this mule deer herd… exist
within the project site.” The second sentence appears to contradict the first – and indeed
the rest of the Report – regarding the importance of the site to mule deer. Additionally,
the reason the mule deer subunit no longer uses the migration corridor in substantial
numbers is because they no longer exist in substantial numbers. Is this an argument to
discount their importance because there are few left? Because “According to the CDFG,
impacts resulting from residential development and recreational use are currently the
biggest concern for the future of this deer herd.” (pg 4.4-47).
The Report describes “Temporary [wildlife] disturbance during project construction”,
however “buildout of future homes is anticipated to take 20 or more years”, which is not
temporary by any definition. The Report claims “there would be adequate undisturbed
areas for wildlife throughout the 20-year buildout period” (please define and support
what is “adequate” undisturbed area) “therefore the prolonged construction impacts to
wildlife would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.”
Please explain how 20 or more years of ongoing construction within critical
migration and forage habitat would be “less than significant” to the mule deer
subunit. The claim that no mitigation should be required seems an egregious
contradiction to the many statements made within the Report itself about the importance
of the site to mule deer.
Last, the Report uses no studies, no references, no evidence, nor gives any explanation of
the adequacy of the proposed 50-foot setback (pg. 4.4-48) from wildlife corridors. How
does the floodplain relate to the wildlife corridor – does it contain the corridor, or is it
contain by the corridor? Why 50 feet? It sounds like an arbitrary round number that has
no real bearing on wildlife impacts. Where is evidence that this is sufficient to reduce
impact on wildlife using the corridor? Please explain and support the choice of 50 feet
from the floodplain as an adequate setback to prevent disturbance of wildlife using
the corridor.
The following are goals regarding habitat use and protection from the 2025 General Plan
that are at odds with the proposed Canyon Springs development:
LU-P7.2 from the General Plan states: “Residential development shall be clustered to
avoid areas of significant natural resources, including wildlife habitat and migration
corridors”
COS-4 “Protect areas of significant wildlife habitat and sensitive biological resources.”
COS-P4.1 “Provide for the integrity and continuity of biological resources, open space,
habitat, and wildlife movement corridors and support the permanent protection and
restoration of these areas, particularly those identified as sensitive resources.”
COS-P4.2 “Protect sensitive wildlife habitat from destruction and intrusion by
incompatible land use… [and] should consider: Prevention of habitat fragmentation and
loss of connectivity
COS-5 “Maintain biodiversity among plants and animal species in the Town of Truckee
and surrounding area, with special consideration of species identified as sensitive, rare,
declining, unique, or representing valuable biological resources.”
COS-P9.1 “Provide for links between open space areas, both with Truckee and beyond
the Town limits, to create contiguous habitat areas…”
Thank you for seriously considering the many concerns of the citizens of Truckee
regarding the proposed Canyon Springs development. Please contact me with any
questions you may have about my comments and questions over the adequacy of the
DEIR. I look forward to a thorough and considered reply to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Lisa Atwell Holan, MSc Ecology
12089 Highland Ave, Truckee
412-2307
lisa@spiralmonkey.com