HomeMy Public PortalAboutComplete Version RDEIR_092914_revisedCanyon Springs Revised Draft EIR
September 29, 2014 | Prepared For:
Town of Truckee
Canyon Springs Revised Draft EIR
September 29, 2014 | Prepared For:
Town of Truckee
Orange County • Northern California • Los Angeles/Downtown • Los Angeles/West • Inland Empire • San Diego
1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300 | Berkeley, California 94709 | 510.848.3815 | 510.848.4315 (f)www.placeworks.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1-1
2. REPORT SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 2-1
4. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION .................................................................... 4-1
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................... 4.4-1
4.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ......................................................... 4.14-1
5. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................... 5-1
Appendices
Appendix A Mule Deer Reports and References
Appendix B Traffic Data
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
List of Figures
Figure 4.4-1 Plant Communities ............................................................................... 21
Figure 4.4-2 Jurisdictional Waters ............................................................................. 34
Figure 4.4-3 Plant Communities and the Proposed Site Plan ............................... 39
Figure 4.4-4 Jurisdictional Waters and the Proposed Site Plan ............................ 40
Figure 4.14-1 Lane Configuration and Traffic Control ........................................... 11
Figure 4.14-2 2011 Summer PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without
Project .................................................................................................... 16
Figure 4.14-3 2031 PM Traffic Volumes Without Project ...................................... 21
Figure 4.14-4 2011 Project Generated PM Traffic Volumes .................................. 31
Figure 4.14-5 2031 Project Generated PM Traffic Volumes .................................. 32
Figure 4.14-6 2011 PM Traffic Volumes with Project ............................................. 36
Figure 4.14-7 Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Left Turn
Acceleration Lane Conceptual Design ............................................... 42
Figure 4.14-8 Whitehorse Road/Glenshire Drive Intersection Sight
Distance ................................................................................................. 54
Figure 4.14-9 2031 PM Traffic Volumes With Project ............................................ 61
Figure 5-1 Alternative B (Edinburgh Drive Open Access) Site Plan ............... 13
Figure 5-2 2011 Project Net Impact on PM Traffic Volumes with
Edinburgh Access ................................................................................. 19
Figure 5-3 2031 Project Net Impact on PM Traffic Volumes with
Edinburgh Access ................................................................................. 20
Figure 5-4 2011 PM Traffic Volumes with Edinburgh Access ......................... 21
Figure 5-5 2031 PM Traffic Volumes with Edinburgh Access ......................... 22
Figure 5-6 Alternative C (No Open Space Crossing) Site Plan ......................... 25
Figure 5-7 Alternative D (Medium Density Cluster) Site Plan .......................... 33
Figure 5-8 Alternative E (Reduced Density) Site Plan ........................................ 41
Figure 5-9 Alternative F (Open Space Buffers) Site Plan ................................... 49
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................. 9
Table 4.4-1 Truckee General Plan Policies Pertaining to Biological
Resources ................................................................................................. 5
Table 4.4-2 Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring on the
Canyon Springs Subdivision Project Site ........................................... 10
Table 4.14-1 Truckee General Plan Goals and Policies Pertaining to
Transportation and Traffic .................................................................... 4
Table 4.14-2 Town of Truckee Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements
and Criteria .............................................................................................. 8
Table 4.14-3 2011 Traffic Volumes During AM and School PM Peak
Hours Without Project ........................................................................ 18
Table 4.14-4 2031 Traffic Volumes During AM and School PM Peak
Hours Without Project ........................................................................ 22
Table 4.14-5 Historical Traffic Data (2006- 2010) .................................................. 25
Table 4.14-6 Project Trip Generation ....................................................................... 29
Table 4.14-7 Project Generated Traffic Volumes During AM and
School PM Peak Hour ......................................................................... 33
Table 4.14-8 2011 with Project Traffic Volumes During AM and
School PM Peak Hours ........................................................................ 37
Table 4.14-9 2011 Intersection Level of Service ..................................................... 38
Table 4.14-10 Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Intersection LOS
with Center Turn Lane ......................................................................... 43
Table 4.14-11 2011 Roadway Level of Service Analysis ........................................... 48
Table 4.14-12 Construction Trip Generation ............................................................ 52
Table 4.14-13 2031 Traffic Volumes During AM and School PM Peak
Hours With Project .............................................................................. 62
Table 4.14-14 2031 Intersection Level of Service ..................................................... 63
Table 4.14-15 2031 Roadway Level of Service Analysis ........................................... 66
Table 5-1 Alternatives Impacts Comparisons ...................................................... 5
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv
1 INTRODUCTION
1-1
This Limited Revised and Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, here-
inafter referred to as “Revised Draft EIR”, provides an assessment of potential
environmental consequences of the construction of the proposed Canyon Springs
Subdivision project (the project). The Town of Truckee (Town) is the lead agency
for the project. This Revised Draft EIR is intended to inform the Town of Truck-
ee Planning Commission and Town Council, responsible agencies and the public-
at-large of the nature of the project and its potential impacts. Additionally, this
Revised Draft EIR identifies mitigation measures that, if adopted, would reduce or
avoid potentially significant impacts and examines alternatives to the proposed
project. This Revised Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with the Califor-
nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the
Town’s local procedures for implementing CEQA.
A. Environmental Review Process
1. Notice of Preparation/Scoping Meeting
The Town of Truckee Community Development Department issued a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) on Wednesday, April 20, 2011, initiating a scoping period for
the 2012 Draft EIR which extended from April 20 through May 20, 2011. Two
separate scoping meetings were held on Wednesday, May 4, 2011: 1) for responsi-
ble agencies, and 2) for all other agencies, organizations, and members of the pub-
lic. During the scoping period oral and written comments were received on the
proposed project, project alternatives, and the scope of the EIR. In addition, the
Town considered the comments from public agency and service providers, and
members of the public that were submitted for the previous Tahoe Boca residential
development proposal in 2003 and the Canyon Springs residential development
proposal in 2007. These comment letters were provided in Appendix B of the
2012 Draft EIR. The comment letters received from 2003 through 2011 were used
for the preparation of the 2012 Draft EIR.
2. Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability/Public Hearing
Prior to the release of the 2012 Draft EIR, a Neighborhood Meeting was held on
December 18, 2012 from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Town of Truckee Town Hall in
the Council Chambers to provide an overview of the proposed project and the
environmental review process.
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, a Notice of Completion
(NOC) of the 2012 Draft EIR was filed with the Office of Planning and Research
(OPR) State Clearinghouse and circulated to State agencies on December 19, 2012
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
INTRODUCTION
1-2
for a 73-day review period ending on March 1, 2013. Pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15087, the Town provided at the same time a Notice of Availa-
bility (NOA) and the 2012 Draft EIR was distributed to various public agencies,
private organizations and groups for the 73-day public review period. During this
review period, a public meeting was held on January 29, 2013 from 6:00 to 8:00
p.m. at the Town of Truckee Town Hall in the Council Chambers to provide an
overview of the 2012 Draft EIR including the findings and to invite public com-
ments on the 2012 Draft EIR to be submitted in writing to the Town of Truckee.
Due to requests from the public during the comment period, the public review
period was extended for an additional five days to March 6, 2013.
Copies of the 2012 Draft EIR were available for review at the Town of Truckee’s
Community Development Department and via internet at
www.townoftruckee.com. During the 78-day public review period the Town re-
ceived six comment letters from public agencies and 66 letters from members of
the general public.
3. Revised Draft EIR
After preparation of the 2012 Draft EIR, but prior to its certification, the Town
prepared an addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis, received new data on Loyal-
ton-Truckee Mule Deer Herd, conducted an additional biological field survey of
the project site and considered a new alternative to the proposed project as a result
of written comments and comments presented at the 2013 public meeting. In
compliance with Section 15088.5(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, the 2012 Draft EIR
was revised to include the new technical study, alternative and updated infor-
mation. Additionally, those comments relevant to CEQA and the 2007 Draft EIR
were also addressed. The purpose of recirculation is to allow interested public
agencies, groups and individuals the opportunity to review and comment on new
and updated information provided in the Revised Draft EIR for the proposed Pro-
ject.
This Revised Draft EIR will be available for review by the public and interested
parties, agencies, and organizations for a minimum 45-day comment period. Refer-
enced technical studies and other cited materials are available for review in the pro-
ject file at the Town of Truckee Community Development Department, 10183
Truckee Airport Road in Truckee.
During the 45-day comment period, the public is invited to submit written or e-
mail comments on the Revised Draft EIR to the contact information provided
below.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
INTRODUCTION
1-3
Written comments should be submitted to:
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
Town of Truckee Community Development Department
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 96161
Fax: 530-582-7889
Email: dnishimori@townoftruckee.com
4. Final EIR
Following the close of the 45-day comment period on the Revised Draft EIR, a
Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) will be prepared that contains all
substantive comments received on the 2012 Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR,
written responses to those comments, and necessary changes or additions to the
text and analysis in the 2012 Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR. The Final EIR
will be made available to Town of Truckee Planning Commission and Town Coun-
cil for review and certification prior to their consideration of project entitlements.
B. Summary of Revisions
Section 15088.5(g) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that, “[w]hen recirculating
a revised EIR, either in whole or in part, the lead agency shall, in the revised EIR or
by an attachment to the revised EIR, summarize the revisions made to the previ-
ously circulated draft EIR.” This Revised Draft EIR incorporates information
originally presented in the 2012 Draft EIR specific to Chapter 1 (Introduction),
Chapter 2 (Report Summary), Section 4.4 (Biological Resources), Section 4.14
(Transportation and Traffic), and Chapter 5 (Alternatives to the Proposed Project).
In addition, the Revised Draft EIR also includes updated information and technical
studies described further below. The Revised Draft EIR is a partial EIR, and is
limited certain chapters of the 2012 Draft EIR listed under Section C, Report Or-
ganization, below. In summary, the Revised Draft EIR includes the incorporation
of the following technical study, alternatives and updated information for the pro-
posed Project:
1. Technical Study
Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum #1 prepared by LSC Transportation
Consultants, Inc., January 17, 2014: This addendum reflects an update to intersec-
tion Level of Service (LOS) analyses for all study intersections using the Highway
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
INTRODUCTION
1-4
Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 method,1 and an evaluation of the impact of the
updated Town of Truckee TransCAD traffic model.
2. Field Assessment
EIR biologists from LSA conducted an additional field survey on November 1,
2013 to evaluate the Jeffrey pine and sagebrush plant communities.
3. Supplemental Data
Additional data related to the long-range studies on the Loyalton-Truckee mule
deer herd prepared by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in
cooperation with Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW) that was made available to
the Town on August 27, 2013, January 23, 2014 and April 10, 2014 by CDFW fol-
lowing formal Public Records Requests2 by the Project Applicant. Additional in-
formation regarding the herd was included in the letter submitted by the Project
Applicant to the Town Attorney dated February 21, 2014 and specific movement
data on deer using the site and the property adjacent to the site to the southeast
was also provided to the Town by CDFW on September 3, 2014.3
4. Alternatives
No Project Alternative: This alternative has been revised to clarify the current
uses on the site.
Open Space Buffer (185 units) Alternative: This alternative provides an addi-
tional 4.6 acres of open space buffer between the development area and the
open space area in the southeast corner of the site. In addition, this alternative
re-routes the publically accessible trail to avoid the southeast corner of the site
and the large pebble meadow located in this area.
1 The HCM 2010 Method was not available when the Notice of Preparation was
released on April 20, 2011 and when LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. started working
on the Transportation Impact Analysis in spring 2011.
2 California Public Records Act (California Government Code section 6250 et seq).
3 The initial Notice of Availability mistakenly referenced data provided by the Cal-
ifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on September 22, 2014. This error was
corrected via an errata issued September 26, 2014. Some data was provided in preliminary
form by CDFW in late September, but it was raw, non-processed/non-finaled data that was
therefore not relied upon in the Revised Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
INTRODUCTION
1-5
C. Report Organization
This Revised Draft EIR is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction. Provides an introduction and overview of the Revised
Draft EIR document.
Chapter 2: Report Summary. Provides a synopsis of the environmental impacts
from the proposed project, describes recommended mitigation measures, and
indicates the level of significance of impacts before and after mitigation.
Chapter 4.4: Biological Resources. Provides a description of the biological re-
sources present or potentially present on the project site, and discusses poten-
tial impacts to these resources that could result from buildout of the project, as
well as associated mitigation measures to offset any impacts. Specifically, this
chapter has been revised to incorporate the new data provided by the Califor-
nia Department of Fish and Wildlife and the results of the field assessment
conducted by LSA biologists.
Chapter 4.14: Transportation and Traffic. Provides a description of the existing
traffic, circulation, and transportation conditions in the Town of Truckee, ad-
dressing vehicular traffic, as well as parking, transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and
aviation facilities, and evaluates potential impacts of the proposed project.
Specifically, this chapter has been revised to incorporate the new data from the
Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum #1 prepared by LSC Transporta-
tion Consultants, Inc., January 17, 2014.
Chapter 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Considers alternatives to the pro-
posed project, including the CEQA-required “No Project Alternative,” and
explains why some alternatives were not carried forward for detailed evalua-
tion. Specifically, this chapter has been revised to include an analysis of the
new Open Space Buffer alternative.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
INTRODUCTION
1-6
2 REPORT SUMMARY
2-1
This summary presents an overview of the proposed project and conclusions of the
analysis contained in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation. This chapter also
summarizes areas of controversy and alternatives to the project. For a complete
description of the project, please consult Chapter 3, Project Description. For more
information about project alternatives, please consult Chapter 5, Alternatives to the
Proposed Project.
A. The Proposed Project
1. Site Proposal History
Over the past 20 years, the project site has been the subject of similar residential
development proposals, the first of which was previously approved by the Nevada
County Board of Supervisors in 1990. Past projects seeking approval by the Town
of Truckee (Town) include the Tahoe Boca proposal in 2003 and the Canyon
Springs proposal in 2007.
The Tahoe Boca (2003) proposal consisted of a tentative map, planned develop-
ment, and easement abandonment application to create 250 for-sale single-family
housing lots, including 19 affordable housing lots.
The Canyon Springs (2007) proposal, an application similar to the Tahoe Boca
proposal, consisted of 213 housing lots, including 32 affordable housing lots. A
Draft EIR was prepared for the Canyon Springs (2007) proposal and public and
agency comment was submitted to the Town. However, the majority of property
changed ownership in 2009 and the original application, which was the subject of
the 2007 Draft EIR, was closed, and the Draft EIR was withdrawn.
A summary of the proposed project’s features is provided below. A comparison of
the more noteworthy changes between the proposed project and the previous pro-
posals was provided on the Notice of Preparation, which is included in Appendix
A of this Draft EIR. A complete description of the project is included in Chapter 3
of this Draft EIR.
2. Project Characteristics
The proposed project includes the approval of a tentative map application to sub-
divide six parcels comprising 283.76 acres. The project would result in the phased
construction of a new residential subdivision with a total of 185 residential lots and
4.5 miles of public trails in the Town. The new subdivision would be organized
around new streets, and public open spaces and wildlife corridors, as shown on the
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-2
project site plan (Figure 3-5 in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR). Supporting infrastruc-
ture, including roadways, on- and off-site utilities, and trails, would span an eight-
year period and coincide with implementation of eight development phases and
recordation of up to eight final maps. Key project features include:
Housing Lots: The project would include 185 housing lots ranging in size
from 14,000 to 31,000 square feet. 177 of the lots would be for-sale market-
rate lots and eight lots would be affordable housing lots to be sold, developed,
or donated for future multi-family attached housing.
Open Space and Recreation Area: Under the proposed project a total of
176.17 acres is included as public open space. The public open space would
be permanently reserved as part of the home owner association-maintained
common area and would serve as a wildlife habitat and movement corridor.
The project includes a 24,015-square-foot recreational area to be centrally lo-
cated within the project site to serve as a neighborhood center and would be
available for use by future residents. The recreational area could include fea-
tures such as a tot-lot, swing set, play structure, picnic shelter, pool, clubhouse,
and/or multi-use play court.
Vehicular Circulation: New internal roads would be created throughout the
project area and would connect at various points with two links to the sur-
rounding area. The project would include two vehicular access points—one
for emergency access only and one for unrestricted access. The primary access
point would connect to Martis Peak Road to the north of the project site. The
secondary, emergency-access-only, access point would connect to Edinburgh
Drive to the west of the project site. The project’s roadway network includes
four bridges, all of which would be located outside of any mapped 100-year
floodplains.
Trail System: The project includes a publicly-accessible 4.5-mile trail system
made up of both 2-foot-wide soft-surface earthen trails and 12-foot-wide grav-
el trails. The public access points utilize existing trail alignments to provide
connectivity to the surrounding community for permitted and lawful use of
on-site trails by the public. The trails would be accessible for summer and
winter non-motorized uses such as hiking, running, mountain biking, equestri-
an use, cross country skiing, and snowshoeing. Motorized vehicles would not
be allowed.
Public Services and Utilities: Public services and utilities for the project site
would be provided by:
Truckee Fire Protection District
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-3
Truckee Police Department
Tahoe Truckee Unified School District
Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District
Truckee-Donner Public Utilities District (water)
Truckee Sanitary District (sewer)
Tahoe-Truckee Sanitary Agency (sewer)
Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal (solid waste)
Southwest Gas (natural gas)
Liberty Energy – California Pacific Electric Company (electricity)
AT&T (telephone)
Suddenlink Communications (cable)
There is currently no utility infrastructure in place to serve the project. The
project will include the installation of on-site, underground infrastructure for
natural gas, electricity, water, sewer, telephone and cable, and off-site, under-
ground improvements to the Truckee-Donner Public Utilities District (water)
network.
The project includes the establishment of the Canyon Springs Homeowners
Association, which would provide the following services:
Snow removal and road maintenance, until revenue neutrality is reached;
Drainage maintenance;
Trail and open space maintenance; and
Recreational area maintenance.
Drainage and Grading: All proposed building envelopes would fall outside
of the Town-required 50-foot setback from designated 100-year floodplains
for two blue-line waterways.1 A minimum 50-foot building setback would be
maintained along all other on-site ephemeral drainages, as shown in Figure 3-
6.2 Surface drainage from impervious surfaces located within the proposed re-
stricted building envelopes will be collected, treated, and contained on-site us-
ing low impact development methods of drainage treatment. Infiltration
trenches, rainwater gardens, and small retention, or subsurface structures,
would be utilized. Treatment of paved roadway surfaces will be directed to
1 A blue-line stream is one which flows for most or all of the year and is marked on a
7.5-minute series USGS topographic quadrangle map with a solid blue line.
2 A 50-foot setback is a requirement imposed where structures proposed on parcels
with an average depth of 175 feet or more shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the
edge of the 100-year floodplain of any stream, per Town of Truckee Development Code
Section 18.38.040.A.2.a.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-4
onsite retention basins, infiltration trenches, and/or bio-swales designed to ac-
commodate a 20-year, 1-hour storm event per Town and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Lahontan Region requirements. Grading
for on- and off-site infrastructure and roadways would be balanced on-site,
although temporary stockpiles would be used.
B. Areas of Controversy
The following is a discussion of issues that are likely to be of particular concern to
agencies and interested members of the public during the environmental review
process. While every concern applicable to the CEQA process is addressed in this
EIR, this list is not necessarily exhaustive, but rather attempts to capture those
concerns that are likely to generate the greatest interest based on the input received
during the scoping process for this EIR and the comments provided on the 2007
Canyon Springs Draft EIR.
Aesthetics/Visual Resources. The project would involve the development
of privately owned undeveloped land to a residential subdivision. Some mem-
bers of the public have expressed concern regarding the visual impacts of de-
veloping on the steep slopes, tree removal, and loss of natural scenery, within
the project site. Residents have requested a larger greenbelt between the pro-
posed project and existing homes to compensate for loss of visual resources,
and that new buildings are designed to be consistent with the ‘character of
Truckee.’
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Comments expressed concerns
regarding air quality impacts as a result of heavy construction due to the re-
lease of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) chemi-
cals. There is also an identified concern from the community for reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and achieving a net zero energy project and
climate change-related impacts as a result of tree removal.
Biological Resources/Wetland Habitat/Wildlife Corridor. Concerns
were voiced over impacts to the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd habitat and
call for establishment of a migration corridor to protect the mule deer. Some
comments express concern for increases in bear activity and request “bear
proof” trash cans in new residences (with locked lids) to keep bear and dan-
gerous wildlife away.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-5
Cultural Resources. Some comments identify the need for consultation and
review with the Native American Heritage community and for an evaluation to
assess if there are any archeological resources present on the property.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Some members of the public voiced
concern over an electrical substation located near future development parcel
and its effects on the health of citizens. There is also concern that the project
would compromise safety in case of fire and will limit emergency evacuation
routes.
Hydrology and Water Quality. Some members of the public expressed
concerns regarding the provisional distribution of water to the subdivided are-
as and its effects on the current residents’ water supply. Comments claim that
in the past the water quality has deteriorated, causing water to turn ‘milky’ due
to a problem of ‘pump cavitation’ and a concern that the proposed project will
decrease surface water retention and infiltration. Runoff impacts and impacts
to drainage facilities are concerns requested to be addressed in the EIR.
Land Use and Planning. Some comments request a comprehensive expla-
nation of density including secondary units. Some comments request clarifica-
tion if buildings and/or parcels are proposed within open space and if building
setbacks are being counted towards required open space. The increase of new
residents in the neighborhood is a concern. Some commentors are concerned
that the current residents’ utilities will be burdened by the future residents.
Noise. There is concern about increased noise pollution due to long-term
construction and the increased density of homes.
Public Services and Recreation. Some comments expressed a concern that
the project will lead to overcrowding at Glenshire Elementary, a decrease in
emergency service/fire response time, a reduction in recreational opportuni-
ties, and impacts to Glenshire-Devonshire Home Owner’s Association ameni-
ties. There is concern that the project will potentially destroy open space. The
community is also concerned with an analysis of how emergency services can
adequately respond to catastrophes (such as large fires) with only two points of
egress from the greater Glenshire area.
Traffic and Transportation. Concerns were voiced over existing intersection
safety and roadway capacity as a result of new vehicle trips to and from the
site. There is concern that increased traffic flows will lead to decreased prop-
erty values along those routes and will result in roadway hazards in winter
conditions and risk pedestrian and bicycle safety from increased traffic are a
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-6
concern. Commenters requested using data from when school is in session
versus the summer PM peak standard currently used. Members of the public
have expressed concern with the difficulties in entry and exit at the Martis
Peak Road/Glenshire Drive intersection. There is a safety concern for chil-
dren coming home from Glenshire School. New sidewalks, bike paths/lanes,
and the widening of roads in the Glenshire Area are requested to alleviate the
danger of additional traffic. There are concerns that child safety is compro-
mised due to expected increased traffic in the neighborhood.
Property Value/Economics/Quality of Life. While not a topic evaluated
under CEQA, some commentors expressed concern with the feasibility of the
project. The fiscal impacts on the schools and public services are of large con-
cern (supply of more buses, increased water and electricity costs, etc.). Some
commentors expect a financial impact on elementary school capacity due to
future construction costs. There are concerns about decreased property values
and ghost development. Another concern is that the project may lead to an
increase in second-home owners which could further reduce year-round
homeowners’ values in the local market within the current economy. There is
fear that high density will affect the quality of life in Glenshire.
C. Alternatives to the Project
This Draft EIR analyzes alternatives to the proposed project that are designed to
reduce the significant environmental impacts of the project and feasibly attain some
of the project objectives. The following alternatives were analyzed in detail.
Alternative A: No Project. This alternative is required under CEQA, and
describes the effects of taking no action or not receiving project approval.
This alternative provides a general discussion of what would reasonably be ex-
pected to occur on the project site if the proposed project is not approved.
This alternative introduces a “no build” concept despite the fact that the Town
has zoned the project site for residential development. With this alternative,
the current unauthorized and unregulated recreational uses on the site would
continue.
Alternative B: Edinburgh Drive Open Access (185 Lots). This alternative
is the same as the proposed project, except that unrestricted access to the site
would be provided via Edinburgh Drive to the west of the site, in addition to
the Martis Peak Road access point. Under this alternative the project density
and the site plan would be the same as the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-7
Alternative C: No Open Space Crossing (185 Lots). This alternative
would result in the same size and number of residential lots as the proposed
project. However, under Alternative C, the proposed vehicular roadway that
spans the portion of the open space area would be gated and restricted to use
by emergency vehicles only. Subsequently, the access point that connects to
Martis Peak Road to the north of the project site and the access point that
connects to Edinburgh Drive to the west of the project site would both be re-
stricted (meaning there would be no open through connection from Edin-
burgh Drive to Martis Peak Road). Similar to the proposed project, the road-
way network under Alternative C would include four bridges that would be lo-
cated outside of the 100-year floodplain similar to the proposed project.
Alternative D: Medium Density Cluster (185 Lots). This alternative
would reduce the lot size for each of the 185 proposed residential lots, which
would decrease the overall development footprint and increase the open space
area from that of the proposed project. Under Alternative D, the residential
lots would be organized consistent with the Medium Density Residential Clus-
ter standards outlined in Table LU-7, Cluster Development Types and Appli-
cable Land Use Designations, in the Land Use Element of the Town of Truckee
2025 General Plan. As such, the residential lots would cover approximately 54
acres (approximately 3 to 4 dwelling units/acre) and public open space areas
would cover approximately 230 acres, an increase of 54 acres of open space
from that of the proposed project.
Alternative E: Reduced Density (88 Lots). This alternative describes a re-
duced density development project design in which there would be a 53 per-
cent reduction in the number of residential lots from the proposed 185 lots to
approximately 88 lots. Under this alternative, the site plan would essentially be
the same as the proposed project; however, the lot sizes would be greater than
the proposed project. The development footprint would not be reduced from
that of the proposed project. Under this alternative, the private open space
between the residential units would be greater than that of the proposed pro-
ject due to the larger lot sizes and reduced density. Overall, the project density
would also be less than that of the proposed project.
Alternative F: Open Space Buffers (185 Lots). This alternative provides ap-
proximately 4.6-acres of additional open space buffers between the develop-
ment area and the open space area in the southeast corner of the site. Under
this alternative, the site plan would essentially be the same as the proposed
project; however, the lot sizes would be smaller than the proposed project in
order to construct 185 lots while avoiding development in the southeast corner
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-8
of the site. The development footprint would be slightly reduced from that of
the proposed project by approximately 4.6 acres. In addition, this alternative
re-routes the publically accessible trail to avoid the southeast corner of the site
and the large pebble meadow located in this area.
Please see Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of this Revised Draft
EIR, for more information on these alternatives and on alternatives that were con-
sidered but not carried forward for detailed analysis. Alternatives B through F are
shown in Figures 5-1, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8 and 5-9.
D. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
Under CEQA, a significant impact on the environment is defined as a substantial,
or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within
the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna,
ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance.
The proposed project has the potential to generate significant environmental im-
pacts in a number of areas. As shown in Table 2-1, the significant impacts would
be reduced to a less-than-significant level if the mitigation measures recommended
in this report were implemented.
CEQA allows environmental issues for which there is no likelihood of a significant
impact to be “scoped out” during the EIR scoping process, and not analyzed fur-
ther in the EIR. The project would have no impact on mineral resources due to its
existing site conditions and surrounding uses. This issue has therefore not been
analyzed further in this Draft EIR.
Table 2-1 presents a summary of impacts and mitigation measures identified in this
report. It is organized to correspond with the environmental issues discussed in
Chapters 4.4, Biological Resources, and 4.14, Transportation and Traffic of this
Revised Draft EIR. The table is arranged in four columns: 1) environmental im-
pacts, 2) significance prior to mitigation, 3) mitigation measures, and 4) significance
after mitigation. A series of mitigation measures is noted where more than one
measure may be required to achieve a less-than-significant impact. For a complete
description of potential impacts and suggested mitigation measures, please refer to
the specific discussions in Chapters 4.4, Biological Resources, and 4.14, Transporta-
tion and Traffic of this Revised Draft EIR.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
RE
P
O
R
T
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
LT
S
=
L
e
s
s
T
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
S
=
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
an
t
S
U
=
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
2-
9
TAB
L
E
2-
1
SUM
M
A
R
Y
O
F
IMP
A
C
T
S
A
N
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Be
f
o
r
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
BI
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
BI
O
-
1
:
R
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
J
e
f
f
r
e
y
p
i
n
e
a
n
d
s
a
g
e
b
r
u
s
h
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
p
o
t
e
n
-
ti
a
l
l
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
S
i
e
r
r
a
N
e
v
a
d
a
r
e
d
f
o
xe
s
i
f
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
d
e
n
s
i
t
e
s
o
c
c
u
r
o
n
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
S
BI
O
-
1
:
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
s
t
a
r
t
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
p
h
a
s
e
o
f
d
e
v
e
l
-
op
m
e
n
t
,
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
s
h
a
l
l
su
r
v
e
y
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
i
f
a
n
y
b
u
r
r
o
w
s
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
d
e
n
si
t
e
s
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
u
s
e
b
y
S
i
e
r
r
a
N
e
v
a
d
a
r
e
d
f
o
x
a
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
se
l
e
c
t
e
d
s
u
r
v
e
y
o
r
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
C
D
F
W
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
a
n
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
.
I
f
n
o
e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
fo
u
n
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
f
i
e
l
d
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
,
n
o
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
If
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
S
i
e
r
r
a
N
e
v
a
d
a
r
e
d
f
o
x
d
e
n
i
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
,
C
D
F
W
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
e
d
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
h
o
w
t
o
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
.
I
t
ma
y
b
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
a
v
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
n
o
-
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
s
,
s
e
a
s
o
n
a
l
w
o
r
k
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
)
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
ta
k
e
o
f
S
i
e
r
r
a
N
e
v
a
d
a
r
e
d
f
o
x
.
I
f
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
t
a
k
e
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
p
r
e
-
ve
n
t
e
d
,
i
t
m
a
y
b
e
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
o
b
t
a
i
n
a
n
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
t
a
k
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
fr
o
m
C
D
F
W
,
p
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
S
e
c
t
i
on
2
0
8
1
o
f
C
E
S
A
,
b
e
f
o
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
-
ti
o
n
m
a
y
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
.
LTS
BI
O
-
2
:
R
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
J
e
f
f
r
e
y
p
i
n
e
a
n
d
s
a
g
e
b
r
u
s
h
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
p
o
t
e
n
-
ti
a
l
l
y
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
b
i
r
d
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
L
e
w
i
s
’
s
w
o
o
d
p
e
c
k
e
r
s
a
n
d
y
e
l
l
o
w
wa
r
b
l
e
r
s
,
i
f
t
h
e
s
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
a
r
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
S
BI
O
-
2
:
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
en
t
e
d
t
o
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
y
e
l
l
o
w
w
a
r
b
l
e
r
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
a
p
p
l
y
t
o
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
o
f
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
(
e
.
g
.
,
r
o
a
d
s
,
ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
)
a
n
d
a
l
s
o
t
o
f
u
t
u
r
e
h
o
m
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Al
l
t
r
e
e
s
,
s
h
r
u
b
s
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
i
s
t
o
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
w
o
r
k
a
r
e
a
sh
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
no
n
-
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
6
a
n
d
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
8
.
If
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
i
s
n
o
t
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
o
n
-
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
se
a
s
o
n
,
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
sh
a
l
l
s
u
r
v
e
y
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
w
o
r
k
a
r
e
a
a
n
d
l
a
n
d
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
5
0
0
-
f
o
o
t
ra
d
i
u
s
(
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
m
a
y
b
e
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
d
u
e
t
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
c
o
n
-
st
r
a
i
n
t
s
)
f
o
r
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
b
i
r
d
s
.
T
h
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
-
ed
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
4
d
a
y
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
s
t
a
r
t
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
If
n
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
t
s
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
,
w
o
r
k
c
a
n
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
.
If
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
t
i
s
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
i
m
-
pl
e
m
e
n
t
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
w
o
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
:
A
n
o
-
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
a
c
-
ti
v
e
n
e
s
t
(
s
)
u
s
i
n
g
o
r
a
n
g
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
uc
t
i
o
n
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
(
o
r
eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
)
.
LTS
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
RE
P
O
R
T
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
TAB
L
E
2-
1
SUM
M
A
R
Y
O
F
IMP
A
C
T
S
A
N
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
LT
S
=
L
e
s
s
T
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
S
=
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
an
t
S
U
=
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
2-
1
0
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Be
f
o
r
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
Fo
r
r
a
p
t
o
r
s
,
t
h
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
a
t
a
5
0
0
-
f
o
o
t
r
a
d
i
-
us
;
f
o
r
n
o
n
-
r
a
p
t
o
r
s
,
t
h
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
a
t
a
1
0
0
-
fo
o
t
r
a
d
i
u
s
.
T
h
e
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
a
i
n
-
ta
i
n
e
d
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
u
n
t
i
l
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
,
t
h
e
y
o
u
n
g
h
a
v
e
fl
e
d
g
e
d
,
o
r
t
h
e
n
e
s
t
f
a
i
l
s
(
t
h
e
la
t
t
e
r
t
w
o
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
by
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
)
;
o
r
A
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
s
h
a
l
l
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
o
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
ne
s
t
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
T
h
e
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
,
b
u
t
ar
e
n
o
t
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
,
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
/
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
t
h
e
ne
s
t
t
r
e
e
,
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
s
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
w
o
r
k
ar
e
a
,
a
n
d
l
i
n
e
o
f
s
i
g
h
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
n
e
s
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
wo
r
k
a
r
e
a
.
C
D
F
W
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
e
d
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
t
h
e
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
i
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
a
n
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
l
y
af
f
e
c
t
i
n
g
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
I
f
w
o
r
k
i
s
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
,
a
t
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
,
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
st
a
r
t
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
t
o
mo
n
i
t
o
r
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
s
h
a
l
l
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
-
ty
t
o
s
t
o
p
w
o
r
k
i
f
i
t
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
l
y
a
f
-
fe
c
t
i
n
g
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
Th
e
a
b
o
v
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
p
e
at
e
d
,
a
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
-
an
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
BI
O
-
3
:
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
w
o
o
d
p
i
l
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
t
r
a
i
l
f
o
o
t
-
br
i
d
g
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
a
n
d
n
o
n
-
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
S
BI
O
-
3
:
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
en
t
e
d
t
o
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
a
n
d
no
n
-
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
s
.
We
t
l
a
n
d
s
a
n
d
n
o
n
-
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
s
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
l
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
b
y
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
or
b
y
u
s
i
n
g
a
c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
.
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
/
o
r
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
r
e
-
so
u
r
c
e
s
a
t
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
2
:
1
(
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
u
l
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
be
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
a
t
a
1
:
1
r
a
t
i
o
i
f
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
a
n
d
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
pr
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
s
t
a
r
t
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
)
.
Pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
f
c
r
e
d
i
t
s
a
t
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
b
a
n
k
a
t
a
m
i
n
-
im
u
m
1
:
1
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
i
o
.
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
i
n
-
l
i
e
u
f
e
e
s
p
e
r
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
U
S
A
C
E
,
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
n
-
l
i
e
u
f
e
e
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.
Al
l
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
l
a
n
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
i
n
p
e
r
p
e
t
u
i
t
y
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
re
c
o
r
d
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
o
r
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
m
e
t
h
o
d
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
LTS
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
RE
P
O
R
T
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
TAB
L
E
2-
1
SUM
M
A
R
Y
O
F
IMP
A
C
T
S
A
N
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
LT
S
=
L
e
s
s
T
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
S
=
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
an
t
S
U
=
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
2-
1
1
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Be
f
o
r
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
pr
o
c
e
e
d
w
i
t
h
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
ob
t
a
i
n
a
n
y
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
A
r
m
y
Co
r
p
s
o
f
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
,
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
B
o
a
r
d
,
an
d
/
o
r
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
a
n
d
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
o
b
t
a
i
n
a
M
i
n
o
r
U
s
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
p
u
r
s
u
-
an
t
t
o
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
1
8
.
4
6
.
0
4
0
.
C
o
f
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
-
me
n
t
C
o
d
e
.
BI
O
-
4
:
R
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
J
e
f
f
r
e
y
p
i
n
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
a
n
d
s
n
a
g
s
c
o
u
l
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
di
s
t
u
r
b
r
o
o
s
t
i
n
g
b
a
t
s
i
f
a
c
t
i
v
e
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
r
o
o
s
t
s
a
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
S
BI
O
-
4
:
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
t
o
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
r
o
o
s
t
i
n
g
b
a
t
s
.
A
l
l
s
n
a
g
s
a
n
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
r
o
o
s
t
t
r
e
e
s
(
i
.
e
.
2
0
in
c
h
e
s
i
n
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
a
t
b
r
e
a
s
t
h
e
i
g
h
t
(
d
b
h
)
o
r
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
)
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
a
r
e
a
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
a
n
d
Ap
r
i
l
1
4
.
R
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
t
r
e
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
p
e
r
i
o
d
w
o
u
l
d
a
v
o
i
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
to
a
n
y
b
a
t
s
o
c
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
o
r
m
a
l
b
r
e
e
d
-
in
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
(
A
p
r
i
l
1
5
t
o
A
u
g
u
s
t
3
0
)
.
If
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
s
n
a
g
s
a
n
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
r
o
o
s
t
t
r
e
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
im
p
a
c
t
a
r
e
a
i
s
n
o
t
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
a
n
d
A
p
r
i
l
1
4
,
a
qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
h
a
l
l
s
u
r
v
e
y
a
l
l
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
r
o
o
s
t
t
r
e
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
a
r
e
a
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
i
f
a
n
y
t
r
e
e
s
c
a
n
b
e
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
s
su
i
t
a
b
l
e
b
a
t
r
o
o
s
t
s
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
l
a
c
k
of
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
ur
a
l
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
-
ti
c
s
.
I
f
a
n
y
t
r
e
e
s
c
a
n
b
e
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
s
b
a
t
r
o
o
s
t
s
,
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
tr
e
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
s
e
a
s
o
n
a
l
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
ab
o
v
e
.
A
n
y
t
r
e
e
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
s
b
a
t
r
o
o
s
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
su
r
v
e
y
e
d
b
y
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
i
f
b
a
t
s
a
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
us
i
n
g
a
n
a
e
r
i
a
l
-
l
i
f
t
(
o
r
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
)
t
o
a
c
c
e
s
s
c
a
v
i
t
i
e
s
o
r
ot
h
e
r
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
r
o
o
s
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
,
a
n
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
sh
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
i
f
r
o
o
s
t
i
n
g
b
a
t
s
a
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
.
Th
e
a
b
o
v
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
p
e
a
t
e
d
,
a
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
t
h
e
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
LTS
BI
O
-
5
:
Lo
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
o
f
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
h
u
m
a
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
n
d
p
e
t
d
o
g
s
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
d
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
a
n
i
m
a
l
s
f
r
o
m
r
e
s
i
-
de
n
t
s
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
t
o
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
c
o
u
l
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
t
h
e
Ve
r
d
i
s
u
b
u
n
i
t
o
f
t
h
e
L
o
y
a
l
t
o
n
-
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
m
u
l
e
.
S
BI
O
-
5
a
:
T
h
e
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
H
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
’
s
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
r
o
c
h
u
r
e
s
t
o
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
n
g
th
e
p
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
f
o
r
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
a
n
d
a
v
o
i
d
i
n
g
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
ha
b
i
t
a
t
w
i
t
h
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
be
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
m
o
n
t
h
s
o
f
M
a
y
t
o
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
.
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
sh
a
l
l
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
do
m
e
s
t
i
c
d
o
g
s
a
s
a
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
r
e
a
t
t
o
d
e
e
r
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
w
o
u
l
d
o
c
c
u
r
ea
c
h
M
a
y
.
LTS
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
RE
P
O
R
T
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
TAB
L
E
2-
1
SUM
M
A
R
Y
O
F
IMP
A
C
T
S
A
N
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
LT
S
=
L
e
s
s
T
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
S
=
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
an
t
S
U
=
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
2-
1
2
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Be
f
o
r
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
BI
O
-
5
b
:
T
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
a
l
i
g
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
l
-
ly
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
t
r
a
i
l
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
an
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
s
p
l
i
t
-
r
a
i
l
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
-
je
c
t
s
i
t
e
t
o
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
o
f
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
th
e
i
r
d
o
g
s
f
r
o
m
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
f
r
o
m
M
a
y
t
o
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
.
T
h
e
p
r
e
-
ci
s
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
t
r
a
i
l
a
n
d
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
an
d
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
a
n
d
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
p
r
i
o
r
t
h
e
c
o
n
-
st
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
h
a
s
e
I
.
BI
O
-
5
c
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
o
r
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
o
f
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
d
o
g
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
-
je
c
t
s
i
t
e
f
r
o
m
M
a
y
t
o
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
.
T
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
p
o
s
t
si
g
n
a
g
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
Fi
s
h
a
n
d
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
r
e
a
in
d
i
c
a
t
i
n
g
s
u
c
h
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
b
o
u
t
th
e
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
d
o
g
s
a
s
a
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
r
e
a
t
t
o
d
e
e
r
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
.
BI
O
-
5
d
:
T
h
e
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
H
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
’
s
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
l
l
T
o
w
n
-
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
a
n
d
Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
-
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
,
t
r
a
i
l
a
n
d
s
i
t
e
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
a
n
d
fe
n
c
i
n
g
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
b
i
-
a
n
n
u
a
l
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
to
i
n
s
u
r
e
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
a
n
d
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
i
s
i
n
t
a
c
t
a
n
d
u
n
o
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
.
BI
O
-
5
e
:
T
h
e
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
H
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
-
qu
i
r
e
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
o
s
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
d
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
p
e
t
s
su
c
h
a
s
d
o
g
s
,
o
f
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
t
o
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
t
h
e
p
e
t
.
T
h
e
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
sh
a
l
l
n
o
t
t
o
e
x
c
e
e
d
6
f
e
e
t
i
n
h
e
i
g
h
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
r
e
a
o
f
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
l
o
t
s
.
BI
O
-
5
f
:
N
o
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
o
f
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
h
e
i
g
h
t
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
im
p
e
d
e
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
th
e
o
u
t
e
r
e
d
g
e
s
o
f
a
n
y
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
o
t
i
n
i
t
s
e
n
t
i
r
e
t
y
o
r
t
h
e
pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
i
n
i
t
s
e
n
t
i
r
e
t
y
.
BI
O
-
5
g
:
T
h
e
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
H
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
’
s
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
an
n
u
a
l
l
y
e
d
u
c
a
t
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
l
a
n
d
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
d
e
e
r
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
r
i
s
k
s
o
f
d
a
m
a
g
e
,
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
RE
P
O
R
T
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
TAB
L
E
2-
1
SUM
M
A
R
Y
O
F
IMP
A
C
T
S
A
N
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
LT
S
=
L
e
s
s
T
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
S
=
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
an
t
S
U
=
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
2-
1
3
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Be
f
o
r
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
wh
i
c
h
i
s
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
,
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
n
o
d
e
p
r
e
d
a
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
f
o
r
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
-
li
n
g
d
e
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
.
BI
O
-
5
h
:
T
h
e
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
H
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
’
s
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
o
f
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
s
t
r
e
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
p
e
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s
th
a
t
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
l
o
w
-
l
e
v
e
l
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
s
u
b
-
l
e
t
h
a
l
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
t
o
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
.
He
r
b
i
c
i
d
e
s
,
p
e
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s
,
a
n
d
f
u
n
g
i
c
i
d
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
n
d
t
u
r
f
g
r
a
s
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
a
d
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
-
bl
e
t
o
t
h
e
H
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
’
s
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
a
t
a
n
y
t
i
m
e
u
p
o
n
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
.
BI
O
-
5
i
:
T
h
e
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
H
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
’
s
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
p
o
s
t
of
f
-
s
i
t
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
f
o
r
d
e
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
w
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
t
o
r
a
i
s
e
a
w
a
r
e
-
ne
s
s
o
f
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
a
s
o
n
.
T
h
e
t
i
m
e
o
f
si
g
n
p
o
s
i
n
g
,
t
y
p
e
o
f
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
p
o
s
t
i
n
g
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
th
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
a
n
d
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
.
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
TR
A
N
S
-
1
:
T
h
e
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
ex
c
e
e
d
s
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
i
n
20
1
1
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
e
x
a
c
e
r
b
a
t
e
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
a
t
t
h
i
s
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
a
s
it
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
v
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
d
e
l
a
y
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
ho
u
r
.
S
TR
A
N
S
1
:
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
c
e
n
t
e
r
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
on
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
t
w
o
-
s
t
a
g
e
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
be
m
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
.
T
h
e
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
du
r
i
n
g
P
h
a
s
e
1
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
a
n
y
P
a
r
c
e
l
o
r
Fi
n
a
l
M
a
p
r
e
c
o
r
d
a
t
i
o
n
.
I
f
t
h
e
t
w
o
-
s
t
a
g
e
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
i
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
-
ed
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
P
h
a
s
e
I
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
p
p
l
i
-
ca
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
p
a
y
i
t
s
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
s
t
.
T
h
e
T
o
w
n
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
sh
a
l
l
n
o
t
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
a
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
o
r
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
th
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
a
t
o
t
a
l
of
8
4
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
l
o
t
s
a
n
d
e
i
g
h
t
af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
u
n
l
e
s
s
(
i
)
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
of
t
h
e
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
i
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
’
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
,
f
u
l
l
y
f
u
n
d
e
d
,
a
n
d
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
m
-
pl
e
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
r
e
e
y
e
a
r
s
o
f
a
n
y
P
a
r
c
e
l
o
r
F
i
n
a
l
m
a
p
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
br
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d
l
o
t
t
o
t
a
l
a
b
o
v
e
8
4
;
o
r
(
i
i
)
a
l
l
o
f
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
a
r
e
m
e
t
:
A
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
f
i
v
e
y
e
a
r
s
h
a
v
e
e
l
a
p
s
e
d
s
i
n
c
e
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
of
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
y
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
;
A
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
3
0
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
h
o
m
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
an
d
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
s
o
f
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
i
s
s
u
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
D
i
-
vi
s
i
o
n
;
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
o
f
LTS
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
RE
P
O
R
T
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
TAB
L
E
2-
1
SUM
M
A
R
Y
O
F
IMP
A
C
T
S
A
N
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
LT
S
=
L
e
s
s
T
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
S
=
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
an
t
S
U
=
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
2-
1
4
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Be
f
o
r
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
th
e
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
T
o
w
n
-
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
m
o
d
e
l
a
n
d
t
h
e
t
r
i
p
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
o
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
h
o
m
e
s
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
;
Th
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
s
u
f
f
i
-
ci
e
n
t
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
a
t
t
h
e
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
i
n
t
e
r
-
se
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
u
n
i
t
s
w
h
i
l
e
re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
E
l
e
-
me
n
t
P
o
l
i
c
y
P
2
.
1
(
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
L
O
S
E
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
an
y
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
t
u
r
n
i
n
g
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
,
n
o
t
c
a
u
s
e
a
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
v
e
-
hi
c
l
e
d
e
l
a
y
o
f
f
o
u
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
h
o
u
r
s
)
.
TR
A
N
S
-
2
:
Th
e
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
o
f
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
t
h
a
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
c
c
e
s
s
to
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
i
s
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
’
s
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
ha
v
e
a
n
A
D
T
v
o
l
u
m
e
e
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
2
,
0
0
0
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
,
a
n
d
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
f
u
n
c
-
ti
o
n
a
s
a
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
.
T
h
i
s
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
h
a
s
a
t
o
t
a
l
p
a
v
e
-
me
n
t
w
i
d
t
h
r
a
n
g
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
2
0
t
o
2
3
f
e
e
t
a
n
d
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
a
d
o
p
t
-
ed
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
f
o
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
l
o
c
a
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
a
n
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
lo
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
u
n
d
e
r
2
0
1
1
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
S
TR
A
N
S
2
:
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
w
i
d
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
o
f
M
a
r
-
ti
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
m
a
i
n
en
t
r
a
n
c
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
1
2
-
f
o
o
t
t
r
a
v
e
l
l
a
n
e
s
w
i
t
h
2
-
f
o
o
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
d
u
r
-
in
g
P
h
a
s
e
1
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
LTS
TR
A
N
S
-
3
:
B
a
s
e
d
u
p
o
n
t
h
e
A
M
a
n
d
P
M
p
e
a
k
-
h
o
u
r
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
,
an
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
i
s
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
i
t
s
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(W
e
s
t
)
,
w
i
t
h
o
r
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
-
je
c
t
u
n
d
e
r
2
0
1
1
a
n
d
2
0
3
1
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
S
TR
A
N
S
3
:
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
n
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
l
o
n
g
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
Dr
i
v
e
a
t
i
t
s
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
-
st
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
P
h
a
s
e
1
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
T
h
e
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
-
vi
d
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
5
0
f
e
e
t
o
f
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
I
f
t
h
e
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
i
s
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
P
h
a
s
e
I
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
p
a
y
i
t
s
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
s
t
.
LTS
TR
A
N
S
-
4
:
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
r
i
p
s
a
d
d
e
d
t
o
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
Pa
s
s
R
o
a
d
o
r
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
l
o
n
g
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
it
s
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
e
n
d
o
f
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
-
ti
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
e
x
a
c
e
r
b
a
t
e
t
h
e
s
e
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
S
TR
A
N
S
-
4
a
:
A
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
C
T
M
P
)
sh
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
’
s
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
D
e
-
pa
r
t
m
e
n
t
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
P
h
a
s
e
1
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
T
h
e
C
T
M
P
sh
a
l
l
b
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
s
t
a
r
t
o
f
ea
c
h
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
h
a
s
e
T
h
e
C
T
M
P
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
An
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
s
t
a
g
i
n
g
a
n
d
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
p
l
a
n
.
Ha
u
l
r
o
u
t
e
s
a
n
d
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
f
o
r
m
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
,
i
n
-
cl
u
d
i
n
g
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
t
o
b
e
p
o
s
t
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
o
u
t
e
s
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
e
m
o
n
t
h
i
n
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
-
ti
o
n
t
o
a
l
e
r
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
,
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
,
a
n
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
u
p
c
o
m
-
in
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
n
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
m
a
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
po
s
t
c
a
r
d
s
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
t
o
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
e
-
m
a
i
l
al
e
r
t
s
t
o
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
ab
o
u
t
t
h
e
u
p
c
o
m
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
LTS
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
RE
P
O
R
T
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
TAB
L
E
2-
1
SUM
M
A
R
Y
O
F
IMP
A
C
T
S
A
N
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
LT
S
=
L
e
s
s
T
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
S
=
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
an
t
S
U
=
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
2-
1
5
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Be
f
o
r
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
u
p
t
o
o
n
e
mo
n
t
h
i
n
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
o
f
u
p
c
o
m
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
h
a
u
l
r
o
u
t
e
s
,
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
s
,
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
l
a
g
g
e
r
s
,
wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
s
a
f
e
t
y
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
r
a
i
n
-
in
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
as
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
-
in
g
a
r
e
a
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
a
n
g
e
.
A
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
,
sa
f
e
t
y
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
r
u
c
k
,
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
,
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
co
n
f
l
i
c
t
s
a
n
d
t
o
a
d
j
u
s
t
t
h
e
C
T
M
P
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
TR
A
N
S
-
4
b
:
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
e
x
c
e
e
d
th
e
T
o
w
n
'
s
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
t
t
h
e
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
Dr
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
t
r
a
v
e
l
t
o
a
n
d
f
r
o
m
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
i
n
t
e
r
-
se
c
t
i
o
n
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
M
o
r
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-16
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-1
This section describes the biological resources present or potentially present on the
project site, and discusses potential impacts to these resources that could result
from buildout of the project, as well as associated mitigation measures to offset any
impacts.
A. Regulatory Framework
1. Special-Status Species
Special status plants and wildlife are those species that are 1) listed as rare, threat-
ened, or endangered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under State or federal Endangered Spe-
cies Acts, 2) on formal lists as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered, 3)
on formal lists as species of concern, or 4) otherwise recognized at the federal,
State, or local level as sensitive.
a. Federal Endangered Species Act
Under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), it is unlawful to “take” any
species listed as threatened or endangered. “Take” is defined as to “harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in
any such conduct.” An activity is defined as “take” even if it is unintentional or
accidental. Take provisions under FESA apply only to listed fish and wildlife spe-
cies under the jurisdiction of the USFWS and/or the National Oceanic & Atmos-
pheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Consultation
with USFWS or NMFS is required if a project “may affect” or result in “take” of a
listed species.
When a species is listed, the USFWS and/or NMFS, in most cases, must officially
designate specific areas as critical habitat for the species. Consultation with
USFWS and/or NMFS is required for projects that include a federal action or fed-
eral funding if the project will modify designated critical habitat.
b. California Endangered Species Act
Under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), it is unlawful to “take” any
species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered. “Take” means to “hunt, pursue,
catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” CESA
take provisions apply to fish, wildlife, and plant species. Take may result whenever
activities occur in areas that support a listed species. Consultation with CDFW is
required if a project will result in “take” of a listed species.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-2
c. Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits actions that will result in “take” of
migratory birds, their eggs, feathers, or nests. “Take” is defined in the MBTA to
include by any means or in any manner, any attempt at hunting, pursuing, wound-
ing, killing, possessing or transporting any migratory bird, nest, egg, or part thereof.
Migratory birds are also protected, as defined in the MBTA, under Section 3513 of
the California Fish and Game Code. In addition, Section 3503 of the California
Fish and Game Code prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the
nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by the California Fish and
Game Code or other regulation.
2. Jurisdictional Waters
Jurisdictional waters include most drainage features (e.g. rivers, streams), open wa-
ter features (e.g. lakes, ponds), and wetlands (e.g. marshes, seeps). Jurisdictional
waters are often regulated by one or more government agencies, as described be-
low.
a. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the
U.S. These are waters that have a connection to interstate commerce, either direct
via a tributary system or indirect through a nexus identified in the USACE regula-
tions. In non-tidal waters, the lateral limit of jurisdiction under Section 404 extends
to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of a waterbody or, where adjacent wet-
lands are present, beyond the OHWM to the limit of the wetlands. The OHWM is
defined as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indi-
cated by physical characteristics such as a clear natural line impressed on the bank,
shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation,
the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the char-
acteristics of the surrounding area”.1 In tidal waters, the lateral limit of jurisdiction
extends to the high tidal line (HTL) or, where adjacent wetlands are present, be-
yond the HTL to the limit of the wetlands.
1 Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters, Chapter Ii: Corps of Engineers, De-
partment of The Army, Department of Defense, Part 328: Definition of Waters of The
United States, 328.3 Definitions.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-3
Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for a
life in saturated soil conditions.” Non-wetland waters essentially include any body
of water, not otherwise exempted, that displays an OHWM.
b. Regional Water Quality Control Board
Under Section 401 of the CWA, the State Water Resources Control Board must
certify all activities requiring a 404 permit. The Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) regulates these activities and issues water quality certification for
those activities requiring a 404 permit. In addition, the RWQCB has authority to
regulate the discharge of “waste” into waters of the State pursuant to the Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act (PCWQCA). The RWQCB may also regulate
the discharge of fill within the 100-year floodplain of waters of the State.
c. California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), through provisions of
Sections 1600-1616 of the State of California Code of Regulations (CCR), is em-
powered to issue agreements for any alteration of a river, stream, or lake where fish
or wildlife resources may be substantially adversely affected. Streams (and rivers)
are defined by the presence of a channel bed and banks, and the conveyance of at
least ephemeral flows. The CDFW regulates wetland areas only to the extent that
those wetlands are part of a river, stream, or lake as defined by CDFW.
The CDFW generally includes, within the jurisdictional limits of streams and lakes,
any riparian habitat present. Riparian habitat includes willows, cottonwoods, and
other vegetation typically associated with the banks of a stream or lake shoreline.
In most situations, wetlands associated with a stream or lake would fall within the
limits of riparian habitat. Thus, defining the limits of the CDFW jurisdiction based
on riparian habitat will typically include any wetland areas. The CDFW has not
defined wetlands for jurisdictional purposes. Wetlands not associated with a lake,
stream, or other regulated area are generally not subject to the CDFW jurisdiction.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-4
3. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The following goals from the Conservation and Open Space Element of the Town
of Truckee 2025 General Plan are applicable to biological resources (see Table 4.4-1).
4. Town of Truckee Development Code
The following chapters from the Town of Truckee Development Code, Article III
– Site Planning and General Development Standards, are applicable to biological
resources.
Chapter 18.30 – Purpose and Applicability
Chapter 18.34 – Flood Plain
Chapter 18.36 – Hillside Development Standards
Chapter 18.38 – Lake and River/Stream Corridor Development
Chapter 18.46 – Open Space/Cluster Requirements
B. Existing Conditions
This section provides a description of the existing conditions on the project site
relative to biological resources. A discussion of the methods for analysis is also
included.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-5
TABLE 4.4-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal LU-4 Coordinate land development with provision of services and infrastructure.
LU-P4.1
Require new infrastructure and development to be designed and built
to manage stormwater runoff and to minimize or eliminate harmful
impacts to property prone to flooding, water quality, and riparian, wet-
land, and meadow habitats. When infrastructure is replaced or retrofit-
ted, require the upgrading of stormwater management systems to min-
imize or eliminate these impacts.
Goal LU-7 Encourage clustered residential development to create efficient development patterns,
and to minimize environmental impacts and threats to public safety.
LU-P7.1
For all residential developments, require clustering where appropriate.
Clustered development as defined in this General Plan includes the
following considerations:
Clustering of residential development will allow flexibility of site
design in responding to the natural features and resources of an in-
dividual site.
Clustering means that structures will be located on a site so that
larger areas are left as undeveloped open space.
Undeveloped areas may either be preserved in private or public open
space, or may be a portion of an individual lot, with deed restrictions
prohibiting construction in that portion.
LU-P7.2
Residential development shall be clustered to avoid areas of significant
natural resources, including wildlife habitat and migration corridors and
visual resources.
LU-P7.4
Clustered development shall incorporate preservation of open space
areas as an integral and primary consideration in the overall develop-
ment plan for a site. Considerations in preserving open space through
clustering shall include the following:
Maximizing preservation of open space types that reflect the Town’s
priorities as stated in the Conservation and Open Space Element.
Maintaining an appropriate relationship of the site to the character
and context of adjacent neighborhood areas and nearby and adjoin-
ing open space areas.
Respecting individual site features and characteristics, including
topography, natural features, natural hazards and constraints, and the
presence of sensitive biological resources.
Goal CC-2
Preserve the natural beauty of Truckee, including the Town’s scenic resources, views
and vistas, and the visual quality of the town’s steep slopes, ridge and bluff lines and
hillsides.
CC-P2.10 Encourage the preservation of trees and native vegetation, including
specimen trees, in development projects.
Goal COS-1 Preserve existing open space in Truckee, and increase the amount of desired types of
open space under permanent protection.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
TABLE 4.4-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
4.4-6
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
COS-P1.5
Adhere to the following criteria for open space preserved through di-
rect actions of the Town, through open space and clustered develop-
ment requirements and incentives, and through the development re-
view process:
Provide the maximum possible degree of community benefit, as
expressed through the Vision for Truckee and the guiding principles,
goals and policies of the General Plan.
Preserve open space that, to the greatest possible extent, occurs in
large blocks and is contiguous and connected.
Provide the greatest possible level of public access while respecting
private property rights, sensitive habitat values, and safety concerns.
Provide maximum benefit in terms of habitat preservation.
Enhance the overall character of Truckee as a scenic, mountain
community.
Goal 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 per-
manent 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 uses where appropriate. All efforts to protect sensi-
tive habitats should consider:
Sensitive habitat and movement corridors in the areas adjacent to
development sites, as well as on the development site itself.
Prevention of habitat fragmentation and loss of connectivity.
Use of appropriate protection measures for sensitive habitat areas
such as non-disturbance easements and open space zoning.
Off-site habitat restoration as a potential mitigation provided that no
net loss of habitat value results.
Potential mitigation or elimination of impacts through mandatory
clustering of development, and/or project redesign.
COS-P4.4
Preserve riparian corridors, Donner Lake and aquatic and wetland areas
through application of setbacks and other development standards that
respect these resources.
COS-P4.5
Development shall be prohibited within established setback areas for
streams and waterways other than the Truckee River, except as other-
wise allowed in the Development Code; such setbacks shall be between
20 and 50 feet on parcels less than 175 feet deep (depending on parcel
depth), and 50 feet on parcels 175 feet deep or more.
Goal COS-5
Maintain biodiversity among plant and animal species in the Town of Truckee and
the surrounding area, with special consideration of species identified as sensitive, rare,
declining, unique, or representing valuable biological resources.
COS-P5.1 Require biological resource assessments for all development in areas
where special status species may be present.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
TABLE 4.4-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
4.4-7
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
COS-P5.2
Protect native plant species in undisturbed portions of a development
site and encourage planting and regeneration of native plant species
wherever possible in undisturbed portions of the project site.
COS-P5.3 Protect to the extent possible federal or State-designated endangered,
threatened, special status or candidate species.
Goal COS-9 Link open space areas in Truckee through a well-connected network of open space
corridors and trails.
COS-P9.1
Provide for links between open space areas, both within Truckee and
beyond the Town limits, to create contiguous habitat areas and enhance
public access through greater connectivity.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
1. Methods
a. Literature Search
Prior to conducting any field work, LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) performed database
searches of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California
Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory referencing the Martis Peak, Truck-
ee, Hobart Mills, Boca, Tahoe City, and Kings Beach California United States Geo-
logical Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. LSA also obtained a
species list from the USFWS, Sacramento Field Office website, referencing these
quadrangles. Foothill Associates, Inc. (Foothill) also performed a detailed review
of existing literature over a period of more than 20 years regarding wildlife use and
movement on the site and in the region. A list of referenced material is provided in
Appendix E of the 2012 Draft EIR.
LSA and Foothill also reviewed prior biological documentation that was recently
prepared and is associated with the project site. These include:
Biological Resource Analysis for the Tahoe Boca Estates Project Site, prepared by Foot-
hill Associates, Inc., dated August 6, 2004;
Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,
adopted November 16, 2006;
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-8
Draft Environmental Impact Report, Canyon Springs Subdivision, State Clearinghouse
Number 2004052060, prepared by Quad Knopf, dated April 2007;2
Movement and Migration of Mule Deer at the Canyon Springs Site, Truckee, CA, pre-
pared by RMT, Inc., dated October 20, 2009;
Interstate Deer Project, 2010 Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Report and Management Plan
Update (Habitat Sections Only), In Partial Fulfillment of PR Grant W-83-R-1, pre-
pared by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, no date is provided
on this document;
Delineation of Waters of the U.S. Canyon Spring, Town of Truckee, #200300655, pre-
pared by Heal Environmental Consulting (HEC), dated January 11, 2011; and
CEQA Significance of Mule Deer at the Canyon Springs Site, Truckee, CA, prepared
by HEC, dated July 28, 2011.
In addition to these reports, staff from Foothill Associates reviewed the technical
tracking and mapping data and other background information that was made avail-
able to the Town by CDFW and Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) on:
August 27, 2013; January 23, 2014; April 10, 2014; and September 3, 2014.
The special status species lists obtained from the CNDDB, CNPS, and USFWS,
and literature listed above, were reviewed to determine which species could poten-
tially occur on the project site. Those species with potential to occur on the project
site based on literature review and habitat requirements were compiled into a cu-
mulative list presented in Table 4.4-2.
b. Field Surveys
While numerous field survey have been performed by different biologists over the
past 20 or more years, current field surveys were conducted by EIR biologists
from LSA as recently as November 1, 2013 and in 2011 on June 8, June 30, and
July 11. EIR biologists from Foothill Associates also conducted a field survey April
5, 2011.
2 The 2007 Draft EIR prepared for the project site by Quad Knopf was completed
and comments were provided by the public and interested agencies; however, no Final EIR
was prepared and the 2007 Draft EIR was not certified. Comments submitted on the 2007
Draft EIR were taken into consideration for the preparation of this Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-9
In addition, EIR biologists from Foothill Associates provided a third party peer
review of the data collected during field studies conducted by HEC in 2011 be-
tween May 3 and July 6, and in 2010 on August 30, September 1-2, and between
October 13 and December 16.
i. General Biology and Focused Plant Surveys
The June 8, 2011 survey was conducted by LSA biologist Jeff Bray and consisted of
a general reconnaissance level survey of the project site. Since a substantial amount
of field work and reporting has been conducted on the project site (i.e. Foothill
Associates 2004, and HEC, 2010-2011, and LSA, 2011), the intent of the June 8,
2011 survey was to determine if site conditions had changed considerably since the
previous surveys had been conducted and to verify their accuracy. The June 8,
2011 survey was conducted by walking meandering transects through the project
site and documenting site conditions while referencing existing mapping. In addi-
tion, wildlife observed on the project site was identified and recorded.
The June 30 and July 11, 2011 surveys were conducted by LSA botanists Lucie
Adams and Jeannette Halderman, and consisted of focused surveys for special sta-
tus plants, primarily Plumas ivesia (Ivesia sericoleuca). Records for this species are
located adjacent to the project site plants listed in Table 4.4-2 as potentially occur-
ring on the project site and were also included in the survey (except mosses). Dur-
ing the month prior to conducting the survey, LSA monitored a known population
of Plumas ivesia in the vicinity of the project site to determine when the local
population was blooming and clearly identifiable, and then scheduled the focused
plant surveys during that time. The surveys were conducted by walking meander-
ing transects through suitable habitats on the project site and identifying all plants
within the survey area to a suitable level of taxonomy to determine the status.
EIR biologist, Jeff Bray of LSA, conducted a field survey on November 1, 2013 to
further evaluate the Jeffrey pine and sagebrush plant communities.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
BI
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
4.4-10
TAB
L
E
4.
4
-
2
SPE
C
I
A
L
-S
TA
T
U
S
SPE
C
I
E
S
POT
E
N
T
I
A
L
L
Y
OCC
U
R
R
I
N
G
O
N
T
H
E
CAN
Y
O
N
SPR
I
N
G
S
SUB
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
PRO
J
E
C
T
SIT
E
Co
m
m
o
n
N
a
m
e
/
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
N
a
m
e
S
t
a
t
u
s
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
Ma
m
m
a
l
s
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
w
o
l
v
e
r
i
n
e
Gu
l
o
g
u
l
o
l
u
t
e
u
s
FC
;
S
T
O
c
c
u
r
s
i
n
a
w
i
d
e
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
N
o
r
t
h
C
o
a
s
t
mo
u
n
t
a
i
n
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
S
i
e
r
r
a
N
e
v
a
d
a
.
,
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
m
i
x
e
d
co
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
,
r
e
d
f
i
r
,
a
n
d
l
o
d
g
e
p
o
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
A –
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
a
l
l
CN
D
D
B
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
o
f
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
2
0
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
ar
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
e
l
l
t
o
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
.
T
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
a
l
s
o
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
t
o
h
u
m
a
n
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
.
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
f
i
s
h
e
r
Ma
r
t
e
s
p
e
n
n
a
n
t
i
p
a
c
i
f
i
c
a
FC
;
C
S
C
F
o
u
n
d
i
n
l
a
r
g
e
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
ma
t
u
r
e
,
d
e
n
s
e
c
o
n
i
fe
r
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
an
d
d
e
c
i
d
u
o
u
s
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
s
n
a
g
s
a
n
d
gr
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
5
0
%
c
a
n
o
p
y
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
.
A –
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
a
l
l
CN
D
D
B
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
o
f
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
2
0
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
ar
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
e
l
l
t
o
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
.
Si
e
r
r
a
m
a
r
t
e
n
Ma
r
t
e
s
a
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
a
s
i
e
r
r
a
No
n
e
O
c
c
u
r
s
i
n
o
l
d
g
r
o
w
t
h
a
n
d
m
i
x
e
d
-
a
g
e
d
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
s
wi
t
h
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
4
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
c
r
o
w
n
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
.
N
e
e
d
s
sn
a
g
s
f
o
r
c
a
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
d
e
n
s
i
t
e
s
.
A –
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
a
l
l
CN
D
D
B
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
o
f
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
2
0
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
ar
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
e
l
l
t
o
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
o
r
s
o
u
t
h
.
Si
e
r
r
a
N
e
v
a
d
a
m
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
b
e
a
v
e
r
Ap
l
o
d
o
n
t
i
a
r
u
f
a
c
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
c
a
CS
C
F
o
u
n
d
i
n
d
e
n
s
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
o
f
s
m
a
l
l
d
e
c
i
d
u
o
u
s
t
r
e
e
s
a
n
d
sh
r
u
b
s
w
i
t
h
s
o
f
t
,
w
e
t
s
o
i
l
a
n
d
a
n
a
b
u
n
d
a
n
c
e
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
th
e
S
i
e
r
r
a
N
e
v
a
d
a
s
a
n
d
E
a
s
t
S
l
o
p
e
.
A –
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
Si
e
r
r
a
N
e
v
a
d
a
r
e
d
f
o
x
Vu
l
p
e
s
V
u
l
p
e
s
n
e
c
a
t
o
r
ST
F
o
u
n
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
C
a
s
c
a
d
e
s
d
o
w
n
t
o
t
h
e
S
i
e
r
r
a
N
e
v
a
d
a
s
i
n
a
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
f
r
o
m
w
e
t
m
e
a
d
o
w
s
t
o
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
.
Us
e
s
d
e
n
s
e
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
r
o
c
k
y
a
r
e
a
s
f
o
r
c
o
v
e
r
a
n
d
d
e
n
si
t
e
s
.
P
r
e
f
e
r
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
s
i
n
t
e
r
s
p
e
r
s
e
d
w
i
t
h
m
e
a
d
o
w
s
o
r
al
p
i
n
e
f
e
l
l
-
f
i
e
l
d
s
.
L –
T
h
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
r
e
o
n
l
y
m
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
l
y
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
th
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
b
u
t
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
C
N
D
D
B
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
i
n
t
h
e
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
i
t
co
u
l
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
o
c
c
u
r
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
Si
e
r
r
a
N
e
v
a
d
a
s
n
o
w
s
h
o
e
h
a
r
e
Le
p
u
s
a
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
u
s
t
a
h
o
e
n
s
i
s
CS
C
O
c
c
u
r
s
i
n
b
o
r
e
a
l
r
e
g
i
on
s
,
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
i
n
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
i
c
k
e
t
s
o
f
d
e
c
i
d
u
o
u
s
t
r
e
e
s
a
n
d
sh
r
u
b
s
.
A
l
s
o
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
d
e
n
s
e
t
h
i
c
k
e
t
s
o
f
y
o
u
n
g
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
s
an
d
c
h
a
p
a
r
r
a
l
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
A –
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
Si
l
v
e
r
-
h
a
i
r
e
d
b
a
t
La
s
i
o
n
y
c
t
e
r
i
s
n
o
c
t
i
v
a
g
a
n
s
No
n
e
O
c
c
u
r
s
i
n
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
a
n
d
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
f
o
r
e
s
t
s
.
R
o
o
s
t
s
i
n
ho
l
l
o
w
t
r
e
e
s
,
b
e
n
e
a
t
h
s
l
o
u
g
h
i
n
g
b
a
r
k
,
a
n
d
i
n
c
a
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
M –
T
h
e
s
n
a
g
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
m
a
t
u
r
e
t
r
e
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
r
o
o
s
t
s
i
t
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
w
e
t
m
e
a
d
ow habitat is suitable foraging
ha
b
i
t
a
t
.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
BI
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
TAB
L
E
4.
4
-
2
SPE
C
I
A
L
-S
TA
T
U
S
SPE
C
I
E
S
POT
E
N
T
I
A
L
L
Y
OCC
U
R
R
I
N
G
O
N
T
H
E
CAN
Y
O
N
SPR
I
N
G
S
SUB
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
PRO
J
E
C
T
SIT
E
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
4.4-11
Co
m
m
o
n
N
a
m
e
/
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
N
a
m
e
S
t
a
t
u
s
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
Bi
r
d
s
Ba
l
d
e
a
g
l
e
Ha
l
i
a
e
e
t
u
s
l
e
u
c
o
c
e
p
h
a
l
u
s
FD
;
S
E
N
e
s
t
i
n
g
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
t
o
m
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
o
u
s
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
n
e
a
r
pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
w
a
t
e
r
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
W
i
n
t
e
r
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
m
o
s
t
o
f
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
a
t
l
a
k
e
s
,
r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
s
,
r
i
v
e
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
a
n
d
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
we
t
l
a
n
d
s
.
L –
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
o
r
w
i
n
t
e
r
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
b
u
t
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
m
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
f
o
r
a
g
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
ar
e
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
o
f
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
.
Bl
a
c
k
-
b
a
c
k
e
d
w
o
o
d
p
e
c
k
e
r
(Pi
c
o
i
d
e
s
a
r
c
t
i
c
u
s
)
SC
N
e
s
t
s
i
n
s
n
a
g
s
i
n
b
u
r
n
e
d
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
s
a
n
d
f
e
e
d
s
o
n
wo
o
d
b
o
r
i
n
g
b
e
e
t
l
e
s
t
h
a
t
r
a
p
i
d
l
y
c
o
l
o
n
i
z
e
b
u
r
n
t
a
r
e
a
s
.
Th
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
t
h
r
i
v
e
f
o
r
7
t
o
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
a
f
t
e
r
f
i
r
e
b
e
f
o
r
e
mo
v
i
n
g
t
o
a
n
a
r
e
a
t
h
a
t
w
a
s
m
o
r
e
r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
b
u
r
n
e
d
.
U
–
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
o
n
l
y
m
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
l
y
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
th
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
T
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
o
f
s
n
a
g
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
,
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
r
e
c
e
n
t
f
i
r
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
w
a
s
9
ye
a
r
s
a
g
o
.
T
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
n
l
y
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
i
n
a
n
a
r
e
a
u
p
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
a
f
t
e
r
f
i
r
e
it
i
s
u
n
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
w
i
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
Gr
e
a
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
h
i
l
l
c
r
a
n
e
Gr
u
s
c
a
n
a
d
e
n
s
i
s
t
a
b
i
d
a
ST
N
e
s
t
s
i
n
m
a
r
s
h
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
i
n
no
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
.
W
i
n
t
e
r
s
i
n
t
h
e
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
wh
e
r
e
i
t
f
o
r
a
g
e
s
i
n
g
r
a
i
n
f
i
e
l
d
s
.
A –
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
Le
w
i
s
’
s
w
o
o
d
p
e
c
k
e
r
Me
l
a
n
e
r
p
e
s
l
e
w
i
s
BC
C
O
c
c
u
r
s
i
n
o
p
e
n
f
o
r
e
s
t
s
a
n
d
w
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
s
w
i
t
h
a
b
r
u
s
h
y
un
d
e
r
s
t
o
r
y
.
N
e
s
t
s
i
n
s
n
a
g
s
.
G
l
e
a
n
s
i
n
s
e
c
t
s
f
r
o
m
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
or
h
u
n
t
s
w
h
i
l
e
f
l
y
i
n
g
.
M
–
Sp
e
c
i
e
s
k
n
o
w
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
l
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
su
p
p
o
r
t
s
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
n
u
m
e
r
o
u
s
s
n
a
g
s
.
T
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
co
u
l
d
o
c
c
u
r
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
No
r
t
h
e
r
n
g
o
s
h
a
w
k
Ac
c
i
p
i
t
e
r
g
e
n
t
i
l
e
s
CS
C
T
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
n
e
s
t
s
i
n
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
s
,
o
n
n
o
r
t
h
s
l
o
p
e
s
a
n
d
ne
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
,
i
n
r
e
d
f
i
r
,
l
o
d
g
e
p
o
l
e
p
i
n
e
,
J
e
f
f
r
e
y
p
i
n
e
,
a
n
d
as
p
e
n
s
.
L –
T
h
e
J
e
f
f
r
e
y
p
i
n
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
i
s
m
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
l
y
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
th
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
b
u
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
l
a
c
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
s
l
o
p
e
s
a
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
f
o
u
n
d
i
n
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
Wi
l
l
o
w
f
l
y
c
a
t
c
h
e
r
Em
p
i
d
o
n
a
x
t
r
a
i
l
l
i
i
SE
I
n
h
a
b
i
t
s
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
t
h
i
c
k
e
t
s
o
f
l
o
w
,
d
e
n
s
e
w
i
l
l
o
w
s
o
n
t
h
e
ed
g
e
o
f
w
e
t
m
e
a
d
o
w
s
,
p
o
n
d
s
,
o
r
b
a
c
k
w
a
t
e
r
s
,
a
t
2
,
0
0
0
–
8,
0
0
0
f
t
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
;
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
d
e
n
s
e
w
i
l
l
o
w
t
h
i
c
k
e
t
s
f
o
r
ne
s
t
i
n
g
/
r
o
o
s
t
i
n
g
.
L
o
w
,
e
x
p
o
s
e
d
b
r
a
n
c
h
e
s
a
r
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
si
n
g
i
n
g
p
o
s
t
s
/
h
u
n
t
i
n
g
p
e
r
c
h
e
s
.
M –
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
b
u
t
su
i
t
a
b
l
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
o
c
c
u
r
s
i
n
t
h
e
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
.
C
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
,
t
h
i
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
c
o
u
l
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
o
c
c
u
r
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
Ye
l
l
o
w
w
a
r
b
l
e
r
De
n
d
r
o
i
c
a
p
e
t
e
c
h
i
a
b
r
e
w
s
t
e
r
i
CS
C
N
e
s
t
s
i
n
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
a
n
d
p
r
e
f
e
r
s
w
i
l
l
o
w
s
,
co
t
t
o
n
w
o
o
d
s
,
a
s
p
e
n
s
,
s
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
s
,
a
n
d
a
l
d
e
r
s
f
o
r
b
o
t
h
ne
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
f
o
r
a
g
i
n
g
.
A
l
s
o
n
e
s
t
s
i
n
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
s
h
r
u
b
b
e
r
y
in
o
p
e
n
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
f
o
r
e
s
t
s
.
M –
M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
su
i
t
a
b
l
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
o
c
c
u
r
s
i
n
t
h
e
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
.
C
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
,
t
h
i
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
c
o
u
l
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
o
c
c
u
r
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
BI
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
TAB
L
E
4.
4
-
2
SPE
C
I
A
L
-S
TA
T
U
S
SPE
C
I
E
S
POT
E
N
T
I
A
L
L
Y
OCC
U
R
R
I
N
G
O
N
T
H
E
CAN
Y
O
N
SPR
I
N
G
S
SUB
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
PRO
J
E
C
T
SIT
E
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
4.4-12
Co
m
m
o
n
N
a
m
e
/
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
N
a
m
e
S
t
a
t
u
s
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
Am
p
h
i
b
i
a
n
s
(U
S
F
W
S
)
Mo
u
n
t
a
i
n
y
e
l
l
o
w
-
l
e
g
g
e
d
f
r
o
g
(
S
i
e
r
r
a
Ne
v
a
d
a
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
)
Ra
n
a
m
u
s
c
o
s
a
(CD
F
W
)
Si
e
r
r
a
N
e
v
a
d
a
y
e
l
l
o
w
-
l
e
g
g
e
d
f
r
o
g
Ra
n
a
s
i
e
r
r
a
FC
;
C
S
C
A
l
w
a
y
s
e
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
f
e
w
f
e
e
t
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
;
p
a
r
t
l
y
sh
a
d
e
d
,
s
h
a
l
l
o
w
s
t
r
e
a
m
s
,
a
n
d
r
i
f
f
l
e
s
w
i
t
h
a
r
o
c
k
y
su
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
.
T
a
d
p
o
l
e
s
m
a
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
u
p
t
o
t
w
o
y
e
a
r
s
t
o
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
t
h
e
i
r
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
E
n
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
t
h
e
S
a
n
J
a
c
i
n
t
o
,
S
a
n
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
,
a
n
d
Sa
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
Mo
u
n
t
a
i
n
s
o
n
l
y
.
A –
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
Fi
s
h
La
h
o
n
t
a
n
c
u
t
t
h
r
o
a
t
t
r
o
u
t
On
c
o
r
h
y
n
c
h
u
s
c
l
a
r
k
i
h
e
n
s
h
a
w
i
FT
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
i
n
a
l
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
c
o
l
d
w
a
t
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
L
a
h
o
n
t
o
n
Ba
s
i
n
.
T
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
i
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
Ri
v
e
r
a
n
d
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
t
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
i
e
s
.
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
g
r
a
v
e
l
r
i
f
f
l
e
s
i
n
st
r
e
a
m
s
f
o
r
s
p
a
w
n
i
n
g
.
A –
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
In
v
e
r
t
e
b
r
a
t
e
s
Am
p
h
i
b
i
o
u
s
c
a
d
d
i
s
f
l
y
De
s
m
o
n
a
b
e
t
h
u
l
a
No
n
e
K
n
o
w
n
f
r
o
m
S
i
e
r
r
a
N
e
v
a
d
a
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
M
a
d
e
r
a
,
Ma
r
i
p
o
s
a
,
M
o
n
o
,
N
e
v
a
d
a
,
P
l
a
c
e
r
,
P
l
u
m
a
s
,
a
n
d
S
i
e
r
r
a
co
u
n
t
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
S
e
q
u
o
i
a
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
a
r
k
.
L
a
r
v
a
e
l
i
v
e
i
n
sm
a
l
l
s
p
r
i
n
g
s
t
r
e
a
m
s
w
i
t
h
s
l
o
w
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
s
i
n
w
e
t
m
e
a
d
o
w
s
.
A –
T
h
e
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
r
e
n
o
t
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
a
n
d
,
th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
a
r
e
n
o
t
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
Co
l
d
S
p
r
i
n
g
c
a
d
d
i
s
f
l
y
Le
p
i
d
o
s
t
o
m
a
e
r
m
a
n
a
e
No
n
e
L
o
c
a
l
l
y
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
S
i
e
r
r
a
N
e
v
a
d
a
.
Fo
u
n
d
i
n
c
o
l
d
s
p
r
i
n
g
s
a
t
6
,
7
0
0
f
e
e
t
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
l
y
s
h
a
d
e
d
.
L
a
r
v
a
e
a
r
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
t
o
s
p
r
i
n
g
so
u
r
c
e
s
.
T
h
e
c
y
l
i
n
d
r
i
c
a
l
l
a
r
v
a
l
c
a
s
e
i
s
m
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
s
t
o
n
e
s
.
A –
T
h
e
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
r
e
n
o
t
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
a
n
d
,
th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
a
r
e
n
o
t
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
Ki
n
g
s
C
a
n
y
o
n
c
h
r
y
p
t
o
c
h
i
a
n
c
a
d
d
i
s
f
l
y
Cr
y
p
t
o
c
h
i
a
e
x
c
e
l
l
a
No
n
e
K
n
o
w
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
t
y
p
e
l
o
c
a
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
f
r
o
m
S
a
g
e
h
e
n
r
e
a
c
h
e
s
of
L
o
w
e
r
K
i
l
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
,
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
t
o
co
l
d
s
p
r
i
n
g
s
t
r
e
a
m
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
A –
T
h
e
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
r
e
n
o
t
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
a
n
d
,
th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
a
r
e
n
o
t
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
Ki
n
g
s
C
r
e
e
k
e
c
c
l
i
s
o
m
y
i
a
c
a
d
d
i
s
f
l
y
Ec
c
l
i
s
o
m
y
i
a
b
i
l
e
r
a
No
n
e
K
n
o
w
n
f
r
o
m
L
a
s
s
e
n
V
o
l
c
a
n
i
c
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
a
r
k
,
L
a
s
s
e
n
Co
u
n
t
y
,
a
n
d
s
p
r
i
n
g
s
i
n
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
C
r
e
e
k
b
a
s
i
n
i
n
S
i
e
r
r
a
Co
u
n
t
y
.
L
a
r
v
a
e
l
i
v
e
i
n
s
m
a
l
l
,
c
o
l
d
s
p
r
i
n
g
s
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
a
n
d
ar
e
o
f
t
e
n
f
o
u
n
d
a
m
o
n
g
r
o
c
k
s
a
n
d
g
r
a
v
e
l
.
A –
T
h
e
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
r
e
n
o
t
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
a
n
d
,
th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
a
r
e
n
o
t
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
Sa
g
e
h
e
n
C
r
e
e
k
g
o
a
r
a
c
e
a
n
c
a
d
d
i
s
f
l
y
Go
e
r
a
c
e
a
o
r
e
g
o
n
a
No
n
e
B
e
n
t
h
i
c
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
f
o
u
n
d
i
n
c
l
e
a
r
,
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
w
a
r
m
s
p
r
i
n
g
s
.
Kn
o
w
n
f
r
o
m
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
s
i
t
e
s
i
n
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
A –
T
h
e
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
r
e
n
o
t
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
a
n
d
,
th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
a
r
e
n
o
t
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
BI
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
TAB
L
E
4.
4
-
2
SPE
C
I
A
L
-S
TA
T
U
S
SPE
C
I
E
S
POT
E
N
T
I
A
L
L
Y
OCC
U
R
R
I
N
G
O
N
T
H
E
CAN
Y
O
N
SPR
I
N
G
S
SUB
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
PRO
J
E
C
T
SIT
E
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
4.4-13
Co
m
m
o
n
N
a
m
e
/
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
N
a
m
e
S
t
a
t
u
s
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
Pl
a
n
t
s
Al
d
e
r
b
u
c
k
t
h
o
r
n
Rh
a
m
n
u
s
a
l
n
i
f
o
l
i
a
CN
P
S
2
M
e
a
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
s
e
e
p
s
i
n
u
p
p
e
r
a
n
d
l
o
w
e
r
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
co
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
;
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
s
c
r
u
b
.
4
,
5
0
0
–
7
,
0
0
0
ft
.
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
B
l
o
o
m
s
M
a
y
–
J
u
l
y
.
U –
M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
bu
t
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
w
a
s
n
o
t
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
n
t
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
su
r
v
e
y
s
b
y
L
S
A
i
n
J
u
n
e
a
n
d
J
u
l
y
20
1
1
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
n
o
r
m
a
l
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
w
a
s
t
h
i
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
i
n
2
0
0
4
(
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
)
a
n
d
1
9
9
0
(
E
c
o
-
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
4).
Bo
l
a
n
d
e
r
’
s
b
r
u
c
h
i
a
Br
u
c
h
i
a
b
o
l
a
n
d
e
r
i
CN
P
S
2
O
c
c
u
r
s
i
n
m
e
a
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
s
e
e
p
s
i
n
u
p
p
e
r
a
n
d
l
o
w
e
r
mo
n
t
a
n
e
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
,
5,
6
0
0
–
9
,
2
0
0
f
t
.
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
Bl
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
u
n
k
n
o
w
n
.
L -
Th
e
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
r
e
n
o
t
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
a
n
d
,
th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
t
h
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
o
n
l
y
m
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
l
y
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
Fo
c
u
s
e
d
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
w
e
r
e
n
o
t
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
f
o
r
m
o
s
s
e
s
.
Br
o
a
d
-
n
e
r
v
e
d
h
u
m
p
m
o
s
s
Me
e
s
i
a
u
l
i
g
i
n
o
s
a
CN
P
S
2
B
o
g
s
a
n
d
f
e
n
s
,
m
e
a
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
s
e
e
p
s
,
u
p
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
co
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
g
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
n
m
e
s
i
c
s
o
i
l
s
;
4
,
2
0
0
–
8
,
2
0
0
ft
.
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
B
l
o
o
m
s
i
n
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
.
L -
Th
e
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
r
e
n
o
t
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
a
n
d
,
th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
t
h
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
o
n
l
y
m
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
l
y
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
Fo
c
u
s
e
d
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
w
e
r
e
n
o
t
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
f
o
r
m
o
s
s
e
s
.
Ca
r
s
o
n
R
a
n
g
e
r
o
c
k
-
c
r
e
s
s
Ar
a
b
i
s
r
i
g
i
d
i
s
s
i
m
a
va
r
.
de
m
o
t
e
CN
P
S
1
B
B
r
o
a
d
l
e
a
f
u
p
l
a
n
d
f
o
r
e
s
t
a
n
d
u
p
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
fo
r
e
s
t
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
r
a
n
g
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
7
,
4
0
0
t
o
8
,
4
0
0
f
e
e
t
A -
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
i
s
w
e
l
l
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
n
g
e
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
.
Co
m
m
o
n
m
o
o
n
w
o
r
t
Bo
t
r
y
c
h
i
u
m
l
u
n
a
r
i
a
CN
P
S
2
O
c
c
u
r
s
i
n
m
e
a
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
s
e
e
p
s
i
n
u
p
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
a
n
d
su
b
a
l
p
i
n
e
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
,
7
,
5
0
0
–
1
1
,
1
5
0
f
t
.
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
Bl
o
o
m
s
i
n
A
u
g
u
s
t
.
A -
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
i
s
w
e
l
l
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
n
g
e
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
.
Da
v
y
’
s
s
e
d
g
e
Ca
r
e
x
d
a
v
y
i
CN
P
S
1
B
V
e
r
n
a
l
l
y
m
e
s
i
c
a
r
e
a
s
i
n
s
u
b
a
l
p
i
n
e
a
n
d
u
p
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
co
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
;
4
,
9
0
0
–
1
0
,
5
0
0
f
t
.
B
l
o
o
m
s
M
a
y
–
Au
g
u
s
t
.
U –
M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
bu
t
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
w
a
s
n
o
t
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
n
t
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
su
r
v
e
y
s
b
y
L
S
A
i
n
J
u
n
e
a
n
d
J
u
l
y
20
1
1
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
n
o
r
m
a
l
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
w
a
s
t
h
i
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
i
n
2
0
0
4
(
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
)
a
n
d
1
9
9
0
(
E
c
o
-
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
)
.
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
b
u
c
k
w
h
e
a
t
Er
i
o
g
o
n
u
m
u
m
b
e
l
l
a
t
u
m
v
a
r
.
to
r
r
e
y
a
n
u
m
CN
P
S
1
B
M
e
a
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
s
e
e
p
s
,
an
d
u
p
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
fo
r
e
s
t
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
;
6
,
0
0
0
–
8
,
6
0
0
f
t
.
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
B
l
o
o
m
s
Ju
l
y
–
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
.
U –
M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
bu
t
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
w
a
s
n
o
t
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
n
t
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
su
r
v
e
y
s
b
y
L
S
A
i
n
J
u
n
e
a
n
d
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
st
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
n
o
r
m
a
l
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
w
a
s
th
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
i
n
2
0
0
4
(
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
)
a
n
d
1
9
9
0
(
E
c
o
-
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
)
.
4 E
c
o
-
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
.
1
9
9
0
.
F
i
n
a
l
E
I
R
T
a
h
o
e
-
B
o
c
a
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
on
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
f
o
r
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
BI
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
TAB
L
E
4.
4
-
2
SPE
C
I
A
L
-S
TA
T
U
S
SPE
C
I
E
S
POT
E
N
T
I
A
L
L
Y
OCC
U
R
R
I
N
G
O
N
T
H
E
CAN
Y
O
N
SPR
I
N
G
S
SUB
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
PRO
J
E
C
T
SIT
E
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
4.4-14
Co
m
m
o
n
N
a
m
e
/
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
N
a
m
e
S
t
a
t
u
s
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
En
g
l
i
s
h
s
u
n
d
e
w
Dr
o
s
e
r
a
a
n
g
e
l
i
c
a
CN
P
S
2
Bo
g
s
a
n
d
f
e
n
s
,
a
n
d
m
e
a
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
s
e
e
p
s
;
4
,
2
0
0
–
6
,
5
0
0
f
t
.
el
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
B
l
o
o
m
s
J
u
n
e
–
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
.
U –
T
h
e
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
r
e
n
o
t
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
a
n
d
,
th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
a
r
e
n
o
t
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
i
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
w
a
s
n
o
t
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
n
t
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
b
y
LS
A
i
n
J
u
n
e
a
n
d
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
no
r
m
a
l
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
w
a
s
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
ob
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
i
n
2
0
0
4
(
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
In
c
.
)
a
n
d
1
9
9
0
(
E
c
o
-
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
)
.
Ma
r
s
h
s
k
u
l
l
c
a
p
Sc
u
t
e
l
l
a
r
i
a
g
a
l
e
r
i
c
u
l
a
t
a
CN
P
S
2
O
c
c
u
r
s
u
n
d
e
r
m
o
i
s
t
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
m
e
a
d
o
w
a
n
d
fr
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
-
m
a
r
s
h
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
,
0
–
6
,
9
0
0
f
t
.
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
Bl
o
o
m
s
J
u
n
e
–
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
.
U –
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
bu
t
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
w
a
s
n
o
t
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
n
t
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
su
r
v
e
y
s
b
y
L
S
A
i
n
J
u
n
e
a
n
d
J
u
l
y
20
1
1
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
n
o
r
m
a
l
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
w
a
s
t
h
i
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
i
n
2
0
0
4
(
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
)
a
n
d
1
9
9
0
(
E
c
o
-
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
)
.
Mi
n
g
a
n
m
o
o
n
w
o
r
t
Bo
t
r
y
c
h
i
u
m
m
i
n
g
a
n
e
n
s
e
CN
P
S
2
O
c
c
u
r
s
i
n
b
o
g
s
a
n
d
f
e
n
s
i
n
u
p
p
e
r
a
n
d
l
o
w
e
r
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
co
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
,
4
,
9
0
0
–
6
,
7
5
0
f
t
.
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
B
l
o
o
m
s
Ju
l
y
–
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
.
U –
T
h
e
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
r
e
n
o
t
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
a
n
d
,
th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
a
r
e
n
o
t
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
i
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
w
a
s
n
o
t
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
n
t
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
b
y
LS
A
i
n
J
u
n
e
a
n
d
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
s
t
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
no
r
m
a
l
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
w
a
s
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
ob
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
i
n
2
0
0
4
(
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
In
c
.
)
a
n
d
1
9
9
0
(
E
c
o
-
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
)
.
Mu
d
s
e
d
g
e
Ca
r
e
x
l
i
m
o
s
a
CN
P
S
2
B
o
g
s
a
n
d
f
e
n
s
i
n
l
o
w
e
r
a
n
d
u
p
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
fo
r
e
s
t
s
;
4
,
0
0
0
–
9
1
0
0
f
t
.
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
B
l
o
o
m
s
J
u
n
e
–
Au
g
u
s
t
.
U –
T
h
e
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
r
e
n
o
t
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
a
n
d
,
th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
a
r
e
n
o
t
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
i
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
w
a
s
n
o
t
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
n
t
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
b
y
LS
A
i
n
J
u
n
e
a
n
d
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
no
r
m
a
l
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
w
a
s
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
ob
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
i
n
2
0
0
4
(
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
In
c
.
)
a
n
d
1
9
9
0
(
E
c
o
-
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
)
.
Or
e
g
o
n
f
i
r
e
w
e
e
d
Ep
i
l
o
b
i
u
m
o
r
e
g
a
n
u
m
CN
P
S
1
B
I
n
a
n
d
n
e
a
r
s
p
r
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
b
o
g
s
i
n
m
e
a
d
o
w
s
,
l
o
w
e
r
a
n
d
up
p
e
r
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
;
s
o
me
t
i
m
e
s
i
n
s
e
r
p
e
n
t
i
n
e
;
1
,
6
4
0
-
8,
5
6
0
f
t
.
B
l
o
o
m
s
J
u
n
e
–
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
.
U –
M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
bu
t
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
w
a
s
n
o
t
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
n
t
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
su
r
v
e
y
s
b
y
L
S
A
i
n
J
u
n
e
a
n
d
J
u
l
y
20
1
1
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
n
o
r
m
a
l
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
w
a
s
t
h
i
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
i
n
2
0
0
4
(
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
)
a
n
d
1
9
9
0
(
E
c
o
-
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
)
.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
BI
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
TAB
L
E
4.
4
-
2
SPE
C
I
A
L
-S
TA
T
U
S
SPE
C
I
E
S
POT
E
N
T
I
A
L
L
Y
OCC
U
R
R
I
N
G
O
N
T
H
E
CAN
Y
O
N
SPR
I
N
G
S
SUB
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
PRO
J
E
C
T
SIT
E
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
4.4-15
Co
m
m
o
n
N
a
m
e
/
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
N
a
m
e
S
t
a
t
u
s
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
Pl
u
m
a
s
i
v
e
s
i
a
Iv
e
s
i
a
s
e
r
i
c
o
l
e
u
c
a
CN
P
S
1
B
V
e
r
n
a
l
l
y
m
e
s
i
c
a
r
e
a
s
;
i
n
l
o
w
e
r
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
fo
r
e
s
t
s
,
a
n
d
m
e
a
d
o
w
s
,
4
,
8
0
0
–
7
,
2
0
0
f
t
.
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
Bl
o
o
m
s
M
a
y
–
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
.
U –
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
an
d
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
C
N
D
D
B
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
w
a
s
n
o
t
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
n
t
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
su
r
v
e
y
s
b
y
L
S
A
i
n
J
u
n
e
a
n
d
J
u
l
y
20
1
1
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
n
o
r
m
a
l
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
n
o
r
w
a
s
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
ob
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
i
n
2
0
0
4
(
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
In
c
.
)
a
n
d
1
9
9
0
(
E
c
o
-
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
)
.
Sa
n
t
a
L
u
c
i
a
d
w
a
r
f
r
u
s
h
Ju
n
c
u
s
l
u
c
i
e
n
s
i
s
CN
P
S
1
B
V
e
r
n
a
l
p
o
o
l
s
,
e
p
h
e
m
e
r
a
l
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
s
,
w
e
t
m
e
a
d
o
w
ha
b
i
t
a
t
s
,
a
n
d
s
t
r
e
a
m
s
i
d
e
s
,
i
n
l
o
w
e
r
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
fo
r
e
s
t
,
c
h
a
p
a
r
r
a
l
,
a
n
d
G
r
e
a
t
B
a
s
i
n
s
c
r
u
b
,
1
0
0
0
–
6
,
7
0
0
f
t
.
el
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
B
l
o
o
m
s
A
p
r
i
l
–
J
u
l
y
.
U –
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
bu
t
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
w
a
s
n
o
t
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
n
t
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
su
r
v
e
y
s
b
y
L
S
A
i
n
J
u
n
e
a
n
d
J
u
l
y
20
1
1
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
n
o
r
m
a
l
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
w
a
s
t
h
i
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
i
n
2
0
0
4
(
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
)
a
n
d
1
9
9
0
(
E
c
o
-
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
)
.
Si
e
r
r
a
s
t
a
r
w
o
r
t
Ps
e
u
d
o
s
t
e
l
l
a
r
i
a
s
i
e
r
r
a
CN
P
S
1
B
C
h
a
p
a
r
r
a
l
,
c
i
s
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
w
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
,
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
fo
r
e
s
t
,
4
,
0
0
0
–
6
,
7
0
0
f
t
.
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
B
l
o
o
m
s
M
a
y
–
Au
g
u
s
t
.
U –
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
bu
t
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
w
a
s
n
o
t
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
n
t
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
su
r
v
e
y
s
b
y
L
S
A
i
n
J
u
n
e
a
n
d
J
u
l
y
20
1
1
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
n
o
r
m
a
l
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
w
a
s
t
h
i
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
i
n
2
0
0
4
(
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
)
a
n
d
1
9
9
0
(
E
c
o
-
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
)
.
Sl
e
n
d
e
r
c
o
t
t
o
n
g
r
a
s
s
Er
i
o
p
h
o
r
u
m
g
r
a
c
i
l
e
CN
P
S
4
B
o
g
s
a
n
d
f
e
n
s
,
m
e
a
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
s
e
e
p
s
,
u
p
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
co
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
g
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
n
a
c
i
d
i
c
s
o
i
l
s
;
4
,
2
0
0
–
9
,
5
0
0
ft
.
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
B
l
o
o
m
s
M
a
y
–
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
.
U –
M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
bu
t
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
w
a
s
n
o
t
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
n
t
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
su
r
v
e
y
s
b
y
L
S
A
i
n
J
u
n
e
a
n
d
J
u
l
y
20
1
1
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
n
o
r
m
a
l
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
w
a
s
t
h
i
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
i
n
2
0
0
4
(
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
)
a
n
d
1
9
9
0
(
E
c
o
-
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
)
.
Ta
h
o
e
y
e
l
l
o
w
-
c
r
e
s
s
Ro
r
i
p
p
a
s
u
b
u
m
b
e
l
l
a
t
a
ST
;
C
N
P
S
1
B
M
e
a
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
s
e
e
p
s
;
d
e
c
o
m
p
o
s
e
d
g
r
a
n
i
t
i
c
b
e
a
c
h
e
s
;
i
n
lo
w
e
r
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
,
6
,
2
0
0
–
6
,
3
0
0
f
t
.
el
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
B
l
o
o
m
s
M
a
y
–
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
.
A –
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
A
l
l
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
CN
D
D
B
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
a
r
e
f
r
o
m
L
a
k
e
T
a
h
o
e
.
Th
r
e
e
-
r
a
n
k
e
d
h
u
m
p
m
o
s
s
Me
e
s
i
a
t
r
i
q
u
e
t
r
a
CN
P
S
4
B
o
g
s
a
n
d
f
e
n
s
,
m
e
a
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
s
e
e
p
s
,
u
p
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
a
n
e
co
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
g
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
n
m
e
s
i
c
s
o
i
l
s
;
4
,
2
0
0
–
8
,
2
0
0
ft
.
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
B
l
o
o
m
s
i
n
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
.
L -
Th
e
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
r
e
n
o
t
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
a
n
d
,
th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
t
h
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
o
n
l
y
m
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
l
y
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
Fo
c
u
s
e
d
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
w
e
r
e
n
o
t
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
f
o
r
m
o
s
s
e
s
.
Wi
l
d
b
u
c
k
w
h
e
a
t
Er
i
o
g
o
n
u
m
o
v
a
l
i
f
o
l
i
u
m
No
n
e
M
o
n
t
a
n
e
p
e
b
b
l
e
m
e
a
d
o
w
.
U –
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
an
d
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
(
A
.
J
u
n
c
o
s
a
,
pe
r
s
.
c
o
m
m
.
)
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
w
a
s
n
o
t
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
re
c
e
n
t
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
b
y
L
S
A
i
n
J
u
n
e
a
n
d
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
,
n
o
r
w
a
s
th
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
i
n
2
0
0
4
(
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
)
a
n
d
1
9
9
0
(
E
c
o
-
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
)
.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
BI
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
TAB
L
E
4.
4
-
2
SPE
C
I
A
L
-S
TA
T
U
S
SPE
C
I
E
S
POT
E
N
T
I
A
L
L
Y
OCC
U
R
R
I
N
G
O
N
T
H
E
CAN
Y
O
N
SPR
I
N
G
S
SUB
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
PRO
J
E
C
T
SIT
E
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
4.4-16
Ex
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
:
A (
A
b
s
e
n
t
)
–
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
b
s
e
nt
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
n
o
s
u
i
t
ab
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
d
/
o
r
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
t
o
d
e
t
e
ct
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
.
U (
U
n
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
)
–
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
n
o
t
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
t
o
d
e
t
e
c
t
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
su
r
v
e
y
s
.
T
h
i
s
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
i
s
s
p
e
c
if
i
c
t
o
p
l
a
n
t
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
t
o
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
fa
c
t
t
h
a
t
e
v
e
n
m
i
c
r
o
-
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
s
i
t
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
io
n
s
c
a
n
a
f
f
e
c
t
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
a
g
i
v
e
n
s
p
ec
i
e
s
o
f
p
l
a
n
t
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
i
n
a
n
a
r
e
a
w
h
e
r
e
i
t
h
a
s
n
o
t
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
b
e
e
n
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
.
L (
L
o
w
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
)
–
T
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
no
r
e
c
e
n
t
o
r
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
r
e
c
o
rd
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
c
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
o
r
i
t
s
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
,
a
n
d
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
o
c
c
u
r
o
n
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
o
r
i
t
s
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
.
M (
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
)
–
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
r
e
c
e
n
t
o
r
h
i
s
t
or
i
c
a
l
r
e
c
o
r
d
o
f
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
n
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
o
r
i
t
s
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
te
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
sp
e
c
i
e
s
r
a
n
g
e
a
n
d
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
fo
r
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
H (
H
i
g
h
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
)
–
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
bo
t
h
a
r
e
c
e
n
t
o
r
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
r
e
c
o
r
d
o
f
t
h
e
sp
e
c
i
e
s
i
n
,
o
r
i
n
t
h
e
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
of
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
/
o
r
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
c
c
u
r
s
i
n
,
o
r
i
n
t
h
e
i
m
m
e
-
di
a
t
e
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
o
f
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
P (
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
)
–
T
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
w
a
s
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
t
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
,
o
r
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
n
u
m
e
r
o
u
s
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
o
f
t
he
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
o
v
e
r
a
p
e
r
i
o
d
of
t
i
m
e
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
t
o
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
sp
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
.
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
FT
=
T
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d
FP
E
=
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
n
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d
FP
T
=
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
T
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d
FC
=
C
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e
FD
=
D
e
l
i
s
t
e
d
BC
C
=
U
S
F
W
S
B
i
r
d
o
f
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
St
a
t
e
SE
=
E
n
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d
ST
=
T
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d
SR
=
R
a
r
e
SC
=
C
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e
f
o
r
L
i
s
t
i
n
g
CS
C
=
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
f
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
SF
P
S
=
S
t
a
t
e
F
u
l
l
y
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
CN
P
S
CN
P
S
1
A
=
P
r
e
s
u
m
e
d
e
x
t
i
n
c
t
i
n
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
CN
P
S
1
B
=
R
a
r
e
o
r
E
n
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d
i
n
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
a
n
d
e
l
s
e
w
h
e
r
e
CN
P
S
2
=
R
a
r
e
o
r
E
n
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d
i
n
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
,
m
o
r
e
c
o
m
m
o
n
e
l
s
e
w
h
e
r
e
CN
P
S
3
=
P
l
a
n
t
s
a
b
o
u
t
w
h
i
c
h
w
e
n
e
e
d
m
o
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
;
a
r
e
v
i
e
w
l
i
s
t
CN
P
S
4
=
P
l
a
n
t
s
o
f
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
;
a
w
a
t
c
h
l
i
s
t
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-17
ii. Jurisdictional Delineation
HEC conducted field investigations for the jurisdictional delineation on August 30,
and September 1 and 2, 2010. The jurisdictional delineation was performed in ac-
cordance with the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual5 and the Interim
Regional Supplement to the Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Man-
ual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (2008)6 and included collection
of vegetation, soils, and hydrology data. The delineation effort is summarized in a
report, Delineation of Waters of the U.S. Canyon Spring, Town of Truckee,
#200300655, dated January 11, 2011 (included in Appendix D of the 2012 Draft
EIR. 7
iii. Mule Deer Use and Migration Analysis
The April 5, 2011 survey was conducted by Foothill biologist Brian Mayerle and
consisted of a general reconnaissance level survey of the project site. Field investi-
gations were conducted by RMT and HEC for the use of the project site by the
Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd throughout the fall of 2009
and spring of 2011. The studies involved an extensive field study that utilized cam-
era stations to collect detailed data of this deer herd movement on the project site
and consultation with staff from CDFW. The 2009 and 2011 mule deer reports
prepared by HEC and peer reviewed by Foothill Associates are included in Appen-
dix E of the 2012 Draft EIR.
EIR biologists from Foothill also provided a third-party review of data on this mule
deer herd provided by staff at CDFW and NDOW. As discussed above in Section
1.a. Literature Search, CDFW and NDOW prepared the 1982 Loyalton-Truckee Deer
Herd Management Plan and began conducting long-range studies on this mule deer
herd in the fall of 2009. While this is an ongoing study, the first set of data was
provided to the Town in August 2013. This included a summary of the conclusions
of mule deer studies to-date in the Interstate Deer Project, 2010 Loyalton-Truckee Deer
5 Environmental Laboratory, 1987. “ACOE of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual,” Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
6 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to
the USACE of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and
Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL
TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
7 These wetland boundaries were verified by the USACE on October 11, 2011. The
previous delineation was verified by the USACE on June 7, 2005. The current delineation
includes more riverine emergent wetlands and wet meadow than the previous delineation.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-18
Herd Report and Management Plan Update (Habitat Sections Only), In Partial Fulfillment of
PR Grant W-83-R-1 and technical tracking and mapping data sets of the deer that
were radio-collared for the study. This report and technical data are provided in
Appendix A of this Revised Draft EIR.
2. Setting
Based on the findings from Foothill’s April 5, 2011 and LSA’s June 8, 2011 general
reconnaissance level survey, it was determined that the site conditions were pre-
dominantly unchanged from the conditions reported in previous analysis prepared
for the project site. As a result, the following discussion of the existing setting is
based largely on the findings from the previous analysis prepared for the project
site.
The approximately 290-acre project site is predominantly undeveloped forest,
scrub, and meadow habitats. A well-developed network of unpaved roads and
trails is distributed throughout the site. This network extends into adjacent lands
on all sides of the project site. The project site is accessed by surrounding subdivi-
sion residents and experiences year-round unregulated and unauthorized use. In
the winter, the site is used by cross-country and backcountry skiers, snowshoers,
and snowmobile users. In other seasons the project site is used by hikers, dog
walkers with unleashed pet dogs,8 mountain bikers, equestrians, and off-road vehi-
cle users. The only formal development on the project site is the Liberty Energy –
California Pacific Electric Company’s overhead high-power transmission line and
associated access road that spans the project site in a southwest-northeast orienta-
tion for approximately 2,300 feet.
The project site is a forested area with meadows and wetlands that trend north-
westerly through the central and southern portions of the site. The site is charac-
terized by rolling topography that generally slopes gently downward to the north-
west along two ridges. Slopes are generally 1 to 10 percent, but with some isolated
areas exceeding 30 percent. Elevations on the site range from approximately 5,920
8 According to Municipal Code, Title 8, Animal Control, Chapter 8.01, Humane
Animal Control, Section, 8.01.420, Animals Running At Large, it is unlawful for any person
owning or having possession, charge, custody, or control of any animal to cause, permit or
allow the animal to stray, run or in any other manner to be at large in or upon any public
street, sidewalk, park, school ground, or other public place, or upon any private place or
property without consent of the owner or person in control of such private place or proper-
ty.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-19
feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the northwest to 6,120 feet above MSL in the
southeast.
a. Plant Communities
Nomenclature for plant communities was based on A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of
California9 with additional information provided by A Manual of California Vegeta-
tion,10 Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California,11 and
Terrestrial Vegetation of California.12 The previous analysis prepared for the project
site was also referenced to describe pebble meadows.
Plant communities occurring on the project site are described below, and include
Jeffery pine, sagebrush, wet meadow, and pebble meadow. Common plant and
wildlife species observed, or expected to occur, in these communities are also not-
ed. Figure 4.4-1 illustrates the plant communities on the project site.
i. Jeffrey Pine
Jeffrey pine communities are distributed through the Klamath Mountains into
southwestern Oregon, across the Sierra Nevada into western Nevada, and south-
ward into the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges into northern Baja California.
Jeffery pine vegetation communities range in elevation from approximately 200 to
9,500 feet. The assemblage of this vegetation community type is dependent on
several site specific factors including but not limited to climate, topography, and
soil composition. Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) is the dominant species found in the
upper canopy. Other tree species commonly associated with Jeffrey pine commu-
nities include Ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa), sugar pine (P. lambertiana), white-fir
(Abies concolor), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var.menziesii), lodgepole pine (Pinus
contorta murrayana), incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), canyon live oak (Quercus
chrysolepis), California black oak (Q. kelloggii), and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides).
9 Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., eds., 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats
of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA.
10 Sawyer, John O. and Todd Keeler-Wolf, 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation.
California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.
11 Holland, R., 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of Terrestrial Natural Communities
of California. State of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Rancho
Cordova, CA.
12 California Native Plant Society (CNPS), 1988. Terrestrial Vegetation of California.
Michael G. Barbour and Jack Major, eds., University of California, Davis. California Native
Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. v + 1020 pp.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-20
Jeffrey pine is the most common plant community on the project site, totaling ap-
proximately 225.65 acres. Within the Jeffery pine community, an under story com-
ponent is present and consists of woody shrub species, notably bitterbrush (Purshia
tridentata), mountain sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata vaseyana) and rabbitbrush (Eri-
cameria nauseosus). An herbaceous ground layer is present and consists of mules ears
(Wyethia mollis), mountain violet (Viola purpurea purpurea), needle grass (Achnatherum
sp.), and squirrel tail grass (Elymus elymoides). Because of the food value of the Jef-
frey pine seeds, bark, and foliage, Jeffrey pine communities typically provide sub-
stantial foraging habitat for wildlife.13 Species expected to use these food sources
include mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), squirrels (Sciurus sp.), chipmunks (Tamias
sp.), and other mammal species. In addition, this community provides the neces-
sary nesting cover for several bird species such as brown creeper (Certhia americana),
hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), white-breasted
nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis); and Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), great horned owl (Bubo
virginianus), and northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus).
ii. Sagebrush
Sagebrush communities form a discontinuous strip along the eastern and north-
eastern borders of California, occupying dry slopes and flats in elevations ranging
from approximately 1,600 to 10,500 feet. Generally, a species of sagebrush (Artemi-
sia sp.), defines this under story layer, but often bitterbrush, rabbitbrush, or another
species of sagebrush which typically constitutes an associate component, will dom-
inate this vegetation community type. However, bitterbrush is not the dominate
species throughout the entire community on the project site. Tree species may
occur in low densities within this vegetation community. As with Jeffrey pine vege-
tation community types, the assemblage of this vegetation community type is de-
pendent on several site-specific factors, including but not limited to climate, topog-
raphy, and soil composition.
The sagebrush community on the project site comprises approximately 59.71 acres
and is dominated by mountain sagebrush; associate shrubs include bitterbrush, low
sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula), and rabbitbrush. In addition, a variety of grasses and
herbaceous plant species were observed within this community including mountain
dandelion (Agoseris sp.), mules ears, mountain larkspur (Delphinium depauperatum),
lotus (Acmispon americanus var. apericanus), common yarrow (Achillea millefolium), and
needle grass.
13 Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., eds., 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats
of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA.
Match Line
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
LEGEND
Biological Study Area
Snags
Plant Communities (290.73 ac)
Sagebrush Series (59.71 ac)
Jeffery Pine Series (225.65 ac)
Pebble Meadow (0.70 ac)
Wet Meadow (4.67 ac)
SOURCE: Basemap - ESRI Imagery (2010); Mapping - Foothill Associates (2004); Heal Environmental Consulting (2011)
FIGURE 4.4-1
Canyon Springs Subdivision
Plant Communities
Match Line
Gle
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
0 200 400
FEET
I:\DCV1101\GIS\plant_comm.mxd (8/19/11)
Match Line Martis Peak Road
LEGEND
Biological Study Area
Snags
Plant Communities (290.73 ac)
Sagebrush Series (59.71 ac)
Jeffery Pine Series (225.65 ac)
Pebble Meadow (0.70 ac)
Wet Meadow (4.67 ac)
SOURCE: Basemap - ESRI Imagery (2010); Mapping - Foothill Associates (2004); Heal Environmental Consulting (2011)
FIGURE 4.4-1
Canyon Springs Subdivision
Plant Communities
Match Line
Glenshire Drive
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
0200 400
FEET
I:\DCV1101\GIS\plant_comm.mxd (8/19/11)
Source: LSA. Basemap - ESRI Imagery (2010); Mapping - Foothill Associates (2004); Heal Environmental Consulting (2011)
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLANT COMMUNITIES
FIGURE 4.4-1
2000 400 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-23
This community provides habitat for several game species such as pronghorn (An-
tilocapra americana), sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), and migratory deer herds.
In addition, sagebrush communities are occupied by birds such as gray flycatcher
(Empidonax wrightii), magpie (Pica sp.), sage thrasher (Orescoptes montanus), and vari-
ous other songbirds and hawks; and mammals such as ground squirrel (Spermophilus
sp.), jackrabbit (Lepus sp.), kangaroo rat (Dipodomys sp.), and sagebrush vole (Lagurus
curtatus). Wildlife observed within this community on the site includes dove (Zenai-
da sp.) and chipmunk.
In addition, evidence (scat and tracks) of mule deer were observed during the field
surveys.
iii. Wet Meadow
Wet meadows are distributed throughout the mountains of the Sierra Nevada and
occur within almost every forest type, including Jeffrey pine. Meadows are areas
typically dominated by herbaceous plant species such as grasses and sedges (Carex
spp.); occasionally, when water persists, willows (Salix spp.) and/or other woody
shrub species may occur. Tree species are typically low in cover, or absent alto-
gether. Meadows are often, but not always, jurisdictional wetlands.
Wet meadow habitat on the project site comprise 5.29 acres and consists of two
main systems: one in the southwestern portion of the site, and the other in the cen-
tral portion of the site. Both meadow systems are fed by off-site perennial springs;
Buck Springs recharges the meadow system in the southwestern portion of the site
and an unnamed spring east of the site recharges the meadow system in the central
portion of the site. These systems have a gentle gradient and are generally dry by
mid-summer except in the upstream areas directly influenced by the springs. This
community is within the area designated as open space.
Vegetation communities within the meadow systems on the site are dependent
upon prolonged saturated soil conditions. As such, the vegetation communities
occurring within the meadow systems on the site are composed of those plant spe-
cies which can tolerate prolonged saturated soil conditions such as sedges, rushes
(Juncus spp.), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa), meadow barley (Hordeum
brachyantherum), Richardson’s muhly (Muhlenbergia richardsonis), Kentucky blue grass
(Poa pratensis pratensis), Parish’s yampah (Perideridia parishii), toad-lily (Montia cham-
issoi), primrose monkey flower (Mimulus primuloides), clover (Trifolium spp.), camas
(Camassia quamash), and Oregon checkerbloom (Sidalcea oregana).
Seasonal wetland communities provide foraging habitat and a temporary water
source for a wide variety of wildlife. Wildlife typically occurring in this community
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-24
includes invertebrates, amphibians, birds, and mammals. Fauna similar to those
observed, or expected to occur, in the surrounding communities on the site are
expected to occur in the seasonal wetland communities.
iv. Pebble Meadow
Pebble meadows are a habitat type that occurs on and in the vicinity of the project
site and appears to be uncommon. This community is not formally defined but
was described in the previous analysis done for the project site and is recognized by
the local professional community. Precise assessments of the plant community
composition and the relative rarity of this habitat type have not been conducted,
but it is possible that this community would meet the criteria of a sensitive habitat.
Plants observed in the pebble meadows on the project site include wooly balsam-
root (Balsamhoriza lanata), Parish’s yampah, knotweed (Polygonum californicum), a small
rayless daisy (Erigeron sp.), Sierra onion (Allium campanulatum), one sided bluegrass
(Poa secunda var. secunda), Bridge’s gilia (Gilia leptalea), mountain violet (Viola purpurea)
one spike oat grass (Danthonia unispicata), and Meadow death camas (Toxicoscordion
venenosus var. venenosus). This habitat may also support a locally rare plant species,
wild buckwheat (Eriogonum ovalifolium).14 This community is within the area desig-
nated as open space.
b. Snags
Snags are standing dead trees that provide important habitat features for many spe-
cies, especially birds. These microhabitats provide feeding habitat for woodpeckers
and nesting and roosting habitat for cavity nesters, including owls, woodpeckers,
and bats. Approximately 72 snags occur on the project site. There are also a few
large, overly mature trees in the area that could eventually die and become snags.
The locations of snags were observed on the site and are shown in Figure 4.4-1.
c. Aquatic Resources
Aquatic resources on the project include the wet meadow community described
above and several ephemeral and intermittent drainages. The hydrology of ephem-
eral drainages is typically driven by surface water (i.e. runoff), while intermittent
drainages also include some component of subsurface discharge. In the Sierra Ne-
vada, peak flows coincide with snowmelt and rainstorm events. Vegetation occur-
ring in these seasonal creeks is typically limited. However, emergent and riparian
vegetation may occur along the shoreline of and adjacent to these communities,
14 Adrian Juncosa, PhD. Botany, President EcoSynthesis Scientific & Regulatory Ser-
vices, personal communication with LSA staff, June 21, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-25
respectively. On the project site, ephemeral and intermittent drainage comprise
1.84 acres, of which, 0.65-acre supports wetlands. The aquatic resources on site are
within the area designated as open space.
d. Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife corridors are used for both movement and migration purposes. Move-
ment corridors are traditional routes used by wildlife to travel within their home
range, and allow them to access food, cover, and water on a daily and seasonal ba-
sis. Movement corridors typically provide wildlife with undisturbed cover and for-
aging habitat and are generally composed of several trails following topographic
features such as drainages, ridgelines, and the bases of major topographic slopes or
prominent hills in contiguous spans of forested, riparian, riverine, and woodland
communities. The width of movement corridors varies depending on the topogra-
phy. Migration corridors apply to wildlife that travel annually between ranges in
the summer and winter. Movement and migration corridors are an essential ele-
ment of home ranges of a variety of wildlife, including the Verdi subunit of the
Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd. This subunit is known to utilize the project site
and surrounding area for foraging, movement and migration. The project site and
surrounding area includes open space habitat to accommodate wildlife movement.
e. Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats
LSA reviewed the specific habitats required by each species listed in Table 4.4-1,
and the specific habitats and habitat conditions present on the project site. Based
on this evaluation, LSA determined the likelihood of each species listed in Table
4.4-2 to occur on the project site. Special status species that were observed on the
project site, or determined to potentially occur on the site based on availability of
suitable habitat or other factors such as nearby occurrences (i.e. at least a “Low”
potential for occurrence in Table 4.4-2), are discussed more fully below. Species
determined unlikely to occur on the project site (based on these same factors, or
negative survey result), are also documented in Table 4.4-2, and are not discussed
further in this report.
i. Special-Status Wildlife
The following special-status wildlife species listed in Table 4.4-2 were determined
to have the potential to occur on the project site.
a) Sierra Nevada Red Fox
The Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) is a State threatened species; it has
no federal status. This species ranges from the Cascades down to the Sierra Neva-
das and utilizes a variety of forested habitats in the subalpine and alpine regions
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-26
usually interspersed with meadows, barren rocky areas, or alpine fell fields.15 This
species uses dense vegetation and rocky areas for cover and den sites.
The project site does not contain densely vegetated or rocky areas that Sierra Ne-
vada red fox typically utilize for cover and denning, but the forested habitats on the
project could potentially provide foraging habitat for this species. However, the
relatively high level of current human disturbance would likely discourage this spe-
cies from using the project site. In addition, while there are CNDDB records for
this species in the vicinity of the project site, the majority of the records for this
species in the central part of the state are located much further to the west. Con-
sidering these factors, there is low potential for Sierra Nevada red fox to occur on
the project site.
b) Bats (including Silver-haired Bat)
Several bat species (e.g. Myotis sp.), including the silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noc-
tivagans), could potentially occur on the project site. Bat habitat consists of foraging
habitat and both day and night roosts; certain day roosts are also used as maternity
and winter roosts. Bats are nocturnal mammals, leaving day roosts around dusk to
forage. Day roosts are typically in enclosed areas that provide thermal protection
for bats, such as caves, buildings, crevices or openings in bridges, tree cavities, and
sloughing bark. Night roosts may be located in more open areas (e.g. the underside
of a bridge deck) where bats can rest while digesting their food. The majority of
North American bats feed on insects, which are captured on the wing using echo-
location.
The Jeffrey pine community and snags on the project site provide potential habitat
for tree-roosting bats, and bats could forage over the wet meadow and sagebrush
habitats. During the winter, bats in North America that roost in trees year round
generally occur in coastal regions or where freezing temperatures (i.e., 32 degrees)
are infrequent.16 In Truckee, the average temperature November through February
15 Zeiner D.C., W.F. Loudenslayer Jr., K.E., Mayer, and M.White, eds. 1988. Cali-
fornia’s Wildlife Vol. III: Mammals. State of California: The Resource Agency. Depart-
ment of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA.
16 Cryan, P.M., and J.P. Veilleux. 2007. Migration and the use of Autumn, Winter,
and Spring roosts by tree bats. In: M.J. Lacki, J.P. Hayes, and A. Kurta (eds.). Bats in forests:
Conservation and management. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. p.
153-175.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-27
is 31 degrees and the average low temperature during this period is 18 degrees17.
Considering the low winter temperatures at the project site, it is unlikely that bats
use trees or snags on the site as winter roosts.
Bats are most susceptible to disturbance at roost sites during the breeding season,
due to presence of pregnant females and non-volant pups, and during the winter
when many bats enter torpor. During the rest of the year, many bat species are
migrating or otherwise less likely to be strongly tied to roost sites and, therefore,
less susceptible to disturbance. The nearest CNDDB record for bats is for the
silver-haired bat, approximately nine miles northwest of the project site, but the
lack of records is likely due to a lack of survey effort rather than an indication of
the distribution of bats. No bats or sign of bats (e.g. urine staining, guano) were
observed during site surveys, but due to the presence of suitable breeding season
roost habitat and suitable foraging habitat, there is a moderate potential for bats to
occur on the project site.
c) Bald Eagle
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a State endangered species. This species
was previously federally threatened, but has been delisted. Bald eagles forage in
large bodies of water including oceans, lakes, and rivers. This species feeds pri-
marily on fish but will also eat small mammals, waterfowl, seabirds, and carrion.
Bald eagles build large stick nests in tall trees or on cliffs, usually within one mile of
water.
No suitable nesting or wintering habitat is present on the project site, but the po-
tential exists for bald eagles to forage on the project site. The CNDDB includes
one record for bald eagles in the vicinity of the project site, approximately four
miles to the north near the north shore of Boca Reservoir. No bald eagles were
observed on or near the project site during previous surveys, but since marginal
foraging habitat is present, there is a low potential for bald eagle to occur on the
project site.
d) Lewis’s Woodpecker
The Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) is a USFWS Bird of Conservation Con-
cern; it has no State status. This species nests in snags within open forests and
woodlands with a brushy understory. It forages by gleaning insects from surfaces or
hunts insects in the air.
17 http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USCA1163
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-28
The Jeffrey pine community on the project site provides suitable foraging and nest-
ing habitat for this species. There are no CNDDB records for Lewis’s woodpecker
but this species is known from the Old Greenwood project site located approxi-
mately 3 miles to the west. No Lewis’s woodpeckers were observed on the project
site during any of the surveys. Since this species is known from the local vicinity
and the project site supports suitable habitat, including numerous snags, there is a
moderate potential this species could occur on the project site.
e) Northern Goshawk
The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is a State species of special concern; it has
no federal status. This species nests in many of the mountain ranges in California
including the North Coast Ranges, the Sierra Nevada, Klamath, Cascade, and
Warner Mountains, and prefers middle and higher elevations. The northern gos-
hawk nests in coniferous forest, usually on north-facing slopes near water, and is
extremely defensive of nesting territory.
The lack of north-facing slopes and permanent water precludes goshawks from
nesting on the project site, but the Jeffrey pine community provides potential for-
aging habitat for this species. There are several CNDDB records for goshawk in
the vicinity of the project site; the two nearest records are within five miles to the
south near Martis Peak. Due to the lack of suitable nesting habitat, there is low
potential for goshawk to occur on the project site.
f) Willow Flycatcher
The willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) is a State endangered species; it has no
federal status. Willow flycatchers inhabit low, dense thickets of willows along the
edges of wet meadows, ponds, or other slow moving or still water sources above
2,000-foot elevation. Willow flycatchers require the dense thickets for foraging and
nesting.
The plant communities on the project site do not provide suitable nesting habitat
for willow flycatcher. However, suitable nesting habitat is located south of the
project site at Buck Springs and to the west near Glenshire Lake, and this species
could potentially occur on the project site. The nearest CNDDB record for willow
flycatcher is approximately one mile northeast of the project on a densely wooded
island in the Truckee River; two more CNDDB records are located approximately
four miles southwest of the project site near the Martis Creek National Recreation
Area. No willow flycatchers were observed on the project site during any of the
surveys. Since potential nesting habitat is present in the vicinity of the project site
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-29
and this species is known from the local vicinity, there is a moderate potential for
willow flycatcher to occur on the project site.
g) Yellow Warbler
The yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri) is a State species of special concern;
it has no federal status. Yellow warblers typically nest in riparian habitats and pre-
fer willows, cottonwoods, aspens, sycamores, and alders for both nesting and for-
aging, but will also nest in montane shrubbery.
The project site provides marginal nesting habitat for yellow warbler and more
suitable nesting habitat occurs south of the project site at Buck Springs and to the
west near Glenshire Lake. The closest CNDDB record for yellow warbler is ap-
proximately eight miles to the west near Donner Lake. This species was not ob-
served on the project site during any of the surveys. Since potential nesting habitat
is present on the site and in the vicinity, and this species is known from the local
vicinity, there is a moderate potential for yellow warbler to occur on the project
site.
h) Nesting Birds
In addition to the Lewis’s woodpecker and yellow warbler, discussed above, many
bird species could potentially nest on the project site. Although many of these bird
species do not have any special status designation, nesting birds, the nests, and eggs
are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the State Fish and Game Code,
as described above in Section A.1, Regulatory Framework, Special-Status Species.
Suitable nesting habitat occurs in both the Jeffrey pine and sagebrush communities
on the project site; snags also provide potential habitat for cavity-nesting birds. As
a result, there is a high potential for birds to nest on the project site.
ii. Other Wildlife of Concern
Mule deer are a common wildlife species in the vicinity of the project site and are
widely distributed throughout the Sierra Nevada range. The mule deer does not
have a special status designation; however, as noted in their May 23, 2011 and
March 1, 2013 correspondence with the Town (included in Appendix B of the
Draft EIR and Appendix A of this Revised Draft EIR, respectively), the CDFW is
particularly concerned about the impacts to habitat (movement) and migration cor-
ridors of the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd as a result of
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-30
residential development and recreational use in the project area18 and increased
edge effects.19
As noted in “Section B.2 Setting, Wildlife Corridors,” this mule deer herd is known
to utilize the project site and surrounding area for foraging, movement and migra-
tion.
In general, mule deer tend to confine their daily movements to discrete home rang-
es, using the same winter and summer home ranges in consecutive years. Mule
deer disperse by moving beyond the home range to distances of up to five miles.
This movement results in the establishment of a new home range. Seasonal migra-
tions from higher elevations (summer ranges) to lower winter ranges are associated,
in part, with decreasing temperatures, severe snowstorms, and snow depths that
reduce mobility and food supply. Deep snows ultimately limit useable range to a
fraction of the total range.
The Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd migrates annually from
Nevada along the Truckee River and disperses into the Martis Valley, located
southeast of the Town, in the spring season. Critical fawning habitat for this deer
herd occurs near Dry Lake, located approximately 1.5 miles south of the project
site, and near Lookout Mountain, located approximately seven miles southwest of
the project site. After fawning, this deer herd leaves the fawning habitat and dis-
perses into the Martis Valley to forage prior to migrating back into Nevada. Por-
tions of the deer herd must cross the Truckee River and Interstate 80 in order to
disperse into the Martis Valley in the spring season and migrate back to Nevada in
the autumn.
In recent years, the deer population declines in the Northern/Central Sierra have
been substantial.20 Deer populations may be at the lowest levels in the last 50 years
and perhaps no one knows which factors are most important.21 The various causes
for the reduction in deer populations are likely from habitat loss, fires, develop-
18 Jeff Drongesen, Environmental Program Manager, CDFW. Written correspond-
ence to Denyelle Nishimori, Senior Associate, Town of Truckee, May 23, 2011.
19 Tina Bartlett, Regional Manager, CDFW. Written correspondence to Denyelle
Nishimori, Senior Associate, Town of Truckee, March 1, 2013.
20 CDFW, 1998. Report to the Fish and Game Commission: An Assessment of Mule and
Black-tailed Deer Habitats and Populations in California
21 Personal communication between Jeff Finn, California Department of Fish and
Wildlife Biologist and staff at Foothill Associates, July 12, 2004.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-31
ment, dams, vehicle collisions, and both grazing and overgrazing by introduced
livestock. Suspension of Mountain Lion hunting in 1990 may also play a role in
reduced mule deer populations. Winter range and key winter range have been nega-
tively impacted by the Martis Creek fire, development, and livestock grazing. His-
toric overgrazing has led to the replacement of native grasses by sagebrush.22 Bit-
terbrush, found on the project site, is the most important browse (graze) species,
and fawn survival is closely correlated to browse production. Bitterbrush leader
growth is correlated with annual precipitation.23 Periods of dry weather can lead to
both decreased browse production and more frequent fires, both of which are un-
predictable and negatively impact the deer populations.
The protection and enhancement of key mule deer winter, foraging, migratory, and
fawning habitat are vital to their long-term survival. As illustrated in the 2009 and
2011 mule deer reports prepared by RMT and HEC and reviewed by Foothill, as
well as the 2010 report and tracking data provided by CDFW and NDOW, there is
a high potential for this mule deer herd to utilize the project site and surrounding
area for foraging, movement and migration. However, there is no data showing the
project site to be a major or important migratory corridor for mule deer. Recent
data suggests that only a few individual mule deer use the site as a migration corri-
dor or for forage at any given time.24 For example, some of the recent CDFW and
NDOW data sets of radio-collared deer in the project vicinity, in particular, data
sets for two tracked animals, revealed a pattern of occurrences southeast of the
project site. The first mule deer (#93171) had nine data points recorded within the
southeastern corner of the project site. This represents less than one-quarter of a
percent (i.e. 0.21 percent) of the approximately 4,300 data points recorded by
CDFW and NDOW from 2010 to 2013. A second mule deer (radio collar #93172)
was not recorded within the project boundary in approximately 5,449 data points
recorded from 2010 to 2013.
The critical fawning habitat for this deer herd occurs in two distinct locations ap-
proximately 1.5 miles south and approximately 7 miles southwest of the project
22 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Tahoe National Forest, 1968. Habitat Manage-
ment Plan: Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Unit.
23 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Tahoe National Forest, 1968. Habitat Manage-
ment Plan: Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Unit.
24 Data sets of radio-collared deer in the project vicinity provided by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2013 and 2014.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-32
site; therefore, there is a low potential for fawning habitat for this mule deer herd
on the project site.
iii. Special-Status Plants
Of the special status plants in Table 4.4-1, 13 plants were determined to have the
potential to occur on the project site based on the presence of suitable habitat. As
described above in Section B.1, Methods, Field Surveys, LSA conducted focused
survey for these special-status plants in June and July 2011, which is during the
normal blooming period for these species when plants are most easily identifiable.
In addition, for Plumas ivesia, since there are several records for this species near the
project site, LSA monitored a nearby population of Plumas ivesia to determine when
this species was blooming, and then scheduled the focused survey on the project
site during the known 2011 blooming period for this species.
Since the 2011 focused plant surveys on the project site were appropriately timed
and resulted in negative findings, and considering that none of the special-status
plants were observed during previous focused surveys of the project site in 2004 by
Foothill Associates, Inc. and in 1990 by Eco-Analysts, these plant species are not
expected to occur on the project site.
a) Mosses
Three mosses could potentially occur on the project site: Bolander’s bruchia (Bru-
chia bolanderi) – CNPS List 2, Broad-nerved hump moss (Meesia uliginosa) – CNPS
List 2, and three-ranked hump moss (Meesia triquetra) – CNPS List 4. Bolander’s
bruchia occurs in meadows and seeps; the broad-nerved and three-ranked hump
moss occur in bogs and fens.
The wet meadow and other wetlands areas on the project site, being seasonal, are
only marginally suitable for these mosses, especially the broad-nerved and three-
ranked hump moss which, as stated previously, occur in bogs and fens. Mosses
were not included in the focused plant surveys conducted in June and July, 2011.
Since only marginal habitat is present on the project site, there is a low potential for
these three mosses to occur.
iv. Sensitive Habitats
Sensitive habitats that occur on the project site include wet meadows, pebble
meadows, and migration corridors. Wet meadows and pebble meadows are de-
scribed above in Section B.2, Setting, Plant Communities. While a wildlife move-
ment and migration corridor is not any one particular habitat such as a wet meadow
or a pebble meadow, the Town recognizes wildlife movement and migration corri-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-33
dors as sensitive resources as identified in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
Conservation and Open Space Element Goal COS-4, Policies P4.1 and P4.2 de-
scribed above in Section A.3, Regulatory Framework, Town of Truckee 2025 General
Plan. As described above in Section B.2, Setting, Wildlife Corridors, the Verdi sub-
unit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd is known to utilize the project site and
surrounding area for foraging, movement and migration. These habitats are within
the area designated as open space.
f. Jurisdictional Waters
Jurisdictional waters, as referenced in this document (and as discussed above in
Section A.2, Regulatory Framework, Jurisdictional Waters), include wetlands and
non-wetland waters potentially subject to regulation by the USACE as waters of the
U.S. pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA and/or the RWQCB as waters of the
State pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA or the PCWQCA. These areas, as well
as any associated riparian vegetation, may also be subject to regulation by CDFW
pursuant to Sections 1600-1616 of the CCR. Unless otherwise noted, waters of the
State are identical to waters of the U.S.
A total of 7.78 acres of jurisdictional waters occur on the project site, as described
below and shown in Figure 4.4-2.25 These waters are within the area designated as
open space.
25 These wetland boundaries were verified by the USACE on October 11, 2011. The
previous delineation was verified by the USACE on June 7, 2005. The current delineation
includes more riverine emergent wetlands and wet meadow than the previous delineation.
Match Line
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
LEGEND
Biological Study Area
Jurisdictional Waters
Drainages (1.84 ac)
Riverine Wetlands (0.065 ac)
Wet Meadow (5.29 ac)
SOURCE: Basemap - ESRI Imagery (2010); Mapping - Heal Environmental Consulting (2011)
FIGURE 4.4-2
Canyon Springs Subdivision
Jurisdictional Waters
Match Line
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
Glen
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
0 200 400
FEET
I:\DCV1101\GIS\juris_wats.mxd (8/22/11)
Match Line Martis Peak Road
LEGEND
Biological Study Area
Jurisdictional Waters
Drainages (1.84 ac)
Riverine Wetlands (0.065 ac)
Wet Meadow (5.29 ac)
SOURCE: Basemap - ESRI Imagery (2010); Mapping - Heal Environmental Consulting (2011)
FIGURE 4.4-2
Canyon Springs Subdivision
Jurisdictional Waters
Match Line
Martis Peak RoadGlenshire Drive
0 200 400
FEET
I:\DCV1101\GIS\juris_wats.mxd (8/22/11)
Source: LSA. Basemap - ESRI Imagery (2010); Mapping - Heal Environmental Consulting (2011)
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
FIGURE 4.4-2
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
3000 600 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-35
i. Wetlands
HEC determined that 5.94 acres of wetlands are present on the project, consisting
of 5.29 acres of wet meadow and 0.65-acre of riverine emergent wetlands. These
wetlands areas are primarily associated with the wet meadow habitat in the south-
west and central portions of the project site; the riverine emergent wetlands occur
in three small areas along the primary (intermittent) drainage in the central portion
of the project site.
ii. Non-wetland Waters
HEC determined that 1.84-acre of non-wetland waters (“other waters”) are present
on the project site. Non-wetland waters are associated with the numerous ephem-
eral and intermittent drainages on the project site. These drainages convey mostly
surface runoff and snow melt, but also include some groundwater recharge.
Based on the findings from the HEC delineation, included as Appendix D of the
2012 Draft EIR, the wetlands and non-wetland waters on the project site total 7.78
acres. These waters are tributary to the Truckee River and subject to regulation by
the USACE as waters of the U.S. These areas would also likely be subject to regu-
lation by the RWQCB and CDFW.
C. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to biological
resources if it would:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifica-
tions, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status spe-
cies in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California De-
partment of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive nat-
ural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, ver-
nal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-36
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state hab-
itat conservation plan.
D. Impact Discussion
This section provides a discussion of the project impacts to biological resources
that may occur with implementation of the proposed project. The determination
of impacts is based on the biological resources present, or reasonably likely to be
present, on the project site as described herein.
Features of the proposed project that could impact biological resources include the
proposed construction of 185 residential homes, a recreational use area, associated
roadways (including four drainage crossings), the 4.5-mile publically accessible trail
system comprised of 2-foot-wide soft surface trails, and 12-foot-wide gravel trails,
which would also provide utility access, and water quality retention ponds. In addi-
tion, the project would also include the installation of approximately 2,600 linear
feet of new off-site water mains adjacent to existing roadways in the Glenshire res-
idential area located to the west of the project site.
For purposes of the impacts discussion, an average building footprint of 2,500
square feet per residential lot was used. After including the impact footprints from
the internal roadways, publically accessible trail system, and retention basins, the
project would result in the removal of approximately 27.92 acres of Jeffrey pine
community, removal of approximately 7.25 acres of sagebrush community, and
removal of approximately 26 snags.
The 2-foot-wide soft-surface trails would be located primarily on existing trails or
roads, and would not be improved where the alignment crosses the wet meadow or
drainages; however, as shown on Figure 4.13-1 in Section 4.13, Public Services and
Recreation, of the 2012 Draft EIR, footbridges would be placed at these crossings.
The footbridges would be treated wood style bridges with single wood piles spaced
about every 8 feet, and would be 4 to 5 feet wide with a low wood curb. The po-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-37
tential impacts to upland vegetation from this soft-surface trail feature are deter-
mined to be negligible. However, the installation of the wood piles would impact
approximately 78 square feet of wetlands and non-wetland waters.
An additional approximately 76.68 acres of Jeffrey pine and sagebrush communities
are within the proposed residential and recreation area (in addition to the estimated
2,500-square-foot building envelopes), and would be subject to indirect impacts
due to the increased human presence. On individual housing lots, the introduction
of pets, alteration of native vegetation, etc., would decrease the overall value of
these habitats and could discourage wildlife from using these areas.
Figures 4.4-3 and 4.4-4 show the proposed project overlaid on the plant communi-
ties mapping and jurisdictional waters, respectively.
1. Project Impacts
The following section evaluates the project impacts by comparing the standards of
significance thresholds to the various project features.
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifica-
tions, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status spe-
cies in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California De-
partment of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Implementation of the project would result in removal of approximately 27.92
acres of Jeffrey pine community, approximately 7.25 acres of sagebrush communi-
ty, and removal of approximately 26 snags. These communities provide potential
habitat for Sierra Nevada red fox, Lewis’s woodpecker, goshawk, willow flycatcher,
and yellow warbler, and removal of this habitat could impact these species if they
are present on the project site during construction. An additional approximately
76.68 acres of these combined communities would occur within the residential and
recreation lots, subject to increased human presence, and could result in this habitat
becoming less suitable for these species.
Implementation of the proposed project would not directly impact the wet mead-
ow community or the riverine emergent wetlands on the project site, which could
potentially support Bolander’s bruchia, broad-nerved hump moss, and three-ranked
hump moss. Therefore, impacts to these species would be less than significant.
Impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox could include loss of potential foraging habitat
and potentially direct impacts to individuals. Due to the vast amount of Jeffrey
pine and sagebrush communities present in the region compared to the amount of
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-38
these communities that would be removed or degraded on the project site, the loss
of potential foraging habitat for Sierra Nevada red fox would be less than significant.
There is also a very low potential for the project to impact denning habitat for Sier-
ra Nevada red fox. The potential impacts to individuals or denning habitat would
be significant.
Impacts to northern goshawk and willow flycatcher could include loss of foraging
or migration habitat. Due to the vast areas of Jeffrey pine and sagebrush commu-
nities present in the region compared to the amount of these communities that
would be removed or degraded on the project site, the loss of habitat for these
species would be less than significant.
Impacts to Lewis’s woodpecker, and yellow warbler could include loss of foraging
habitat, and potentially disturbance of active nests. Due to the vast areas of Jeffrey
pine and sagebrush communities present in the region compared to the amount of
these communities that would be removed or degraded on the project site, the loss
of habitat for this species would be less than significant. However, the potential dis-
turbance of active nests would be significant.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive nat-
ural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice.
Sensitive plant communities on the project site include the wet meadow and pebble
meadow. As previously discussed the Town recognizes wildlife movement and
migration corridors as sensitive resources. Impacts to wildlife movement and mi-
gration corridors are discussed below under Threshold (d) below.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in removal of, or land
development on the sensitive plant communities on the project site. The project
could indirectly impact these communities through modification of the hydrology
that supports these areas. Consistent with Town Development Code Section
18.38.040.A.2.a, all proposed building envelopes would be outside of the Town-
required 50-foot setback from designated 100-year floodplains for the two blue line
waterways.26
26 Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter 18.38,
Lake and River/Stream Corridor Development, Section 18.38.040.A.2.a – River and Stream
Development Standards.
Match Line
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
LEGEND
Biological Study Area
Snags
Lot Lines
Building Envelopes
Retention Basin
Pedestrian Trail
Plant Communities (290.73 ac)
Sagebrush Series (59.71 ac)
Jeffery Pine Series (225.65 ac)
Pebble Meadow (0.70 ac)
Wet Meadow (4.67 ac)SOURCE: Basemap - ESRI Imagery (2010); Mapping - Foothill Associates (2004); Heal Environmental Consulting (2011)
FIGURE 4.4-3
Canyon Springs Subdivision
Plant Communities and Pr oposed Project
Match Line
Gle
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
0 200 400
FEET
I:\DCV1101\GIS\fig4.4-3_plant_comm_design.mxd (4/26/12)
Match Line Martis Peak Road
LEGEND
Biological Study Area
Snags
Lot Lines
Building Envelopes
Retention Basin
Pedestrian Trail
Plant Communities (290.73 ac)
Sagebrush Series (59.71 ac)
Jeffery Pine Series (225.65 ac)
Pebble Meadow (0.70 ac)
Wet Meadow (4.67 ac)SOURCE: Basemap - ESRI Imagery (2010); Mapping - Foothill Associates (2004); Heal Environmental Consulting (2011)
FIGURE 4.4-3
Canyon Springs Subdivision
Plant Communities and Pr oposed Project
Match Line
Glenshire Drive Martis Pea
k
R
o
a
d
0 200 400
FEET
I:\DCV1101\GIS\fig4.4-3_plant_comm_design.mxd (4/26/12)
Match Line Martis Peak Road
LEGEND
Biological Study Area
Snags
Lot Lines
Building Envelopes
Retention Basin
Pedestrian Trail
Plant Communities (290.73 ac)
Sagebrush Series (59.71 ac)
Jeffery Pine Series (225.65 ac)
Pebble Meadow (0.70 ac)
Wet Meadow (4.67 ac)SOURCE: Basemap - ESRI Imagery (2010); Mapping - Foothill Associates (2004); Heal Environmental Consulting (2011)
FIGURE 4.4-3
Canyon Springs Subdivision
Plant Communities and Pr oposed Project
Match Line
Glenshire Drive
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
0 200 400
FEET
I:\DCV1101\GIS\fig4.4-3_plant_comm_design.mxd (4/26/12)
Match Line Martis Peak Road
LEGEND
Biological Study Area
Snags
Lot Lines
Building Envelopes
Retention Basin
Pedestrian Trail
Plant Communities (290.73 ac)
Sagebrush Series (59.71 ac)
Jeffery Pine Series (225.65 ac)
Pebble Meadow (0.70 ac)
Wet Meadow (4.67 ac)SOURCE: Basemap - ESRI Imagery (2010); Mapping - Foothill Associates (2004); Heal Environmental Consulting (2011)
FIGURE 4.4-3
Canyon Springs Subdivision
Plant Communities and Pr oposed Project
Match Line
Glenshire Drive
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
0 200 400
FEET
I:\DCV1101\GIS\fig4.4-3_plant_comm_design.mxd (4/26/12)
Match Line
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
LEGEND
Biological Study Area
Snags
Lot Lines
Building Envelopes
Retention Basin
Pedestrian Trail
Plant Communities (290.73 ac)
Sagebrush Series (59.71 ac)
Jeffery Pine Series (225.65 ac)
Pebble Meadow (0.70 ac)
Wet Meadow (4.67 ac)SOURCE: Basemap - ESRI Imagery (2010); Mapping - Foothill Associates (2004); Heal Environmental Consulting (2011)
FIGURE 4.4-3
Canyon Springs Subdivision
Plant Communities and Pr oposed Project
Match Line
Gle
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
0 200 400
FEET
I:\DCV1101\GIS\fig4.4-3_plant_comm_design.mxd (4/26/12)
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
FIGURE 4.4-3
PLANT COMMUNITIES AND THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN
Source: ESRI Imagery, 2010; Foothill Associates, 2004; Heal Environmental Consulting, 2011; LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
FIGURE 4.4-4
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN
Source: ESRI Imagery, 2010; Heal Environmental Consulting, 2011; LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-41
For the proposed project, private housing lot boundaries are proposed within 50-
feet of designated 100-year floodplain, but as recommended by CDFW, a minimum
50-foot setback to building envelopes, which includes secondary units, outbuild-
ings, and all other structures, would be maintained along the designated 100-year
floodplain and all on-site ephemeral drainages. Furthermore, as recommended by
CDFW, the project includes a 100-foot setback from private housing lots to the
main drainage and with the exception of ten housing lots (122 to 131), which
would have a minimum 50-foot setback from the building envelopes to Buck
Spring, the project includes a 100-foot setback from private housing lots to all wet
meadows.27
Through implementation of these setbacks, and by preserving 176.17 acres that
primarily include the on-site wet meadow and pebble meadow communities within
the future Canyon Springs Home Owner’s Association-owned and maintained
open space/common area, the project would avoid encroachment into the wet
meadows. Accordingly, the project would minimize the effects to upland surface
hydrology supporting the wet meadow community by limiting the area of impervi-
ous surface and associated runoff which can result in erosion, sedimentation, and
increased pollutants. In addition, at the four locations where vehicular roadways
would cross drainages, the project’s clear-span bridges would avoid any impacts to
the drainages and wet meadows located downstream of the crossings. Therefore,
direct effects (i.e. removal) to sensitive plant communities resulting from the pro-
posed project would not occur. The proposed project would result in minor indi-
rect impacts to wet meadows through modification of surface hydrology that sup-
ports these areas due to the introduction of impervious surfaces; however, as a
result of the project design features described above, this impact would be less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, ver-
nal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means.
Approximately 5.94 acres of wetlands occur on the project site. Implementation of
the project would result in a minimal amount of fill being placed in wetlands on the
project site during installation of the wood piles for the pedestrian trail footbridges.
Of the nine footbridges shown in Figure 4.13-1 in Section 4.13, Public Services and
27 Jeff Drongesen, Environmental Program Manager, CDFW. Written correspond-
ence to Denyelle Nishimori, Associate, Town of Truckee, May 23, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-42
Recreation, only three of the bridges would cross at the wet meadows, resulting in
approximately 54 square feet of impact to wetlands. An additional five footbridges
would cross ephemeral and intermittent drainages, resulting in approximately 24
square feet of impact to non-wetland waters. One of the footbridges, located near
the southeast corner of the project, would not cross jurisdictional waters. At the
four locations where vehicular roadways would cross drainages, the project’s clear-
span bridges would avoid any impacts to the drainages. In addition, as described
above, the project includes a 100-foot setback from private housing lots to the
main drainage and, with the exception of ten housing lots (122 to 131) which
would have a minimum 50-foot setback from the building envelopes to Buck
Spring, the project includes a 100-foot setback from private housing lots to all wet
meadows. Therefore, direct impacts (e.g. removal) to wetlands from the proposed
project would be limited to the piles from the footbridges. The impacts to wet-
lands, while minimal, would be significant.
The project could indirectly impact these wetlands through modification of the
hydrology that supports these areas. As described above, the project includes a
100-foot setback from private housing lots to the main drainage and with the ex-
ception of ten housing lots (122 to 131), which would have a minimum 50-foot
setback from the building envelopes to Buck Spring; the project includes a 100-foot
setback from private housing lots to all wet meadows. Furthermore, the project
would preserve within the future Canyon Springs Home Owner’s Association
owned and maintained open space/common area, the 176.17 acres that primarily
include the on-site wetlands. Therefore, the project would minimize the effects to
surface hydrology supporting these areas by limiting the area of impervious surface
and associated runoff which can result in erosion, sedimentation, and increased
pollutants. Still, the proposed project would result in minor indirect impacts to
wetlands through modification of surface hydrology that supports these areas due
to the introduction of impervious surfaces; however, as a result of the project de-
sign features described above, this impact would be less than significant and no miti-
gation measures are required.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
The Jeffrey pine and sagebrush communities, including snags, provide potential
nesting habitat for numerous bird species. The removal of approximately 27.92
acres of Jeffrey pine community and approximately 7.25 acres of sagebrush com-
munity, including removal of approximately 26 snags, could result in disturbance to
active nests. This impact would be significant.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-43
The snags and mature trees in the Jeffrey pine community on the project site pro-
vide potential roost sites for bats. The removal of approximately 26 snags and ap-
proximately 27.92 acres of the on-site Jeffrey pine community could result in the
loss of bat roosts. In addition, approximately 76.68 acres of these combined com-
munities would occur within the proposed residential lots and recreation area sub-
ject to increased human presence, and could result in this habitat becoming less
suitable for bats. This impact would be significant.
Bats could also forage over the wet meadow and sagebrush habitat on the project
site. Since the project would not result in the loss of wet meadow habitat and
would result in only minimal loss of sagebrush habitat compared the quantity of
this habitat present in the region, impacts to foraging habitat for bats would be less
than significant.
As discussed in the various reports that have been prepared for the project site, it is
well documented that the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd
utilize the project site and surrounding area for foraging movement, migration, and
the critical fawning habitat for this deer herd occurs approximately 1.5 miles south
and approximately seven miles southwest of the project site. However, there is no
direct evidence that 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 or
other important migratory animals in the region exist within the project site.
As previously discussed, recent data suggests that only a few individual mule deer
use the site for movement or forage at any given time.28 The recent CDFW and
NDOW data sets of radio-collared deer in the project vicinity show records of
mule deer use near the southeastern corner of the project site, the project site and
surrounding areas. The distribution of mule deer data points near the southeast
corner of the project site suggests that local and on-site topography (a high ridge on
the southeast corner of the project site) may cause mule deer to move around the
southeastern end of the northwest to southeast ridge on the project site. If this is
the case, the two northwest to southeast ridges within the project site may serve to
deflect deer movement to the southeast of the project site during migration.
28 Data sets of radio-collared deer in the project vicinity provided by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2013 and 2014.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-44
According to the CDFW, impacts resulting from residential development and rec-
reational use are currently the biggest concern for the future of this deer herd.29
Given the project site is currently heavily used for unauthorized and unregulated
recreation use including snowmobile users, off-road vehicle users, and dog walkers
with unleashed dogs, potential impacts from the proposed project would result
from the introduction of permanent residential development. As such, implementa-
tion of the proposed project could result in a disturbance to the Verdi subunit of
the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd. The following disturbances would result in a
potentially significant impact:
Temporary disturbances in the form of noise, dust, etc. during project con-
struction;
The direct loss of habitat for movement, foraging and migration as it is con-
verted to other land uses; and
Long-term disturbances in the form of increased human activity, vehicular and
bicycle traffic, equestrian use, and the presence of domestic animals such as
pet dogs.
i. Temporary Construction Disturbances
Land development related construction impacts would be phased and most con-
struction phases would last approximately 18 to 24 months, but some may be as
long as 24 to 30 months. While some phases may be under construction simulta-
neously, the entire project site would not be under construction at the same time.
While primarily corridor linear-type improvements, project infrastructure construc-
tion, including approximately 15,976 linear feet of roadway, on-site utilities, reten-
tion ponds and 2,610 linear feet of off-site utilities installation, would span an eight-
year period. In general, all construction staging would occur within the project
boundaries with the exception of utilities upgrades per the Truckee-Donner Public
Utilities District (water) requirements. Subsequent to site preparation, buildout of
the future homes is anticipated to take 20 or more years. There would be adequate
undisturbed areas for wildlife throughout the 20-year buildout period for project
completion. Additionally, in accordance with Mitigation Measure AIR-2 (see Chap-
ter 4.3, Air Quality, Section E), the project applicant shall submit a construction
plan and dust control plan for the project. The conditions in these plans will mini-
mize impacts to wildlife from dust during construction. Accordingly, the prolonged
29 Jeff Drongesen, Environmental Program Manager, CDFW. Written correspond-
ence to Denyelle Nishimori, Senior Associate, Town of Truckee, May 23, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-45
construction impacts to wildlife movement and migration would be less than signifi-
cant and no mitigation measures are required.
ii. Direct Loss of Habitat for Movement, Foraging, and Migration
As previously discussed the development of the proposed project on individual
housing lots, the introduction of domestic pets such as dogs, and alteration of na-
tive vegetation would decrease the overall value of these habitats and could dis-
courage wildlife from using these areas. In response to these potential impacts, the
proposed project includes design features, which are explained in detail in Chapter
3, Project Description, of the 2012 Draft EIR, which would minimize impacts to
the wildlife habitat for movement, foraging and migration, and resident wildlife
species. These include the following:
The proposed project would implement Rural Suburban clustered devel-
opment consistent with Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Land Use Policy
P7.3 to minimize the loss of natural habitat.
The project includes the preservation of approximately 176 acres of public
open space and natural habitat (which equals about 60 percent of the total
project site) to protect natural habitat.
The proposed open space would link to open space adjacent to the pro-
ject site and would be preserved within the future Canyon Springs Home
Owner’s Association-owned and maintained open space/common area, to
provide a permanent wildlife corridor free of development. The
linked/connected open space would minimize impacts to plant communi-
ties and wildlife from fragmentation.
The project includes a 4.5-mile publically accessible trail network in the
open space. The network would include 2-foot-wide soft-surface trails
that would be located primarily on existing trails or roads. The soft-
surface trail design would minimize impacts to plant communities and wa-
ter quality.
The project includes the construction of clear-span bridges at the four ve-
hicular roadway drainage crossings. Bridges would be built to ensure that
the undercrossing is of sufficient height to allow for safe passage of wild-
life and minimize impacts to wildlife movement.
The project also includes a 100-foot setback from private housing lots to
the main drainage and, with the exception of ten housing lots (122 to 131)
which would have a minimum 50-foot setback from the building enve-
lopes to Buck Spring; the project includes a 100-foot setback from private
housing lots to all wet meadows. The setbacks would avoid encroachment
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-46
into the wildlife corridors on the project site and minimize impacts to
wildlife from water borne contaminants.
Native perennial grasses and bitterbrush (high quality foraging) would be
planted on the areas damaged by unauthorized public uses of the private-
ly-owned project site (e.g. off-road vehicle and motorcycles). This resto-
ration effort would improve the open space habitat for the mule deer
herd, as well as other resident wildlife species.
The landscaping proposed in the Draft Design Guidelines encourages the
use of native, sustainable landscaping indigenous to the Truckee region on
individual lots. In addition to other benefits, the landscaping has been de-
signed to muffle noise and moderate heat and glare impacts from lighting.
All exterior lighting would be low level illumination and would be shielded
(downward facing) to minimize light spill, glare and reflection, and to
maintain dark skies and avoid open space and sensitive habitat areas adja-
cent to the development area.
Vehicular roadways would not exceed maximum speed design of 25 miles
per hour to minimize impacts to wildlife from speeding vehicles.
Roadway signage for deer crossing warnings would be posted on-site to
raise awareness of wildlife movement.
Trail signage would be posted on the proposed 4.5-mile publically acces-
sible trail network and provide users of with educational information re-
garding the qualities of the natural characteristics of the project site—both
biological and ecological. Trail signage would include trail use protocol to
ensure user safety and the protection of wildlife and the natural habitat.
Flora and fauna education, seasonal condition warnings, and other rele-
vant information depending on the trail would be included. Equestrian
uses would not be expected to impact biological resources, as horses do
not pose a threat to deer. Other trail use protocol would include inform-
ing the public that domestic dogs must be under both immediate voice
and visual control (but in support of wildlife, dog leashes are recommend-
ed May through October), and that no motorized use of the trails by off-
road vehicles (e.g. dirt bikes and snowmobiles) would be permitted. Dogs
under voice and visual control consistent with the Municipal Code30
would not be expected to impact on-site deer or create a dog-at-large-
issue. See Figure 4.13-1 in Chapter 4.13, Public Services and Recreation,
30 Municipal Code, Title 8, Animal Control, Chapter 8.01, Humane Animal Con-
trol, Section, 8.01.420, Animals Running At Large.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-47
of the 2012 Draft EIR for a representative example of trail signs proposed
for the project site.
With implementation of these project design features, impacts from the loss of
habitat for movement, foraging, and migration would be less than significant and no
mitigation measures are required.
With respect to indirect impacts to native plant communities and wildlife from
edge effects such as fragmentation of habitat, increase noise and lighting, and air
and water borne contaminants (including dust). As discussed above, the project
includes several design features, which are described in detail in Chapter 3, Project
Description that would minimize edge effects. Furthermore, in accordance with
Mitigation Measure AIR-2 (see Chapter 4.3, Section E), the project applicant shall
submit a construction plan and dust control plan for the project. The conditions in
these plans will minimize impacts to native plant communities and wildlife from
dust during construction.
As result of the project design features and air quality mitigation measures de-
scribed above, potential indirect impacts to native plant communities and wildlife
from edge effects would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are re-
quired.
iii. Long-term disturbances in the form of increased human activity, vehicular and bicycle traffic,
equestrian use, and the presence of domestic animals such as pet dogs.
Although the site is heavily used for unregulated and unauthorized recreational
uses, the recent data on the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd
show that this herd frequents the project site as well as the surrounding residential
subdivisions and open space areas. Therefore, given the CDFW’s high interest and
concerns for the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule herd, impacts from
the long-term disturbances associated with permanent residents on the project site
are considered significant.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Land Use, Community Character and Con-
servation and Open Space Elements includes goals and associated policies that are
applicable to biological resources, as described above in Section A.3, Regulatory
Framework, Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. The goals reflect the means by
which the built environment should protect significant wildlife habitat and sensitive
biological resources, and maintain biodiversity, respectively.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-48
The project site supports wildlife habitat and corridors, and sensitive biological
resources such as wet meadows and pebble meadows. The project site also sup-
ports a myriad of wildlife and plant species as described throughout this section.
Implementation of the proposed project could impact the biological resources on
the project site and reduce biodiversity. As described in Chapter 3, Project De-
scription, of the 2012 Draft EIR, one of the objectives of the project is to “Protect
open space areas that serve as native habitat and wildlife corridors.” The project
aims to integrate residential and recreation components with surrounding residen-
tial developments on a site comprised of informal trails, native habitat, and wildlife
resources. The project would include approximately 176 acres, or 60 percent of the
290-acre site, of connected public open space and natural habitat. The public open
space would be preserved within the future Canyon Springs Home Owner’s Asso-
ciation-owned and maintained open space/common area. The residential lots
would be located to the north and south of the proposed public open space that
would serve as a wildlife corridor.
Housing lots are designed to meet the Rural Suburban cluster requirements (i.e.
groupings of 10 to 30 dwellings separated by connected open space areas or green-
ways on Residential [0.5 to 1 units/acre] land use designations peripheral to Town
core, but generally not on sites within the rural fringe). The housing lots would
connect with the project’s 4.5-mile publically accessible trail system and surround-
ing open space while providing setback buffers between future homes and envi-
ronmentally-sensitive areas such as wet meadows and ephemeral drainages. In ad-
dition, the proposed open space would connect to existing open space areas adja-
cent to the project site providing a contiguous open space corridor. Therefore,
impacts related to project consistency with applicable Town of Truckee 2025 General
Plan goals and policies associated with the protection of biological resources and
loss of biodiversity and would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are
required.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state hab-
itat conservation plan.
There are no Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans,
or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans that have ju-
risdiction of the project site. Therefore, conflicts to these types of plans from im-
plementation of the proposed project would not occur and no mitigation measures
are required.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-49
2. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts to biological resources that could occur
from a combination of the project with the Town buildout identified in the Town of
Truckee 2025 General Plan and reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding
area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as the Town of Truckee sphere
of influence (SOI), as defined in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan and reasona-
bly foreseeable projects in the surrounding area. Therefore, a cumulative impact
would be considered potentially significant if, taken together with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects in the Town of Truckee SOI and the Boca Quarry
project in Nevada County, the project would contribute to the ongoing loss of nat-
ural, undisturbed open space in the region resulting in a decline of biological re-
sources and species diversity.
The encroachment of development areas into natural, relatively undisturbed open
space is a continual and direct threat to wildlife species in the vicinity as it removes
habitat for plant species, increases fragmentation of open space in the region effect-
ing wildlife dispersal, and results in an increased human presence leading to the
degradation of natural undisturbed habitats. Cumulative disruptions to the wildlife
movement and migration in the Truckee region include Interstate 80, other road-
ways, reservoirs and dams, fencing, and future and existing development, including
the Glenshire residential area. Buildout of the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan,
which includes all lands within the SOI, could impact special-status plant and ani-
mal species, sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional waters, and wildlife
movement. Accordingly, the project when considered with the Town of Truckee
2025 General Plan buildout and the Boca Quarry project in Nevada County could
result in a significant cumulative impact to biological resources.
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce
potential impacts to these biological resources to less-than-significant levels. The
analysis of the project’s impacts to biological resources concluded that implementa-
tion of the Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 in addition to the pro-
posed project’s design features (described above) would ensure the project-related
impacts to the natural habitats that have an exceptionally high value for wildlife
species, providing water, thermal cover, wildlife corridors, and diverse nesting and
feeding opportunities would be less than significant.
Impacts to biological resources from the Boca Quarry project to the north of the
project site would be limited to removal of native vegetation during mining activi-
ties that is used by local and migrating (e.g. Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd) wild-
life. These impacts would be adequately addressed by implementing a concurrent
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-50
revegetation strategy that would ensure that revegetation of mined areas would
occur at the same time as the start of mining in new areas, thereby reducing the
length of time that previously mined lands would be unvegetated and unusable by
wildlife.31
However, while buildout of the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan would create sig-
nificant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on biological resources in the planning
area,32 the project’s contribution to this significant impact is not considered cumu-
latively considerable because the project includes mitigation measures and design
features (described above) that would ensure the project-related impacts to the
natural habitats that have an exceptionally high value for wildlife species would be
less than significant. Therefore, cumulative impacts identified with project implemen-
tation would be less than significant and additional mitigation measures are required.
3. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a summary discussion of the project impacts to biological
resources, and appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to levels that are
less than significant.
Impact BIO-1: Removal of Jeffrey pine and sagebrush habitat could potentially
impact Sierra Nevada red foxes if suitable den sites occur on the project site.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to the start of construction for each phase of
development, a qualified biologist selected by the Town of Truckee shall sur-
vey the project site to determine if any burrows or other den sites suitable for
use by Sierra Nevada red fox are present. The selected surveyor shall coordi-
nate with CDFW to determine an acceptable survey methodology. If no evi-
dence of this species is found during field surveys, no further measures are re-
quired.
If an active Sierra Nevada red fox den is identified on the project site, CDFW
shall be contacted to determine how to proceed. It may be possible to pro-
ceed with construction with implementation of appropriate avoidance and
minimization measures (e.g. no-disturbance buffers, seasonal work windows)
to prevent incidental take of Sierra Nevada red fox. If incidental take cannot
31 Nevada County Community Development Agency, 2010. Boca Quarry Initial Study.
32 Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Section
D, Cumulative Impact Discussion, p. 4.3-22.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-51
be prevented, it may be necessary to obtain an incidental take permit from
CDFW, pursuant to Section 2081 of CESA, before construction may proceed.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact BIO-2: Removal of Jeffrey pine and sagebrush habitat could potentially
disturb nesting birds, including Lewis’s woodpeckers and yellow warblers, if these
species are nesting on the project site.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The following shall be implemented to mitigate
potential impacts to nesting yellow warblers. These measures shall apply to ac-
tivities associated with construction of infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities) and
also to future home construction.
All trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that is to be removed within the
proposed work area shall be removed during the non-nesting season, be-
tween September 16 and February 28.
If vegetation removal is not possible during the non-nesting season, a qual-
ified biologist selected by the Town of Truckee shall survey the proposed
work area and lands within a 500-foot radius (this area may be decreased
due to property access constraints) for nesting birds. The nesting survey
shall be conducted within 14 days prior to the start of construction.
If no active nests are discovered, work can proceed.
If an active nest is discovered, the project proponent shall implement one
of the following two approaches:
A no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the active nest(s) us-
ing orange construction fencing (or equivalent). For raptors, the buffer
shall be established at a 500-foot radius; for non-raptors, the buffer shall
be established at a 100-foot radius. The fencing marking the buffer shall
be maintained in place until construction is complete, the young have
fledged, or the nest fails (the latter two shall be determined by a qualified
biologist); or
A qualified biologist selected by the Town of Truckee shall evaluate the
potential for the proposed project to disturb nesting activities. The eval-
uation criteria shall include, but are not limited to, the loca-
tion/orientation of the nest in the nest tree, the distance of the nest from
the proposed work area, and line of sight between the nest and the pro-
posed work area. CDFW shall be contacted to review the evaluation and
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-52
determine if the project can proceed without adversely affecting nesting
activities. If work is allowed to proceed, at a minimum, a qualified biol-
ogist shall be on-site during the start of construction activities during the
nesting season to monitor nesting activity. The monitor shall have the
authority to stop work if it is determined the project is adversely affect-
ing nesting activities.
The above measures shall be repeated, as necessary, in accordance with the
phasing of project construction.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact BIO-3: Installation of the wood piles for the pedestrian trail footbridges
would impact wetlands and non-wetland waters present on the project site.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: The following shall be implemented to mitigate
potential impacts to wetlands and non-wetland waters.
Wetlands and non-wetland waters permanently impacted during construc-
tion shall be mitigated by one of the following methods or by using a com-
bination of the methods.
Preservation, creation, and/or restoration of the impacted resources at a
minimum ratio of 2:1 (creation could potentially be implemented at a 1:1
ratio if completed and functional prior to the start of construction).
Purchase of credits at an approved mitigation bank at a minimum 1:1
mitigation ratio.
Payment of in-lieu fees per the current USACE, Sacramento District in-
lieu fee schedule.
All mitigation lands shall be protected in perpetuity through recordation of
a conservation easement or equivalent method.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit or other authorization to proceed with
project construction, the project proponent shall obtain any regulatory
permits that are required from the Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Wa-
ter Quality Control Board, and/or California Department of Fish and Wild-
life.
The project proponent shall obtain a Minor Use Permit pursuant to Section
18.46.040.C of the Town of Truckee Development Code.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-53
Impact BIO-4: Removal of Jeffrey pine habitat and snags could potentially dis-
turb roosting bats if active breeding roosts are present on the project site.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: The following shall be implemented to mitigate
potential impacts to roosting bats. All snags and potential roost trees (i.e. 20
inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater) within the project impact
area shall be removed between September 1 and April 14. Removal of trees
during this period would avoid impacts to any bats occurring on the project
site during the normal breeding season (April 15 to August 30).
If removal of snags and potential roost trees within the project impact area is
not possible between September 1 and April 14, a qualified biologist shall sur-
vey all potential roost trees within the project impact area to determine if any
trees can be excluded as suitable bat roosts due to the lack of suitable structur-
al characteristics. If any trees can be excluded as bat roosts, removal of these
trees would not be subject to the seasonal restrictions described above. Any
trees that cannot be excluded as bat roosts shall be surveyed by a qualified bi-
ologist to determine if bats are present using an aerial-lift (or equivalent meth-
odology) to access cavities or other potential roost locations Alternatively, an
emergence survey shall be conducted to determine if roosting bats are present.
The above measures shall be repeated, as necessary, in accordance with the
phasing of project construction.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact BIO-5: Long-term disturbances in the form of increased human activity
and pet dogs or other similar domestic animals from residents and visitors to Can-
yon Springs could potentially disturb the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee
mule.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5a: The Canyon Springs Homeowner’s Association
shall distribute educational brochures to residents and visitors discussing the
protocol for interacting with wildlife and avoiding sensitive habitat with em-
phasis on the southeast corner of the project site between the months of May
to October. Educational materials shall specifically include information regard-
ing the confinement of domestic dogs as a conservation threat to deer and
other resident wildlife species. Distribution of educational materials would oc-
cur each May.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-54
Mitigation Measure BIO-5b: The Project Applicant shall realign the proposed
publically accessible trail to avoid the southeast corner of the project site and
install split-rail fencing along the southeast corner of the project site to prohib-
it residents and visitors of Canyon Springs and their dogs from entering this
area from May to October. The precise location of the trail and fencing shall
be approved by the Town and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
prior the construction of Phase I.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5c: Residents or visitors of Canyon Springs and their
dogs shall be prohibited from entering the southeast corner of the project site
from May to October. The Project Applicant shall post signage approved by
the Town and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife along the
boundaries of the development area indicating such prohibitions and educating
the community about the confinement of dogs as a conservation threat to deer
and other resident wildlife.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5d: The Canyon Springs Homeowner’s Association
shall maintain all Town- and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife-
approved roadway, trail and site boundary signage and fencing related to wild-
life protection through bi-annual inspections to insure signage and fencing is
intact and unobstructed.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5e: The Canyon Springs Homeowners Association
shall require confinement fencing for those residents with domestic pets such
as dogs, of suitable materials to confine the pet. The fencing shall not to ex-
ceed 6 feet in height within the development area of individual lots.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5f: No fencing of sufficient height or construction
that would impede wildlife movement shall be permitted to be installed along
the outer edges of any individual residential lot in its entirety or the perimeter
of the project site in its entirety.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5g: The Canyon Springs Homeowner’s Association
shall annually educate future residents and visitors that the development of
lands within deer habitat contains associated risks of damage, which is ac-
ceptable, and that no depredation permits for controlling deer shall be permit-
ted.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-55
Mitigation Measure BIO-5h: The Canyon Springs Homeowner’s Association
shall require management practices of landscapes treated with pesticides that
minimize low-level exposures and sub-lethal effects to wildlife. Herbicides,
pesticides, and fungicide application records and other landscape and turfgrass
management records shall be made available to the Homeowner’s Association
at any time upon request.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5i: The Canyon Springs Homeowner’s Association
shall post off-site roadway signage for deer crossing warnings to raise aware-
ness of wildlife movement during migration season. The time of sign posing,
type of sign and posting location shall be approved by the California Depart-
ment of Fish and Wildlife.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-56
4.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-1
This chapter describes the existing traffic, circulation, and transportation conditions
in the Town of Truckee, addressing vehicular traffic, as well as parking, transit,
pedestrian, bicycle, and aviation facilities, and evaluates potential impacts of the
proposed project. The information and analysis in this chapter is primarily based on
the following documents, which are included in Appendix I, Traffic Data, of the
2012 Draft EIR and Appendix B, Traffic Data, of this Revised Draft EIR:
Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSC Transportation Consult-
ants, Inc., August 27, 2012.
Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum prepared by LSC Transportation
Consultants, Inc., January 17, 2014.
Additional analyses included in the Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum
reflects an update to intersection Level of Service (LOS) analyses for all study inter-
sections using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 method,1 and a limited
evaluation of the impact of the June 2011 updated Town of Truckee TransCAD
traffic model.
A. Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes key regulations and programs applicable to transportation
and traffic in Truckee.
1. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations pertaining to traffic and transportation that apply
to this project.
2. State Laws and Regulations
a. Caltrans District 3 Transportation Corridor Concept Report, Interstate Route
80
The Interstate 80 Transportation Corridor Concept Report (TCCR) (2010) is Caltrans long
range (20-year) planning document for Interstate 80. Caltrans owns, operates, and
maintains Interstate 80, which provides the primary access to Truckee, including
the project site via Interstate 80 Segments 14 and 15. Segment 14 of Interstate 80 is
a 4- to 6-lane freeway running 4.7 miles from Donner Pass Road to Old Truckee
Airport Road (Overland Trail), and Segment 15 is a four-lane freeway that begins at
1 The HCM 2010 Method was not available when the Notice of Preparation was re-
leased on April 20, 2011, which is when LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. began the
Transportation Impact Analysis for the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-2
Old Truckee Airport Road (Overland Trail) in east Truckee and ends 11.2 miles to
the northeast at the Nevada County/Sierra County Line. The most important in-
formation included within the Interstate 80 TCCR is the level of service standards,
concept, and ultimate facilities, and a list of programmed, planned, and needed
projects.
3. Local Regulations and Policies
a. Nevada County Regional Transportation Plan
The Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) is the designated Re-
gional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Nevada County created pursu-
ant to Title 7.88 of the State of California Government Code, Section 67920. As
the RTPA for Nevada County, the NCTC coordinates transportation planning for
Grass Valley, Nevada City, Nevada County, and the Town of Truckee.2 The NCTC
acts as an autonomous agency in filling the mandates of the Transportation Devel-
opment Act.
As the RTPA for Nevada County, California State law requires the NCTC to pre-
pare, adopt, and submit an updated Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) every five-
years. The 2010 update of the Nevada County RTP reflects the latest project fund-
ing and planning assumptions, and preliminarily addresses the new requirements of
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) regulating
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with construction of improvements
identified in the RTP. The RTP Policy Element identifies the transportation goals
and policies to meet the needs of the region and reflects the consideration of envi-
ronmental, social, and economic goals.
b. Town of Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan (May 2007)
The Town’s Trails and Bikeways Master Plan (TBMP) was adopted on April 4, 2002
(Council Resolution No. 2002-17) and amended on May 17, 2007 (Council Resolu-
tion No. 2007-20). The TBMP is intended to supplement and implement the
broader Truckee Donner Recreation Park District Master Plan by providing the more-
detailed analysis necessary for development of a town-wide trail and bikeway sys-
tem designed to increase recreational, educational, and alternative transportation
opportunities for the benefit of local residents and visitors to the Truckee area. The
goals and policies of the TBMP provide guidance for the planning, development
and management for the type, design, and general location of trail corridors within
the Town.
2 Nevada County Transportation Commission Website, retrieved August 5, 2011 from
http://www.nctc.ca.gov/About-NCTC/index.html.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISEDDRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-3
c. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The applicable General Plan goals and policies that relate to transportation and
traffic resources are listed in Table 4.14-1 and a detailed policy consistency discus-
sion is presented in Chapter 4.10, Land Use Planning, of the 2012 Draft EIR.
The Town applies the criteria and thresholds shown in Table CIR-6 of the General
Plan to development projects to determine the need for a traffic impact analysis to
be conducted and to determine if a project’s impact would be significant. The crite-
ria from Table CIR-6 of the Truckee General Plan are listed in Table 4.14-2.
d. Town of Truckee Traffic Fee Program
The Town of Truckee maintains a traffic fee program, which requires entities initi-
ating new development within the Town to pay traffic impact fees. The fees col-
lected through this program, in addition to other funding sources, allow the Town
to construct transportation facilities needed. The impact is based upon a compari-
son between the projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) it generates and the VMT
generated by a proposed project. The current fee per single-family dwelling unit is
$5,771 and per multi-family unit is $3,578.3 The fee is due to the Town at the time
of issuance of building permits.
e. Nevada County General Plan
The Nevada County General Plan was approved by the Nevada County Board of Su-
pervisors in 1996 and subsequently amended in 2008 (Safety) and 2010 (Circula-
tion/Housing). The Nevada County General Plan sets forth standards for level of ser-
vice for rural intersections and roadways. The level of service standards are de-
scribed below under the Standards of Significance.
3 Traffic and Facility Impact Fees, Effective Date, February 1, 2014,
http://www.townoftruckee.com/about-us/forms-documents/folder-198, retrieved Septem-
ber 3, 2014.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-4
TABLE 4.14-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal LU-5 Encourage a mix of land uses in the Town to promote a vibrant community and to
reduce traffic, while addressing the need to minimize land use conflicts.
Policy
LU-P5.3
Support development of neighborhood centers through establishment
of uses and facilities that provide a direct benefit to the neighborhood,
such as educational and recreation facilities, day care services, places of
worship, community meeting centers, fire stations, small parks, libraries
and other public facilities, telcenters, and neighborhood commercial
uses.
Goal CIR-2 Maintain adequate level of service on Truckee’s roadways and intersections to ensure
the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the Town.
Policy
CIR-P2.1
Establish and maintain a Level of Service D or better on road segments
and for total intersection movements in portions of the Town outside
of the Downtown Specific Plan Area.
Establish and maintain a Level of Service E or better on arterial and
collector road segments and for total intersection movements within
the Downtown Specific Plan Area.
Throughout the Town, individual turning movements at unsignalized
intersections shall not be allowed to reach LOS F and to exceed a cu-
mulative vehicle delay of four vehicle hours. Both of these conditions
shall be met for traffic operations to be considered unacceptable.
Policy
CIR-P2.2
In addition to the standards described in Policy 2.1, the criteria and
thresholds shown in Table CIR-6 shall be applied to future develop-
ment projects to determine the need for a traffic impact analysis to be
conducted and to determine if a project’s traffic impact is found to be
significant.
Table CIR-6, Traffic Impact Analysis Criteria Category 3: Subdivision
of 11 or more lots, multi-family development of 11 or more units,
commercial/ industrial development of 7,500 square feet or more, or
equivalent development.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.14-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
(CONTINUED)
4.14-5
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Policy
CIR-P2.3
Allow flexibility and exceptions to the LOS standards described in
Policy P2.1 for the following intersections:
♦ Bridge Street/Donner Pass Road
♦ Bridge Street/River Street
♦ Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
Exceptions to the standards may be allowed in cases where the Town
finds that improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS: (a) should
be deferred in order to better coordinate with the planning and imple-
mentation of other projects including the Railyard; (b) will result in
unacceptable impacts (e.g. requiring demolition of historic buildings,
relocation of businesses); (c) are not feasible to construct; or (d) should
be deferred or lowered in order to better implement other transporta-
tion control measures including alternative transportation modes.
Exceptions should only be allowed after all feasible resources and op-
tions to implement needed improvements have been explored and
exhausted.
Policy
CIR-P2.4
Improve connectivity throughout the Town's roadway network,
through roadway improvements, while minimizing environmental,
circulation, and residential neighborhood impacts. This should include:
♦ New and improved links between roadways of the same classifica-
tion.
♦ New and/or improved links between higher and lower capacity
roadways where such connections would not negatively impact the
lower capacity roadway's operations or local neighborhood character,
would be consistent with community character and environmental
goals described elsewhere in the General Plan, and would not result
in redesignation of a lower classification roadway to a higher classifi-
cation, unless shown as such on the Circulation Plan.
♦ Discouraging the use of local and residential neighborhood roadways
as through routes, particularly for commercial and industrial traffic.
♦ Requiring that new development maximizes connectivity of local
streets within the development itself, and makes connections to the
adjacent street network and neighborhood areas.
Goal CIR-3 Minimize the impacts of new development on the existing roadway network.
Policy
CIR-P3.1
Require the preparation of traffic impact analyses to identify impacts
and mitigation measures for projects that may result in significant traf-
fic impacts, as specified in Table CIR-6. In these analyses, level of ser-
vice shall be computed according to the planning methodology docu-
mented in Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual, published by the
Transportation Research Board in 2000, or as amended in subsequent
updates. Cumulative impacts shall be modeled buildout of the General
Plan.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.14-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
(CONTINUED)
4.14-6
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Policy
CIR-P3.2
Require the assessment of construction-related project impacts in traf-
fic impact analyses that assesses and adequately mitigates the effect of
construction traffic on the roadway network, as well as any potential
disruption to or re-routing of traffic that might be needed during pro-
ject construction.
Policy
CIR-P3.3
Require all new development projects to adequately mitigate identified
impacts through construction of improvements and/or payment of
traffic impact mitigation fees. Mitigation of significant project-related
impacts may require improvements beyond those addressed by the
current Capital Improvement Program and traffic impact mitigation fee
program.
Policy
CIR-P3.4
Ensure that new streets and roads are dedicated and constructed ac-
cording to roadway design and access standards adopted by the Town.
Goal CIR-4 Create new developments that are integrated into the circulation network and pro-
mote connectivity within and between community areas.
Policy
CIR-P4.1
Require transportation systems planned and constructed in conjunction
with significant development projects, including roads, trails, bikeways,
and other improvements, to provide links to the existing transportation
network.
Policy
CIR-P4.2
Require planning for land use and transportation systems in new
growth areas that provides opportunities for residents, employees, and
those without vehicles to accomplish many of their trips by walking,
bicycling, or using transit.
Goal CIR-6
Minimize potentially adverse impacts of transportation infrastructure and parking
facilities on Truckee’s community character and important environmental and cul-
tural resources.
Policy
CIR-P6.1
Locate, construct, and maintain new roads and roadway improvements
so as to prevent adverse impacts to water quality and significant biolog-
ical, scenic, and historic resources.
Policy
CIR-P6.3
Maintain Donner Pass Road at a three-lane cross-section (two lanes of
traffic with a left-turn lane). New projects that could add significant
traffic to Donner Pass Road must demonstrate that cumulative traffic
impacts will not result in the need to widen Donner Pass Road.
Goal CIR-10 Provide a safe, comprehensive, and integrated system of facilities for pedestrians and
cyclists and other non-motorized modes of transportation.
Policy
CIR-P10.2
Implement the network of trails and bikeways described in the Trails
and Bikeways Master Plan, with priority given to establishment of a trail
from Donner Lake along Donner Creek and the Truckee River to the
eastern Town limit. This cross-town trail would serve as the main "ar-
tery" of the Town's trail network, with other trails connecting to it
along its length, and would provide a critical link to major regional
trails including a trail to the west that connects to Donner Summit and
the Pacific Crest Trail, and to the east to trails that follow the Truckee
River to Nevada.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.14-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
(CONTINUED)
4.14-7
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Policy
CIR-P10.3
Identify and implement new pedestrian facilities beyond those identi-
fied in the Trails and Bikeways Master Plan and Downtown Streetscape
Plan. These facilities may include, but not be limited to, pedestrian
facilities along Donner Pass Road between Cold Stream Road and
South Shore Drive, along Highway 89 South, and along West River
Street.
Policy
CIR-P10.5
Link new trails and bikeways with other bikeways, parks and open
space areas to provide safe and continuous routes.
Policy
CIR-P10.10
Require major development projects to include pedestrian facilities and
bikeways.
Policy
CIR-P10.11
Enforce pedestrian and bicycle access standards for all new develop-
ment and require developers to finance and install pedestrian walkways,
equestrian trails, and multi-use trails in new development, as appropri-
ate and necessary to address circulation needs. Consider and work
towards a mean by which the requirements of the Trails and Bikeways
Master Plan can be met by affordable housing projects.
Policy
CIR-P10.12
Provide facilities that separate bicycle and pedestrian traffic from ve-
hicular traffic whenever it is feasible to do so.
Goal CIR-11 Enhance the existing bus and rail transit system in Truckee.
Policy
CIR-P11.1
Require new development to incorporate features that encourage trans-
it use, including shelters and safe routes to transit stops, and ensure
that right-of-way for future transit access is reserved in plans for new
growth areas.
Goal SAF-4 Protect lives and property from risks associated with wildland and urban fire.
Policy
SAF-P4.7
Ensure that the development review process addresses wildland fire
risk, including assessment of both construction- and project related fire
risks particularly in areas of the Town most susceptible to fire hazards.
Cooperate with the TFPD in reviewing fire safety plans and provisions
in new development, including aspects such as emergency access, site
design for maintenance of defensible space, and use of non-
combustible materials.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.
1
4
-
8
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
2
TOW
N
O
F
TRU
C
K
E
E
TRA
F
F
I
C
IMP
A
C
T
ANA
L
Y
S
I
S
REQ
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
A
N
D
CRI
T
E
R
I
A
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
T
y
p
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
?
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
s
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
a
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Un
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
b
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
W
o
u
l
d
A
d
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
t
o
a Local Roadway
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
1
Si
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
h
o
m
e
,
d
u
p
l
e
x
,
a
n
d
s
e
c
o
n
d
un
i
t
s
o
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
No
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
2
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
1
0
o
r
l
e
s
s
l
o
t
s
,
m
u
l
t
i
-
fa
m
i
l
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
1
0
o
r
l
e
s
s
u
n
i
t
s
,
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
7
,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
,
o
r
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
No
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
3
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
1
1
o
r
m
o
r
e
l
o
t
s
,
m
u
l
t
i
-
fa
m
i
l
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
1
1
o
r
m
o
r
e
u
n
i
t
s
,
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
7,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
o
r
m
o
r
e
,
o
r
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Ye
s
,
i
f
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
b
y
T
o
w
n
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
i
f
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
LO
S
t
o
u
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
se
r
v
i
c
e
;
O
R
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
T
a
b
l
e
C
I
R
-
5
;
O
R
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
C
I
P
,
f
u
l
l
y
fu
n
d
e
d
,
a
n
d
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
f
o
r
co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
r
e
e
y
e
a
r
s
.
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
i
f
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
T
a
b
l
e
C
I
R
-
5
;
O
R
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
C
I
P
,
f
u
l
l
y
fu
n
d
e
d
,
a
n
d
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
f
o
r
co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
r
e
e
y
e
a
r
s
.
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
i
f
:
Project does not increase traffic on local road by more than 1,000 average daily trips; OR
Project increases traffic on
lo
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
b
y
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
1
,
0
0
0
average daily trips, but the
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
a
i
l
y
t
r
i
p
s
i
s
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
5
0
%
.
AN
D
The provisions of Circulation Element Policy P2.4 can be met.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
2
TOW
N
O
F
TRU
C
K
E
E
TRA
F
F
I
C
IMP
A
C
T
ANA
L
Y
S
I
S
REQ
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
A
N
D
CRI
T
E
R
I
A
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
4.
1
4
-
9
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
T
y
p
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
?
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
s
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
a
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Un
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
b
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
W
o
u
l
d
A
d
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
t
o
a Local Roadway
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
4
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
-
P
C
1
,
P
C
3
,
Mc
I
v
e
r
H
i
l
l
,
H
i
l
l
t
o
p
,
M
i
l
l
S
i
t
e
,
P
R
D
-
1
,
PR
D
-
2
,
P
R
D
-
3
.
Ye
s
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
i
f
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
LO
S
t
o
u
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
se
r
v
i
c
e
;
O
R
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
T
a
b
l
e
C
I
R
-
5
t
o
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
L
O
S
.
AN
D
If
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
s
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
vo
l
u
m
e
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
m
o
d
e
l
,
pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
LO
S
f
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
o
u
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
vo
l
u
m
e
s
.
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
i
f
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
T
a
b
l
e
C
I
R
-
5
.
AN
D
If
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
s
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
vo
l
u
m
e
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
m
o
d
e
l
,
pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
LO
S
f
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
o
u
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
vo
l
u
m
e
s
.
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
i
f
:
Project does not increase traffic on local road by more than 1,000 average daily trips; OR
Project increases traffic on
lo
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
b
y
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
1
,
0
0
0
average daily trips, but the
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
a
i
l
y
t
r
i
p
s
i
s
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
5
0
%
.
AN
D
The provisions of Circulation Element Policy P2.4 can be met.
a P
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
a
d
d
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
t
o
r
o
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
n
d
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
t
o
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
b P
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
a
d
d
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
t
o
r
o
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
e
x
i
s
t
i
ng
u
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
w
i
t
h
n
o
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
t
o
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
at
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
2
0
2
5
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
,
T
a
b
l
e
C
I
R
-
6
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-10
B. Existing Conditions
This section documents the existing setting and operational traffic conditions in the
vicinity of the project site, providing a foundation for comparison to future condi-
tions.
1. Circulation System
a. Vehicular Circulation
The Town of Truckee is located in the Lake Tahoe region, along Interstate 80 ap-
proximately 90 miles northeast of Sacramento, California, and 34 miles west of
Reno, Nevada. In addition to Interstate 80, State Route 89, and State Route 267 are
the two major regional routes serving Truckee. Beyond these major regional facili-
ties, a series of arterial, connector, and local roadways constitute the roadway net-
work in the traffic study area.
The major components of the roadway system in the project area are described
below consistent with the definitions and classifications identified in the Town of
Truckee 2025 General Plan.4
b. Study Area Roadways
The following describes the study area roadways that were analyzed in the project
Traffic Impact Analysis. These are shown in Figure 4.14-1.
Interstate 80: Interstate 80 provides interregional highway connections east to
Reno, Nevada and beyond, and west to Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay
Area. The Town lies along both sides of Interstate 80. This section of Inter-
state 80 is currently a four-lane divided highway with limited truck climbing
lanes, and with a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour. There are a total of
eight interchanges serving Truckee on Interstate 80, including the Donner
Lake Road and Hirschdale Road interchanges. The Glenshire area is served by
two interchanges: the Donner Pass Road (Eastern) interchange and the
Hirschdale Road interchange.
4 2025 General Plan, Circulation Element, Table CIR-3 Roadway Classification Defi-
nitions, and Table CIR-4 Town of Truckee Roadway Classifications, page 4-20 and 4-21,
respectively.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
HIRSCHDALED.R6U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.15
78
6
3
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
69
/
13
0
1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS
BE08-I
7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JACK
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
138/6411/6
69/130
1
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.
DON
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
1
G
L
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
14
GLEN
S
H
I
R
E
R
.
D
S
O
M
E
R
S
E
T
D
R
.
JACKSVALLEYRD.
1,365 ,693
38/162
4/4
2,352/1,755
69/130
404/449
32/68
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
GLENSHIRE
WH
I
T
E
H
O
R
S
E
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
.DRELADHCSRIH
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
MA
R
T
I
S
P
E
A
K
R
D
.
I-
8
0
W
B
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
VSKCAJYELLA.DR
1
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.
.RDERIHSNELG
3
DO
R
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
.
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
2
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
STOPSIGN
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURGH
FIGURE 4.14-1
LANE CONFIGURATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-12
Donner Pass Road: Donner Pass Road is a minor arterial road that extends
from the intersection with State Route 89 North (east of Downtown Truckee)
westward to Donner Lake, Donner Summit, and Soda Springs. This roadway
provides a vital link for local circulation in the Town. At its nearest point to
the project site, Donner Pass Road is a two-lane roadway accessing Historic
Downtown Truckee to the west and the Pioneer Trail area, Interstate 80 and
State Route 89 North to the east. At its intersection with Glenshire Drive, this
roadway provides a single through lane in each direction with a dedicated left-
turn lane for left-turns onto Glenshire Drive. The posted speed limit is 45
miles per hour.
Glenshire Drive: Glenshire Drive is a two-lane minor arterial roadway provid-
ing access between the Truckee commercial core on the west through the
Glenshire area to Hirschdale Road on the east. Glenshire Drive provides the
only access to the Glenshire area both to Truckee to the west and (with
Hirschdale Road) to Interstate 80 and Reno to the east. This roadway also
provides primary access to the Olympic Heights subdivision west of Glenshire.
The terrain along this roadway is rolling, with a 6 percent grade near Donner
Pass Road and near the west entrance to Glenshire, an 11 percent grade near
Wiltshire Lane, and a 9 percent grade on the stretch between Martis Peak Road
and Hirschdale Road to the east. The posted speed limit on this roadway is 45
miles per hour from Donner Pass Road to the western entrance to the Glen-
shire neighborhood. From the Glenshire entrance to a point east of Somerset
Drive, the posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour. The speed limit is 25 miles
per hour on the remaining segment of Glenshire Drive to the east until it pass-
es Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road (and enters Nevada County), after
which the speed limit is not posted.
Dorchester Drive: Dorchester Drive is a minor collector street serving the
northern portion of Glenshire, extending about 1.4 miles between its two in-
tersections with Glenshire Drive. It provides access to Glenshire Elementary
School, Truckee Fire Protection District Station 95 (Glenshire), Glenshire
General Store, other small commercial uses, as well as the residential area in
the northern portion of Glenshire. The speed limit on Dorchester Drive is 25
miles per hour east of Rolands Way and 30 miles per hour west of Rolands
Way.
Somerset Drive/Courtenay Lane/Regency Circle/Edinburgh Drive:
These local roadways provide access to the residences in the southeastern por-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-13
tion of Glenshire. The pavement width on these streets is approximately 26
feet, and the speed limit is 25 miles per hour.
Martis Peak Road: This is a local roadway providing access from Glenshire
Drive south to the gated Martis Peak Homeowners Association residential ar-
ea. The pavement width ranges from about 20 feet to 23 feet. The gate is lo-
cated approximately one-quarter mile south of the Glenshire Drive intersec-
tion.
Hirschdale Road: Hirschdale Road provides a connection from Glenshire to
Interstate 80 and serves residences to the east of the Glenshire area.
Hirschdale Road is a two-lane roadway with a pavement width of about 22
feet. The speed limit is not posted in the study area.
c. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
As described in the Town of Truckee TBMP and illustrated on the TBMP Existing
and Proposed Trail and Bikeway Network Map, the existing trails and bikeways
system includes recreational trails, Class I bike paths, Class II bike lanes, and Class
III bike routes.5 There are limited existing and proposed trails and bicycle facilities
in the project area. The Glenshire area has Class III Bike Routes, and the proposed
Recreational Trail (Surface TBD [to be determined]) that crosses the project site
would link to the existing Class III Bike Route at Glenshire Drive. In addition,
there are proposed Class II Bike Lanes proposed in the Glenshire area that would
also link to the proposed recreational trail located on the project site.
As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the 2012 Draft EIR, a well-
developed network of unpaved roads and trails is distributed throughout the site.
The project site is accessed by surrounding subdivision residents through connect-
ing trails and experiences year-round unauthorized and unregulated use.
d. Transit
The Town of Truckee offers both Fixed Route and Dial-A-Ride bus service in the
greater Truckee area. These services provide a range of options for travelers to
access recreational, employment, shopping, and social service opportunities. The
Fixed Route Services vary by season. During the winter season (mid December –
mid April) a ski shuttle service is offered seven days per week between Henness
5 A Class I Bike Path is a dedicated exclusive bike path meant for bike and pedestrian
traffic. A Class II Bike Lane is a marked lane exclusively for bike travel on roadways. A Class
III Bike Route is sometimes marked. Bicycle riders must share the roadway with other vehi-
cles.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-14
Flats, downtown Truckee, Sugar Bowl, Donner Ski Ranch and Soda Springs ski
resorts from approximately 6:15 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. as well as from 2:00 p.m. to
7:00 p.m. During the non-winter season (mid-April to mid-December) buses serve
the Truckee-Tahoe Airport, Pioneer Commerce Center, Downtown, Gateway
Shopping Center, Donner State Park and the west end of Donner Lake on a fixed
hourly schedule from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., eve-
ry day except Sunday.
The Truckee Dial-A-Ride service is offered year round to the general public with
priority service for seniors and persons with disabilities. This paratransit service is
available for trips within the Town limits, over the same hours and days as the fixed
route service.
2. Analysis Methodology and Study Scenarios
a. Study Analysis Scenarios
The project Traffic Impact Analysis and Addendum evaluated roadway segments
and intersections in the project study area under the following four scenarios:
1. Existing 2011 Without Project
2. Existing 2011 With Project
3. Future 2031 Without Project
4. Future 2031 With Project
b. Study Roadway Segments
The following eleven roadway segments in the project area were evaluated:
1. Glenshire Drive between Donner Pass Road and Highland Avenue
2. Glenshire Drive between Highland Avenue and Dorchester Drive (west)
3. Glenshire Drive between Dorchester Drive (west) and Somerset Drive
4. Glenshire Drive between Somerset Drive and Martis Peak Road
5. Glenshire Drive between Martis Peak Road and Hirschdale Road
6. Hirschdale Road between Glenshire Drive and Interstate 80 Westbound
Ramps
7. Martis Peak Road between Glenshire Drive and Project Access
8. Somerset Drive between Glenshire Drive and Courtenay Lane
9. Courtenay Lane between Somerset Drive and Regency Circle
10. Regency Circle between Courtenay Lane and Edinburgh Drive
11. Edinburgh Drive
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-15
c. Study Intersections
The following eight intersections in the project area were evaluated:
1. Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
2. Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension (future intersection)
3. Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive (western intersection)
4. Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive
5. Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road
6. Glenshire Drive/Hirschdale Road
7. Interstate 80 Eastbound Ramps/Hirschdale Road
8. Interstate 80 Westbound Ramps/Hirschdale Road
d. 2011 Traffic Volumes
For the project Traffic Impact Analysis and consistent with Town practices, impacts
on roadways are determined by measuring the effect that site-generated traffic has
on traffic operations at the study intersections and along study roadways during the
tenth-highest summer weekday PM peak hour (approximately 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.).
An analysis of AM peak hour (approximately 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) conditions is also
included for the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection. Furthermore,
while the total intersection volumes are the highest in the summer tourism months,
the volumes on the minor approaches within Glenshire are generally higher during
school peak hours. Therefore, the AM and PM peak hours of school-related traffic
activity were analyzed for the following three study intersections within the Glen-
shire residential area:
1. Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive (west)
2. Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive
3. Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road
As the traffic volumes on Glenshire Drive at the outskirts of the Glenshire neigh-
borhoods are higher during the AM and PM commuter hours, there is no need to
analyze the school peak hours at intersections outside the Glenshire community.
i. 2011 Summer PM Peak-hour Traffic Volumes Without Project
2011 peak-hour intersection turning-movement volumes without the project are
shown on Figure 4.14-2. 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. A complete description of the traffic count methodology, in-
cluding adjustments to reflect current conditions in accordance with Town practic-
es are described in the Traffic Impact Analysis (see Appendix I of the 2012 Draft
EIR).
FIGURE 4.14-2
2011 SUMMER PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-17
ii. 2010-2011 AM and PM Peak-hour School Season Traffic Volumes Without Project
School season intersection counts were conducted during the 2010-2011 school
year at the following three intersections:
1. Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive West
2. Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive
3. Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road
The morning (AM) counts were conducted from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., and the
afternoon (PM) counts were conducted from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., in order to
capture the busiest periods of school-related traffic activity.6 The morning and af-
ternoon peak-hour volumes are shown in Table 4.14-3. The volumes along Glen-
shire Drive are generally highest during the summer season, whereas the volumes
along Dorchester Drive (the roadway providing access to the Glenshire Elementary
School) are highest during the school season.
e. 2031 Traffic Volumes
The future (i.e. cumulative) setting associated with the traffic analysis is based on
the Town of Truckee’s TransCAD traffic model that provides forecasts of traffic
conditions throughout the Town as well as the Martis Valley portion of Placer
County. As some of the development projects in the Martis Valley area have re-
cently been approved for development at levels less than those originally allowed
under the Martis Valley Community Plan, the land uses in the TransCAD traffic mod-
el were adjusted downward to reflect the approved Martis Valley projects.
The Town updated the Truckee TransCAD model in June 2011. As described in
Chapter 1, Introduction, of this Revised Draft EIR, the Notice of Preparation
(NOP) for the proposed project was released on April 20, 2011. LSC Transporta-
tion Consultants began the Transportation Impact Analysis for the proposed Pro-
ject following the release of the NOP; accordingly, the Town-approved TransCAD
model at the time the NOP was issued was appropriately used to assess the traffic
impacts of the proposed Project.
6 2010-2011 school year traffic count data is in Appendix A of the Traffic Impact Anal-
ysis, attached as Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.
1
4
-
1
8
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
3
20
1
1
TRA
F
F
I
C
VOL
U
M
E
S
DUR
I
N
G
AM
A
N
D
SCH
O
O
L
PM
PEA
K
HOU
R
S
WIT
H
O
U
T
PRO
J
E
C
T
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Total
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
32
0
-
-
1
7
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
9
0
9
4
5
7
2
2
5
-
-
1
,
0
6
0
Sc
h
o
o
l
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
Do
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
--
-
-
-
-
4
7
-
-
1
9
3
1
1
5
59
-
-
-
-
1
4
8
5
7
6
1
9
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
32
-
-
1
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
8
1
3
6
4
7
-
-
1
3
8
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
5
1
7
1
3
0
1
1
5
8
7
1
1
6
3
8
6
1
9
0
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
Do
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
--
-
-
-
-
4
8
-
-
1
2
7
1
5
6
13
3
-
-
-
-
9
0
2
7
5
8
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
15
-
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
7
2
8
5
4
3
-
-
1
4
2
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
4
0
6
6
1
8
9
6
1
8
5
8
1
1
7
2
0
6
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-19
The 2011 TransCAD model assumes a different mix of dwelling unit types in the
Glenshire Subdivision. Specifically, a higher portion of residential units are as-
sumed to be full-time residences, which have a higher trip generation rate than
part-time residential units. Consequently, the 2011 TransCAD model has a higher
level of trip generation associated with the Glenshire Subdivision than the previous
TransCAD model. Subsequently, more trips are assumed to use the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road route (west side of Glenshire Drive) than in the previous
TransCAD model. Furthermore, the vehicle trips using the eastern route via
Hirschdale Road have been reduced in the 2011 TransCAD model.
Given this update to the 2011 TransCAD model, during the 78-day comment peri-
od for the 2012 Draft EIR, members of the public requested the cumulative traffic
analysis of the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road and Glenshire Drive/Donner
Pass Road Extension intersections be revised using the 2011 TransCAD model.
The analysis using the 2011 TransCAD model was performed to determine if the
higher traffic volumes would produce any new project impacts at these two inter-
sections.
This Revised Draft EIR includes cumulative 2031 summer PM peak-hour intersec-
tion turning-movement volumes under the 2011 TransCAD model that were de-
veloped for the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road and Glenshire Drive/Donner
Pass Road Extension intersections for the proposed project. Specifically, the traffic
volumes at these intersections were derived from the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-
3) Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. on Sep-
tember 4, 2013.7 Subtracting the proposed project site-generated traffic volumes
included in the updated Truckee TransCAD model yields the estimated "future
without project" volumes.
In previous and 2011 Truckee TransCAD traffic model, buildout of the Town’s
General Plan is conservatively assumed to occur by 2025. No further growth in
traffic is assumed between 2025 and 2031.
The Teichert’s Boca Quarry Expansion Project, which is located north of Interstate
80 and accessed via Stampede Meadows Road and the Hirschdale interchange
ramps is within the vicinity of the project site and assumed to be complete under
cumulative conditions. While the quarry project is not included in the Truckee
7 Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) volumes are provided in Appendix B of this
Revised Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-20
TransCAD model, the generated traffic volumes are provided in the Teichert Boca
Quarry Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSC Transportation Consult-
ants, Inc. on September 7, 2011.8 These volumes are conservatively high, as they
reflect maximum potential production levels at the quarry.9
The following future roadway assumptions are made for the purposes of the cumu-
lative roadway analysis:
The “Donner Pass Road Extension” will be completed with construction of
the Truckee Railyard Master Plan Project. This new roadway will extend east
from the eastern portion of Downtown Truckee through the Railyard devel-
opment and form a new T-intersection with Glenshire Drive to the east of the
intersection with Donner Pass Road. The new Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass
Road Extension intersection would include exclusive turn lanes on each ap-
proach. The Railyard Master Plan Project is a planned project and it is included
in the Town of Truckee Traffic Fee Program, which requires entities initiating
new development within the Town to pay traffic impact fees.
The Pioneer Trail and Bridge Street Extensions, which would provide a con-
nection between Downtown Truckee, Tahoe Donner, and Pioneer Trail, are
assumed to be complete.
Two bridges on Hirschdale Road (crossing the Truckee River and crossing the
Union Pacific Railroad Tracks) are proposed to be removed by Nevada Coun-
ty. A potential new route from the north side of the river over to Stampede
Meadows Road could provide access to the parcels that are served by the
bridges. The change in traffic patterns associated with the bridge removal is
expected to be minimal, given that there are only a few parcels (and Truckee
River access) served by that route.
The 2031 summer weekday PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes
without the project are shown in Figure 4.14-3, and the 2031 AM and school PM
traffic volumes without the project are shown in Table 4.14-4.
8 Teichert Boca Quarry Expansion volumes are provided in Appendix E of the Traf-
fic Impact Analysis, attached as Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR.
9 The Raley property to the east of the project site and the Railyard Master Plan in
downtown Truckee are included in the TransCAD model.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
225
522
365
47
221 461
50
48120
264
368
182
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
R.DELADHCSRIH615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
145
36
8
51
203 122
0
039 65
98 112
40
15
144
218
191
15227
143209
54
104
51 179 32
84 24 147
29
132
67
21
125
112
945
38 45 161
263
367
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURG
H
2031 PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT
FIGURE 4.14-3
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2014.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-22
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
4
20
3
1
TRA
F
F
I
C
VOL
U
M
E
S
DUR
I
N
G
AM
A
N
D
SCH
O
O
L
PM
PEA
K
HOU
R
S
WIT
H
O
U
T
PRO
J
E
C
T
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Total
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
15
1
-
-
4
6
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
8
1
4
7
1
2
8
1
8
5
-
-
1
,
1
5
5
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
--
-
-
-
-
7
1
-
-
2
3
9
1
5
6
83
-
-
-
-
2
2
2
7
7
8
4
8
Sc
h
o
o
l
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
48
-
-
1
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
9
1
8
9
7
1
-
-
2
0
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
8
0
7
1
3
0
1
8
7
8
9
1
7
6
3
8
6
2
0
9
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
2
-
-
1
5
7
2
1
1
1
8
6
-
-
-
-
1
3
5
3
6
7
9
7
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
23
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
6
3
9
8
6
5
-
-
2
0
6
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
6
0
6
6
0
1
3
1
2
6
2
1
2
5
8
1
1
7
2
2
0
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
Tab
l
e
1
1
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-23
Refer to the Traffic Impact Analysis (see Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR) for the
assumptions used in producing the 2031 traffic volumes estimates without the pro-
ject for AM and school PM. The assumptions used in producing the 2031 traffic
volume estimates without the project for summer PM are included in Appendix B
of this Revised Draft EIR.
f. Level of Service
Traffic operations at the study intersections are assessed in terms of level of service
and delay consistent to those standards set forth by the Caltrans, the Town and
Nevada County.10 Level of service is a concept that was developed by transporta-
tion engineers to quantify the level of operation of intersections and roadways.11
Level of service measures are classified in grades “A” through “F,” indicating the
range of operation. Level of service (LOS) “A” signifies the best level of operation,
while "F" represents the worst.
In general, Caltrans tries to maintain LOS D or better, although exceptions are
made in specific cases. The Nevada County General Plan requires that rural intersec-
tions and roadways maintain LOS C, except where the existing level of service is
less than LOS C. In those situations, the level of service shall not be allowed to
drop below the existing level of service. In other words, level of service on an inter-
section or roadway already below LOS C should not be allowed to degrade below
its existing condition. Level of service shall be based on the typical highest peak
hour of weekday traffic.
Under the Town’s General Plan Policy P2.1 LOS D or better on road segments
and for total intersection movements in portions of the Town outside of the
Downtown Study Area must be established and maintained. LOS E or better on
arterial and collector road segments and for total intersection movements within
the Downtown Specific Plan Area are to be established and maintained. Through-
out the Town, individual turning movements at unsignalized intersections shall not
be allowed to reach LOS F and to exceed a cumulative vehicle delay of 4 vehicle
hours. Both of these conditions shall be met for traffic operations to be considered
unacceptable.
The intersections of Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road and Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension (future intersection) are located within the
10 A detailed description of LOS criteria is in the Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix C,
attached as Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR.
11 Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-24
Downtown Specific Plan Area, and therefore, the LOS E standard would apply.
The remaining study intersections are outside the downtown Truckee area; there-
fore the LOS D standard would apply.
For signalized intersections, level of service is primarily measured in terms of aver-
age delay per vehicle entering the intersection. Level of service at unsignalized in-
tersections is quantified in terms of delay per vehicle for each movement. Unsignal-
ized intersection level of service is based upon the theory of gap acceptance for
side-street stop sign-controlled approaches, while signalized intersection level of
service is based upon the assessment of volume-to-capacity ratios and control de-
lay.12 Existing 2011 intersection level of service is shown in Table 4.14-9 and pro-
jected 2031 intersection level of service is shown in Table 4.14-13.
As previously stated, the additional analyses included in the Traffic Impact Analysis
Addendum reflects an update to intersection Level of Service analyses for all study
intersections using the HCM 2010 method.
g. Roadway Safety Analysis
A roadway safety analysis was conducted in the study area, including a review of
historical accident data and existing driver sight distance.
i. Historical Accident Data
Historical accident data was analyzed at the following locations:
Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Intersection
Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive
Glenshire Drive/Martis Peak Road/Whitehorse Road Intersection
Glenshire Drive between West Residential Entrance (Old Highway 40) and
Martis Peak Road
Glenshire Drive between Martis Peak Road and Hirschdale Road
Hirschdale Road between Glenshire Drive and Interstate 80
The roadway segment along Somerset Drive/Courtenay Lane/Regency Cir-
cle/Edinburgh Drive
12 Computer output of detailed LOS calculations for all intersections is provided in
Appendix D of the Traffic Impact Analysis, provided in Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-25
The accident analysis is based on traffic collision data obtained from the Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), which is managed by the California
Highway Patrol (CHP) and contains a comprehensive list of all reported collisions
in the State of California. Local jurisdictions do not maintain any accident records
exclusive from SWITRS. Accident records were obtained for the intersections and
roadway segments listed above for the five-year period from 2006 through 2010.
The detailed results of the analysis are included in the Traffic Impact Analysis and
summarized in Table 4.14-5.
TABLE 4.14-5 HISTORICAL TRAFFIC DATA (2006- 2010)
Road Segment
Total
Accidents
Total In
Snow/Ice
Conditions Fatalities
Annualized
Accident
Rates
(MVM)
Intersections
Glenshire Drive/
Donner Pass Road 12 1 0 .52
Glenshire Drive/
Dorchester Drive 4 0 0 .38
Glenshire Drive/Martis Peak
Road/Whitehorse Road 0 0 0 0
Roadways
Glenshire Drive between
West Residential Entrance
(Old Hwy 40) and Martis
Peak Road
16 6 0 1.11
Glenshire Drive between
Martis Peak Road and
Hirschdale Road
9 3 0 1.98
Hirschdale Road between I-
80 and Glenshire Drive 6 2 0 2.61
Segment on Somerset
Drive/Courtenay
Lane/Regency Circle/
Edinburgh Drive
2 0 0 1.54
Note: MVM = Million Vehicle-Miles for roadways and Million Vehicle-Movements for intersections.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., August 2012. Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis.
In addition, the Nevada Community Development Agency Department of Public
Works investigations of the roadway segment of Glenshire Drive east of Martis
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-26
Peak Road show a majority of the crashes happened in 2006 and 2007, and were
concentrated in a 500 foot area approximately 1,500 feet east of the Martis Peak
Road/Glenshire Drive intersection.13
ii. Driver Sight Distance
A detailed evaluation of the driver sight distance at the Glenshire
Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road intersection was performed. Traffic
engineers consider driver sight distance by two parameters:
1. Stopping sight distance requirements are meant to ensure that a driver on the
approaching uncontrolled roadway has adequate time to perceive and react to
the presence of an obstruction in the roadway, and come to a stop in a safe
manner.
2. Corner sight distance requirements are meant to ensure that adequate time is
provided for the waiting vehicle at an unsignalized intersection to either cross
all lanes of through traffic, cross the near lanes and turn left, or turn right
without requiring through traffic to radically alter their speed. Corner sight dis-
tance requirements are based upon major street roadway design speeds and are
identified in Standard Drawing Number 28 in the Town of Truckee Public
Improvement and Engineering Standards. The corner sight distance require-
ments are meant to provide 7½ seconds for the driver on the crossroad to
complete the necessary maneuver, while the approaching vehicle travels at the
assumed design speed of the major roadway.
A speed study was conducted on Wednesday, July 27, 2011 from 3:20 to 5:20 p.m.
at a point on Glenshire Drive immediately east of Martis Peak Road.14 There is
currently a sign in both directions of this segment advising a travel speed of 25
miles per hour. A total of 203 vehicles were observed on Glenshire Drive during
the study period. According to the results of the study, the 85th-percentile speed is
estimated to be 30 miles per hour in each direction. According to Town standards,
the applicable corner sight distance (measured at a 10-foot setback from the edge
of the travel lane) at 30 miles per hour is 330 feet.
13 Written correspondence from Steve Castleberry, Director, Nevada County De-
partment of Public Works, to Denyelle Nishimori, Senior Planner, Town of Truckee, Febru-
ary 13, 2013.
14 The speed study is provided in Appendix B of the Traffic Impact Analysis, which is
provided in Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-27
A driver sight distance survey was performed at the Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse
Road/Martis Peak Road intersection. The results of this survey show that the cor-
ner sight distance from Martis Peak Road looking to the west along Glenshire
Drive exceeds 330 feet, and is therefore adequate. The corner sight distance from
Martis Peak Road looking to the east along Glenshire Drive is roughly 425 feet,
which exceeds the requirement. Therefore, no driver sight distance deficiencies are
identified on the Martis Peak Road approach. However, the corner sight distance
looking to the west and east from Whitehorse Road is not adequate. Whitehorse
Road looking to the west along Glenshire Drive is roughly 195 feet, which does not
meet the Town’s 330-foot requirement. The corner sight distance from Whitehorse
Road looking to the east along Glenshire Drive is roughly 170 feet, which does not
meet the Town’s 330-foot corner sight distance requirement.
In summary, drivers exiting Martis Peak Drive onto Glenshire Drive have adequate
sight distance to judge an acceptable gap in both directions. However, drivers exit-
ing Whitehorse Road onto Glenshire Drive do not have adequate corner sight dis-
tance to judge acceptable gaps looking either to the east or west. In both directions,
however, oncoming drivers along Glenshire Drive have adequate stopping sight
distance to react to the presence of a vehicle turning onto the roadway.
C. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to transportation
and traffic if it would:
Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into ac-
count all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle
paths, and mass transit.
Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but
not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion management agency for desig-
nated roads or highways.
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-28
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dan-
gerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment).
Result in inadequate emergency access.
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bi-
cycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety
of such facilities.
a. Project Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment
The following establishes the project’s estimated trip generation, distribution, and
assignment onto the study roadways and intersections.
i. Project Trip Generation
Project trip generation evaluates the number of vehicle-trips that would either
have an origin or destination within the area. The trip generation rates of the
proposed project are based on a number of assumptions, which are described
in detail in the Traffic Impact Analysis (See Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR)
and Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum (See Appendix B of this Revised Draft
EIR).
The estimated weekday trip generation analysis is summarized in Table 4.14-6. As
indicated, at buildout the proposed project would generate up to approximately
2,578 one-way daily vehicle trips, of which 194 (46 inbound and 148 outbound)
would occur during the AM peak hour and 257 (164 inbound and 93 outbound)
would occur during the PM peak hour.
ii. 2011 and 2031 Project Trip Distribution
The distribution of traffic throughout the project area and surrounding network is
estimated based on the following conditions and assumptions:
Existing traffic patterns in the Glenshire area;
Expected trip purposes of future residents and visitors to the project;
Location of the site relative to major employment, commercial, and recrea-
tional activity centers; and
Distribution generated by the Town’s traffic model for the project site.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-29
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
6
PRO
J
E
C
T
TRI
P
GEN
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
IT
E
La
n
d
U
s
e
IT
E
Co
d
e
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
U
n
i
t
Tr
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
s
a
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
T
r
i
p
s
a
t
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
Da
i
l
y
AM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
D
a
i
l
y
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM Peak Hour
In
O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
In Out Total
Ma
r
k
e
t
R
a
t
e
Ho
u
s
e
s
Si
n
g
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
De
t
a
c
h
e
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
21
0
1
7
7
D
U
E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
b
Eq
u
a
t
i
o
n
c E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
d 1
,
7
5
8
3
4
1
0
0
1
3
4
1
1
1
6
5
1
7
6
Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
U
n
i
t
s
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
22
0
8
9
D
U
E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
e
Eq
u
a
t
i
o
n
f E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
g
6
3
5
9
3
7
4
6
4
1
2
2
6
3
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
2
2
0
2
6
D
U
E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
e
Eq
u
a
t
i
o
n
f E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
g 1
8
5
3
1
1
1
4
1
2
6
1
8
To
t
a
l
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
29
2
D
U
2
,
5
7
8
4
6
1
4
8
1
9
4
1
6
4
9
3
2
5
7
No
t
e
:
D
U
=
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
a T
r
i
p
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
gr
e
s
s
i
o
n
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
b
a
se
d
o
n
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
8
t
h
E
d
i
t
i
o
n
(I
T
E
,
2
0
0
8
)
,
u
n
l
e
s
s
N
o
t
e
d
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
.
b T
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
a
i
l
y
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
ho
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
s
d
e
te
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
ti
o
n
L
n
(
T
)
=
0
.
9
2
*
L
n
(
#
D
U
)
+2
.
7
1
.
c
Th
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
e
t
a
ch
e
d
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
in
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
T
=
0
.
7
0
(
#
D
U
)
+
9.
7
4
;
2
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
,
75
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
u
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
.
d
Th
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
e
t
a
ch
e
d
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
in
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
L
n
(
T
)
=
0
.
9
0
*
L
n(
#
D
U
)
+
0
.
5
1
;
6
3
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
ip
s
,
3
7
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
u
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
.
e T
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
a
i
l
y
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
T
=
6
.
0
6
(
#
D
U
)
+
1
2
3
.
5
6
.
f T
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
T
=
0
.
4
9
(
#
D
U
)
+
3
.
7
3
;
2
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
b
ou
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
,
8
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
u
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
.
g
Th
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
is
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
T=
0
.
5
5
(
#
D
U
)
+
1
7
.
6
5
;
6
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
b
ou
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
,
3
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
u
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
Ta
b
l
e
3
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-30
Trip distribution projections show that more than one quarter of trips generated by
the proposed project in 2011 are expected to travel to/from the Gateway area (near
the State Route 89 South/Donner Pass Road intersection). In addition, existing
traffic volumes indicate about 25 percent of Glenshire traffic travels to/from Inter-
state 80 to the east of Hirschdale Road.
Under future 2031 conditions, the trip distribution to these key locations is ex-
pected to be lower, considering the new commercial development assumed to oc-
cur in other areas of Truckee (e.g. Railyard Development).
iii. 2011 and 2031 Project Trip Assignment
The proposed project assumes full access to the site via Martis Peak Road as the
Edinburgh Drive access point would be gated and accessible for emergency use
only. Based on a series of assumptions described in the Traffic Impact Analysis (see
Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR) trip assignment projections indicate that the
majority of project-generated traffic would use Hirschdale Road/ Interstate 80 to
access the areas listed above, with the exception of Downtown Truckee (for which
Glenshire Road would serve all drivers). A minority of drivers with a particular
aversion to out-of-direction or freeway travel (such as the elderly) is expected to
continue to use Glenshire Drive, particularly for trips where the
Hirschdale/Interstate 80 travel route does not provide a large travel time savings.15
The 2011 project-generated PM peak-hour traffic volumes through the study inter-
sections are illustrated in Figure 4.14-4 and the future 2031 project-generated traffic
volumes are shown in Figure 4.14-5. The 2011 and 2031 project-generated intersec-
tion turning-movement volumes during the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour
of school-related traffic activity are shown in Table 4.14-7.
Excluding trips between the project site and Reno/Sparks, Glenshire or Stampede
Meadows Road, 45 percent of project traffic to/from the west would use Glenshire
Drive and the remaining 55 percent would use Hirschdale Road/ Interstate 80.
Given the location of the project access point in the easternmost portion of Glen-
shire (2 miles east of the Glenshire General Store), this distribution proportion is
consistent with the observed traffic patterns.
15 The detailed results of the travel time analysis is presented in Table 6 of the Traffic
Impact Analysis, which is provided in Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
HIRSCHDALED.R615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
0
10
6
23
0 39
32
0
0
0
55 0
0
036 57
00 0
0
0
0
103
57
430
3359
1
32
3
60
0
49
29
0 23 2
0 0 41
0
0
61
0
0
103
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE
0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURG
H
FIGURE 4.14-4
2011 PROJECT GENERATED PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
R.DELADHCSRIH615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMMERSETDR.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
0
12
7
-3
0 12
32
0
0
0
56 0
0
036 57
00 0
5
3
0
98
54
320
3765
1
36
3
60
0
50
29
0 17 2
0 0 30
0
0
61
0
0
103
24
0 0 26
25
4
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
8
89
SITE
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
EDINBURG
H
80
80
267
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 4.14-5
2031 PROJECT GENERATED PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-33
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
7
PRO
J
E
C
T
GEN
E
R
A
T
E
D
TRA
F
F
I
C
VOL
U
M
E
S
DUR
I
N
G
AM
A
N
D
SCH
O
O
L
PM
PEA
K
HOU
R
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Total
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
2
0
1
1
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
E
D
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
33
-
-
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
1
0
3
0
-
-
5
7
Sc
h
o
o
l
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
es
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
0
0
1
3
-
-
-
-
4
4
3
6
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
4
0
0
4
7
-
-
6
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
57
0
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
2
9
0
0
1
9
4
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
es
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
0
0
4
7
-
-
-
-
2
7
2
7
9
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
0
0
0
2
9
-
-
7
9
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
36
0
5
7
0
0
0
0
0
6
2
1
0
2
0
0
2
5
7
FU
T
U
R
E
2
0
3
1
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
E
D
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
0
-
-
1
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
3
4
0
-
-
2
0
Sc
h
o
o
l
A
M
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-34
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
7
PRO
J
E
C
T
GEN
E
R
A
T
E
D
TRA
F
F
I
C
VOL
U
M
E
S
DUR
I
N
G
AM
A
N
D
SCH
O
O
L
PM
PEA
K
HOU
R
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Total
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
es
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
0
0
1
3
-
-
-
-
4
4
3
6
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
4
0
0
4
7
-
-
6
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
58
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
8
2
8
0
0
1
9
4
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
es
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
0
0
4
8
-
-
-
-
2
7
2
8
0
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
1
0
0
2
9
-
-
8
0
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
37
0
5
6
0
0
0
0
0
6
4
1
0
0
0
0
2
5
7
No
t
e
:
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
Ta
b
l
e
7
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-35
D. Impact Discussion
1. Project Impacts
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into ac-
count all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle
paths, and mass transit.
Adding the 2011 project-generated traffic volumes to the “2011 without project”
volumes yields the “2011 with project” intersection volumes shown in Figure 4.14-
6 and Table 4.14-8.
i. 2011 Level of Service Impacts
All study intersections were evaluated using the HCM 2010 method to determine
existing operational conditions for the 2011 summer PM peak hour. The Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection was also evaluated for the summer AM peak
hour. In addition, the intersections of Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive (West),
Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive, and Glenshire Drive/Martis Peak Road were
evaluated for the AM and PM peak periods of school-related traffic activity. As
indicated on Table 4.14-9, using the traffic volumes identified above, all study in-
tersections currently operate at acceptable levels during all periods without the pro-
posed project, with the exception of the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road inter-
section. During the PM peak hour, the worst movement on this intersection (the
left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive to Donner Pass Road) operates at LOS
F, with a total of about 11.3 vehicle-hours of delay. This exceeds the Town’s
standard of LOS F and a maximum of 4 vehicle-hours of delay.16
16 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis Adden-
dum, January 2014, page 2.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
247
237
129
188
368 394
38
3497
195
276
131
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
HIRSCHDALED.R615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
107
24
6
34
160 87
0
038 65
95 7
2
2
12
256
202
13727
107130
67
81
41 101 54
33 60 110
21
130
65
21
125
112
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURGH
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 4.14-6
2011 PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-37
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
8
20
1
1
W
I
T
H
PRO
J
E
C
T
TRA
F
F
I
C
VOL
U
M
E
S
DUR
I
N
G
AM
A
N
D
SCH
O
O
L
PM
PEA
K
HOU
R
S
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Total
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
35
3
-
-
1
8
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
9
0
1
0
4
6
0
2
2
5
-
-
1
,
1
1
7
Sc
h
o
o
l
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
--
-
-
-
-
4
8
-
-
1
9
3
1
1
5
72
-
-
-
-
1
9
2
6
0
6
8
0
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
32
-
-
1
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
2
1
3
6
9
4
1
9
9
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
62
1
9
8
1
3
0
1
1
5
8
7
2
8
3
5
3
8
6
3
8
4
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
1
-
-
1
2
7
1
5
6
1
8
0
-
-
-
-
1
1
7
2
9
6
6
0
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
15
-
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9
7
2
8
5
7
2
2
2
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
40
0
6
3
6
1
8
9
6
1
7
0
1
0
7
8
1
1
7
4
6
3
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
Ta
b
l
e
8
.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-38
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
9
20
1
1
INT
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
LEV
E
L
O
F
SER
V
I
C
E
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
Ty
p
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
With Project
To
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
Delay (sec/veh)LOS
Su
m
m
e
r
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
3
0
.
3
D
OV
F
F
49
.
2
E
OVF F
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
Si
d
e
S
t
re
e
t
S
t
o
p
Fu
t
u
r
e
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fu
t
u
r
e
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
Si
de
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
4
.
6
A
1
2
.
6
B
4
.
5
A
1
4
.
4
B
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
All
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
8
.
0
A
8
.
0
A
8
.
5
A
8
.
7
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
.
4
A
1
0
.
6
B
4
.
3
A
1
4
.
2
B
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
2
A
1
0
.
3
B
5
.
2
A
1
1
.
6
B
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
a
m
p
s
Si
d
e
St
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
4
.
6
A
1
0
.
6
B
5
.
1
A
1
1
.
6
B
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
W
B
R
a
m
p
s
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
1
A
1
0
.
2
B
6
.
0
A
1
0
.
7
B
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
Si
de
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
2
.
4
B
3
3
.
5
D
1
6
.
4
C
44.4 E
Sc
h
o
o
l
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
Si
de
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
6
.
7
A
1
3
.
4
B
6
.
5
A
1
4
.
6
B
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
All
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
7
.
3
A
7
.
4
A
7
.
6
A
7
.
8
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
2
.
3
A
9
.
4
A
6
.
0
A
1
0
.
9
B
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
9
20
1
1
INT
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
LEV
E
L
O
F
SER
V
I
C
E
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
4.14-39
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
T
y
p
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
W
i
t
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
To
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
Delay (sec/veh)LOS
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
Si
de
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
8
A
1
2
.
2
B
5
.
4
A
1
3
.
2
B
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
All
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
7
.
2
A
7
.
3
A
7
.
6
A
7
.
6
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
.
7
A
9
.
4
A
4
.
8
A
1
1
.
3
B
No
t
e
s
:
BO
L
D
t
e
x
t
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
O
S
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
f
o
r
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
t
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
n
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
m
ov
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
L
O
S
F
w
i
t
h
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
an four total vehicle-hours of
de
l
a
y
i
s
u
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
.
OV
F
=
O
v
e
r
f
l
o
w
.
O
v
e
r
f
l
o
w
i
n
d
i
c
a
te
s
a
n
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
a
c
c
u
ra
t
e
l
y
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
H
C
M
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
,
T
a
b
l
e
1
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-40
As indicated on Table 4.14-9, implementation of the proposed project would result
in increased delays at all study intersections, and the level of service would degrade
by one level at some intersections as described below. However, no additional in-
tersections would exceed the Town standard in 2011 with the project.
At the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, the total intersection level
of service would degrade from LOS D Existing 2011 No Project conditions (base-
line) to LOS E (Existing 2011 with Project conditions) during the summer PM
peak hour, while the worst movement would continue to operate at LOS F with
more than 4 vehicle-hours of delay. Implementation of the proposed project would
therefore exacerbate an existing level of service deficiency at this intersection, as it
would result in increased vehicular delays during the summer PM peak hour.
Therefore, level of service impacts at this intersection would be potentially signifi-
cant.
Intersection level of service mitigation measures have been considered for the
Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, as it is expected the level of ser-
vice threshold will continue to be exceeded in the 2011 summer PM peak hour,
without the project, and further exacerbated with the proposed project. The follow-
ing provides a summary of each of the intersection level of service mitigation
measures considered.
1) The construction of a roundabout or traffic signal at this location is not feasi-
ble due to the existing steep grades. The transition in and out of either im-
provement would create unsafe traffic conditions, particularly in inclement
weather. Therefore, this mitigation measure is considered infeasible.
2) Provide a two-way left-turn lane along Donner Pass Road between Glenshire
Drive and Keiser Avenue. With a two-way left-turn lane, drivers are expected
to make a left turn into the center lane and then move into a gap in the west-
bound through traffic and accelerate in the through lane, rather than accelerat-
ing in the median lane. A driver would be prohibited by law from traveling
more than 200 feet in a two-way left-turn lane. There would be a potential for
conflicts between drivers turning left from both Glenshire Drive and Keiser
Avenue. Drivers in both directions would also need to accurately judge ac-
ceptable gaps in oncoming traffic by looking in their rear view mirrors. As the
speed limit along this portion of Glenshire Drive is 45 miles per hour, this
would create an unacceptable potential for accidents. For this reason, two-way
left-turn lanes are typically not provided along roadways with speeds exceeding
35 miles per hour. Therefore, this mitigation measure is considered infeasible.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-41
3) Provide a left turn acceleration lane (center lane) along Donner Pass Road
west of Glenshire Drive, which would allow drivers turning left from Glen-
shire Drive to make a “two-stage” left-turn movement, first using a gap in the
eastbound traffic to turn into the center lane before using a gap in the west-
bound traffic to merge to the right into the westbound through lane. A con-
ceptual layout for this improvement is illustrated on Figure 4.14-7. The center
lane would not be permitted for drivers turning left from Keiser Avenue. The
pavement markings associated with the left turn lane would be designed to
discourage drivers making left turns from Keiser Avenue onto Donner Pass
Road from pulling into the painted median area, in order to minimize the po-
tential for traffic accidents. The presence of the center lane would improve
level of service for drivers turning left from Glenshire Drive.
Table 4.14-10 summarizes the level of service and delay on the worst move-
ment (the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive) under 2011 conditions
with the new center lane. Implementation of this improvement would improve
the level of service to an acceptable level under 2011 conditions without the
proposed project, with a total of approximately 3.1 vehicle-hours of delay on
the worst movement. However, with full buildout of the proposed project, the
level of service would degrade to an unacceptable level, with approximately 5.6
vehicle-hours of delay on the worst movement. While project buildout would
result in an unacceptable LOS F, same as the existing conditions, intersection
delays would be shorter with implementation of the center lane and full devel-
opment of the proposed project (5.6 total vehicle-hours of delay under sum-
mer PM peak hour conditions) than under existing conditions with no center
lane improvements and no project (11.3 total vehicle-hours of delay under
summer PM peak hour conditions). The level of service at this intersection
would nonetheless remain at an unacceptable level of service as it would ex-
ceed the Town standards by 1.6 total vehicle-hours of delay under summer PM
peak hour conditions.
FIGURE 4.14-7
GLENSHIRE DRIVE/DONNER PASS ROAD LEFT TURN ACCELERATION LANE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
600 120 Feet
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.
1
4
-
4
3
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
0
GLE
N
S
H
I
R
E
DRI
V
E
/D
ON
N
E
R
PAS
S
ROA
D
INT
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
LO
S
WI
T
H
CEN
T
E
R
TUR
N
LAN
E
Ye
a
r
2
0
1
1
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
De
l
a
y
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
HC
M
2
0
1
0
M
e
t
h
o
d
–
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
G
a
p
T
i
m
e
s
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
C
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
De
l
a
y
(v
e
h
-
h
r
s
)
L
O
S
Su
m
m
e
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
N
o
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
V
F
11
.
3
F
PM
W
i
t
h
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
V
F
20
.
0
F
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
N
o
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
33
.
5
N/
A
D
AM
W
i
t
h
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
4
4
.
4
N
/
A
E
Su
m
m
e
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
W
i
t
h
C
e
n
t
e
r
L
a
n
e
b
67
.
3
3
.
1
F
PM
Wi
t
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
W
i
t
h
C
e
n
t
e
r
L
a
n
e
b 1
0
7
.
0
5
.
6
F
No
t
e
:
Bo
l
d
t
e
x
t
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
L
O
S
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
e
d
.
a A
l
l
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
a
r
e
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
g
a
p
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
.
b A
l
l
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
w
i
t
h
c
e
n
t
e
r
l
a
n
e
a
s
s
u
m
e
1
-
c
a
r
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
i
n
t
h
e
m
e
d
i
a
n
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
,
Ta
b
l
e
5
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-44
Temporary off-site impacts associated with the provision of a center lane on Don-
ner Pass Road during Phase 1 of project construction would be considered to be
less than significant through implementation mitigation measures and mandatory
regulations described in other chapters of the 2012 Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure
HYDRO-1a through -1c and HYDRO-2a through -2c described in Chapter 4.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality, recommends measures and Best Management Prac-
tices to stabilize soils and minimize erosion during the construction process. Man-
datory regulations described in Chapter 4.5, Cultural Resources, of the 2012 Draft
EIR, impacts to unknown cultural resources and human remains would be less than
significant as well. Mitigation Measure TRANS-4 would reduce temporary impact
to local roadways through the preparation of a Construction Traffic Management
Plan to be prepared and approved by the Town’s Public Works Department prior
to Phase 1 of project construction.
With the new center turn lane, some level of development could occur before the
level of service threshold is exceeded. It is estimated that construction Phases 1
through the beginning of Phase 4 or about 45 percent of the Canyon Springs de-
velopment (including about 84 single-family lots) could be constructed before the
level of service threshold is exceeded. This would generate about 10 left turns from
Glenshire Drive onto Donner Pass Road.
In addition to the potential mitigation measures discussed above, the impacts of the
implementation of the Donner Pass Road Extension to be constructed east of
Bridge Street tying into a new T-intersection on Glenshire Drive (which is part of
the approved Railyard Master Plan Project) were considered. This roadway exten-
sion would substantially reduce the left-turning traffic volume from Glenshire
Drive onto Donner Pass Road, as drivers faced with long delays for making left-
turn movements from Glenshire Drive can be expected to shift their travel patterns
to instead use the Donner Pass Road Extension. As a result, the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection is shown to operate within the level of ser-
vice thresholds with implementation of the Donner Pass Road Extension. Note
that the level of service at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension inter-
section would continue to be acceptable with these additional left turn movements.
The Railyard Master Plan Project is a planned project and it is included in the
Town of Truckee Traffic Fee Program, which requires entities initiating new devel-
opment within the Town to pay traffic impact fees. The project applicant would be
required to pay the current fee of $5,771 per single-family dwelling unit and $3,578
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-45
per multi-family unit,17 resulting in a total fee of approximately $1,121,651.18 How-
ever, according to Table CIR-6 in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Circula-
tion Element, when a Category 3 Project (such as Canyon Springs) encounters an
existing unacceptable level of service on an arterial or collector road, that develop-
ment is allowed if either of the following are true:
Project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as iden-
tified in General Plan Table CIR-5; or
Improvements to impacted roads and intersections are identified in the CIP,
fully funded, and scheduled for completion within three years.
While the construction of the Donner Pass Road Extension is identified in the CIP,
it is not fully funded, nor is it scheduled for completion within three years. There-
fore, the level of service improvements to the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
intersection as a result of the Donner Pass Road Extension are not considered at
this time. Consequently, based upon this analysis and the physical constraints at
this location, project level of service impacts to the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass
Road intersection are considered significant.
ii. 2011 Intersection Queuing Impacts
Traffic queues at specific intersections that exceed the storage capacity of turn lanes
or ramps, or that block turn movements at important nearby intersections or
driveways, can cause operational problems beyond those identified in the level of
service analysis. The 95th-percentile traffic queue length was reviewed at locations
where queuing could potentially cause traffic problems. The longest traffic queue
occurs at the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive onto Donner Pass Road
during the summer PM peak hour. The 95th-percentile queue length for this turn-
ing movement is calculated to be approximately 18 vehicles, including traffic from
the proposed project. Assuming a length of about 25 feet per vehicle, this equates
to a total queue length of about 450 feet, which would not affect any nearby inter-
sections or driveways.
The longest traffic queue length for drivers stopped on Dorchester Drive (West)
waiting to turn onto Glenshire Drive occurs during the school AM peak hour. The
17 Traffic and Facility Impact Fees, Effective Date, February 1, 2014,
http://www.townoftruckee.com/about-us/forms-documents/folder-198, retrieved Septem-
ber 3, 2014.
18 (177 single-family homes multiplied by $5,771 equals $1,021,467) plus (28 multi-
family units multiplied by $3,578 equals $100,184) equals $1,121,651.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-46
95th-percentile queue length on this approach is approximately two vehicles (or
about 50 feet), with or without the proposed project. As the nearest driveway on
Dorchester Drive is located about 180 feet from the intersection, no operational
queuing problems are identified. Therefore, 2011 queuing impacts would be less
than significant.
iii. 2011 Turn Lane Warrants
Guidelines for adding turn lanes are provided in the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) Report 457 – Evaluating Intersection Improvements:
An Engineering Study Guide,19 as well as in the Guidelines for Reconstruction of
Intersections.20 Left-turn lane volume warrants are defined by volume thresholds of
opposing traffic versus advancing traffic, as well as the percentage of left-turns on
the advancing approach. Right-turn lane warrants are based on a graphical curve of
right-turning volumes versus total traffic in the travel lane.21
The need for left-turn lanes was evaluated at the following two locations:
Glenshire Drive at the Western End of Dorchester Drive: Based upon the
2011 summer AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes, an eastbound left-turn
lane is warranted along Glenshire Drive at its intersection with Dorchester
Drive (West), with or without the project. The calculated 95th-percentile traf-
fic queue length on the eastbound left-turn movement is less than one vehicle.
Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road Intersection: The traffic volumes at
the Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road intersection do not
warrant a left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive under existing conditions, with
or without the project. Therefore, a left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive is not
warranted at this location.
The need for right-turn lanes was evaluated at the following two locations:
Glenshire Drive at Dorchester Drive (West): The right-turn lane warrant is
not met under 2011 conditions, with or without the project. Therefore, the ad-
dition of new right-turn lanes is not warranted.
19 Transportation Research Board, 2001. National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Report 457 – Evaluating Intersection Improvements: An Engineering Study Guide.
20 Caltrans, 1985. Guidelines for Reconstruction of Intersections.
21 The warrant charts are included in Appendix H of the Traffic Impact Analysis,
which is included in Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-47
Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road Intersection: The right-turn lane
warrant is not met under 2011 conditions, with or without the project. There-
fore, the addition of new right-turn lanes is not warranted.
Because a left-turn lane is warranted at Glenshire Drive at the western end of Dor-
chester Drive, turn lane impacts would be significant under 2011 conditions.
iv. 2011 Roadway Capacity
Roadway capacity is evaluated in order to determine whether a specific roadway
segment can accommodate existing and/or future traffic volumes. Different meth-
odologies can be employed to determine capacity, but generally, the calculation will
incorporate a series of factors including roadway facility type, evaluation period,
and level of service thresholds. The Town of Truckee roadway capacity standards
are based upon hourly traffic volumes, and the Nevada County roadway volume
criteria are based upon daily traffic volumes. According to the Nevada County General
Plan, a LOS C can be maintained on a two-lane major collector with an Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) of 8,800 or less and on a two-lane minor collector with an
ADT of 7,600 or less. The maximum allowable traffic volumes to obtain the level
of service thresholds applicable to the study roadway segments are shown in Table
4.14-11.
Table 4.14-11 also presents a comparison of 2011 traffic volumes with the perti-
nent level of service standard. The ADT volume along each study roadway segment
is estimated by applying an ADT-to-peak hour volume factor calculated from the
traffic counts, except for several local roadway segments. The volume factors range
from approximately 9.5 to 10.6. The traffic volumes along the local roadway seg-
ments of Edinburgh Drive, Regency Circle, and Courtenay Lane were estimated by
applying standard ITE trip generation rates to the number of dwelling units served.
As shown in Table 4.14-11, all study roadway segments currently operate within the
allowable traffic volume threshold and all study roadway segments are within the
allowable traffic volume threshold with implementation of the proposed project.
Therefore, roadway capacity impacts under existing conditions would be less than
significant.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-48
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
1
20
1
1
ROA
D
W
A
Y
LEV
E
L
O
F
SER
V
I
C
E
ANA
L
Y
S
I
S
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
LO
S
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Al
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
V
o
l
u
m
e
to
O
b
t
a
i
n
L
O
S
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Tw
o
-
W
a
y
Vo
l
u
m
e
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Pe
a
k
-
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Vo
l
u
m
e
A
D
T
a,bLOS Threshold Exceeded?
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Pe
r
L
a
n
e
A
D
T
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
Ro
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
8
7
0
5
8
2
9
,
2
2
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
Av
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
6
2
1
4
2
2
6
,
4
6
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
Dr
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
a
n
d
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
3
9
2
2
5
5
4
,
0
8
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
2
8
7
1
5
5
2
,
9
9
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
Ro
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
-
-
7
,
6
0
0
3
0
2
1
5
5
3
,
0
1
0
N
o
3
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
-
-
7
,
6
0
0
3
1
7
1
6
5
3
,
1
6
0
N
o
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
R
o
a
d
N
/
A
d N
/
A
d
N/
A
d 2
3
1
3
2
2
0
N
o
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
an
d
C
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
,
4
3
0
N
o
Co
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
an
d
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
5
6
4
1
5
3
0
N
o
Re
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
5
4
40
5
1
0
N
o
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
1
4
10
1
3
0
N
o
Wi
t
h
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
Ro
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
9
4
8
6
3
1
1
0
,
0
5
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
Av
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
6
9
9
4
7
1
7
,
2
8
0
N
o
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
1
20
1
1
ROA
D
W
A
Y
LEV
E
L
O
F
SER
V
I
C
E
ANA
L
Y
S
I
S
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
4.14-49
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
LO
S
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Al
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
V
o
l
u
m
e
to
O
b
t
a
i
n
L
O
S
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Tw
o
-
W
a
y
Vo
l
u
m
e
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Pe
a
k
-
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Vo
l
u
m
e
A
D
T
a,bLOS Threshold Exceeded?
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Pe
r
L
a
n
e
A
D
T
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
Dr
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
a
n
d
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
4
7
9
3
1
0
4
,
9
9
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
3
8
4
2
1
6
4
,
0
0
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
Ro
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
-
-
7
,
6
0
0
4
6
2
2
5
8
4
,
6
1
0
N
o
c
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
-
-
7
,
6
0
0
4
7
7
2
6
8
4
,
7
6
0
N
o
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
f
Co
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
f D
8
9
0
-
-
2
8
0
1
7
7
2
,
6
5
0
N
o
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
an
d
C
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
Lo
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
,
4
3
0
N
o
Co
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
an
d
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
5
6
41
5
3
0
N
o
Re
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
5
4
40
5
1
0
N
o
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
1
4
10
1
3
0
N
o
No
t
e
s
:
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
AD
T
=
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
a
AD
T
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
A
D
T
-
t
o
-
p
e
a
k
-
ho
u
r
v
o
l
u
m
e
f
a
c
t
o
r
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
,
e
x
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
.
b
Lo
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
A
D
T
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
d
a
i
l
y
t
o
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
I
T
E
t
r
i
p
r
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
.
c
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
,
t
h
i
s
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
h
a
s
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
g
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
d
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
h
a
v
e
a
v
o
lu
m
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
f
o
r
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
r
o
a
d
s
.
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
a
r
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
a
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
t
r
i
p
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
s
e
r
v
ed
.
f
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
T
o
w
n
l
i
m
i
t
s
,
t
h
i
s
ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
m
e
e
t
T
o
w
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
ec
t
,
a
s
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
i
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
ng
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
T
a
b
l
e
1
0
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-50
v. 2011 Local Residential Roadway Impacts
According to the 2025 General Plan Circulation Element Policy P2.2, the proposed
project would meet the adopted standard for impact on a local residential roadway
if the project does not increase traffic on a local road by more than 1,000 ADT or
if the project increases traffic on a local road by more than 1,000 ADT but the in-
crease in ADT is less than 50 percent, and the provisions of Circulation Element
Policy P2.4, which calls for improving the connectivity throughout the Town’s
roadway network, through roadway improvements, while minimizing environmen-
tal, circulation, and residential neighborhood impacts, can be met.
The increase in traffic on the local roadways as a result of the proposed project
would not impact the traffic volumes on local roadway segments from Somerset
Drive to Edinburgh Drive given that the Edinburgh access point would be gated
for emergency access only. Therefore, the proposed project meets the adopted
standard for impacts to local residential roadways within the Town limit.
Martis Peak Road is a privately-maintained road outside the Town of Truckee Lim-
its. However, the relatively short segment of Martis Peak Road that provides access
to the project site is subject to the Town’s thresholds. This roadway segment has a
total pavement width ranging from 20 to 23 feet. In 2011 with the project, Martis
Peak Road would have an ADT volume exceeding 2,000 vehicles, and it would
function as a Collector roadway. According to Town standards, a Collector road-
way should provide 12-foot travel lanes with 2-foot shoulders. As the existing
pavement width along Martis Peak Road does not accommodate 12-foot travel
lanes, the segment of Martis Peak Road between Glenshire Drive and the proposed
main project access point would not meet Town standards with the project.
Therefore, the proposed project would not meet the adopted standard for impacts
to local residential roadways and impacts local roadways under 2011 conditions and
impacts would be significant.
vi. Construction Impacts
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the 2012 Draft EIR, the project
is proposed to be constructed in eight phases. The construction schedule for the
new residences is dependent upon market demand, and full buildout of the project
is anticipated to take at least 20 years. Phase 1 is expected to generate the greatest
amount of construction traffic, as it is the phase with the largest number of lots
(37) and the longest length of roadway (approximately 1.36 miles) to be construct-
ed.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-51
Table 4.14-12 provides an analysis of the construction related traffic that is ex-
pected to be generated over the course of a peak day during Phase I activities. The
analysis is based upon a number of assumptions included in the project Traffic Im-
pact Analysis, which is included as Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR.
As shown in Table 4.14-12, construction Phase 1 is expected to generate approxi-
mately 388 one-way passenger-car-equivalent trips over the course of a busy con-
struction day, with about 96 exiting trips occurring during the PM peak hour of
commuter traffic. In comparison with the proposed development traffic, the num-
ber of inbound trips during the PM peak hour would be less during construction,
but a similar amount of exiting traffic would occur(the project would generate
about 93 exiting trips, compared to about 96 during construction). Consequently,
the traffic impacts during construction Phase 1 are similar to that under full
buildout of the proposed project.
All study intersections and roadway segments are expected to operate at an ac-
ceptable level of service during the construction phases, except the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, which as previously discussed is at unac-
ceptable levels under existing conditions. If any project construction traffic accesses
the site to/from the west via the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection
before implementation of the Donner Pass Road Extension, this would exacerbate
an existing level of service deficiency and construction impacts during Phase 1
would be significant.
vii. Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths, and Mass Transit
As discussed further below the project would provide 4.5 miles of publicly accessi-
ble trails and no mass transit services are currently located in the project area.
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but
not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion management agency for desig-
nated roads or highways.
There is no applicable congestion management program. Therefore, no impacts
would occur.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-52
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
2
CON
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
TRI
P
GEN
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Ph
a
s
e
1
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
L
o
t
s
Total
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
Ho
m
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
Ot
h
e
r
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
--
12
--
12
5
16
--
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
--
1.
2
--
1.
2
1.
2
--
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
6
10
8
10
4
13
141
On
e
-
W
a
y
T
r
i
p
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
–
P
e
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
2
2.
5
2
2.
5
2.
5
--
On
e
-
W
a
y
T
r
i
p
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
–
T
o
t
a
l
12
25
16
26
0
33
346
Pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
C
a
r
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
s
p
e
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
2.
5
1
2.
5
1
1
--
Pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
C
a
r
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
T
r
i
p
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
30
25
40
26
0
33
388
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
T
r
i
p
s
E
x
i
t
i
n
g
i
n
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
10
%
28
%
10
%
28
%
28
%
--
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
M
P
e
a
k
-
H
o
u
r
E
x
i
t
i
n
g
T
r
i
p
s
3
7
4
73
9
96
No
t
e
:
T
h
e
2
8
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
ve
h
i
c
l
e
t
r
i
p
s
e
x
i
t
i
n
g
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
is
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
o
n
e
-
w
ay
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
-
t
r
i
p
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
a
n
d
t
h
e
a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
7
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
de
p
a
r
t
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
T
a
b
l
e
2
4
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-53
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
The airport closest to the project site is the Truckee Tahoe Airport, located approx-
imately four miles to the west-southwest of the project site. The project would not
result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; therefore, no impact
would occur.
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dan-
gerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment).
i. Intersection Corner Sight Distance
The addition of project traffic at the Martis Peak Road/Glenshire Drive/
Whitehorse Road intersection could result in hazardous driving conditions due to
the current limited sight distance conditions.
a) Martis Peak Road Looking West and East Along Glenshire Drive
The driver sight distance survey prepared for the project found that the corner
sight distance from Martis Peak Road looking to the west along Glenshire Drive
was adequate as it exceeds 330 feet applicable corner sight distance (measured at a
10-foot setback from the edge of the travel lane) at 30 miles per hour and the cor-
ner sight distance from Martis Peak Road looking to the east along Glenshire
Drive, roughly 425 feet, is also adequate. Therefore, no driver sight distance defi-
ciencies are identified on the Martis Peak Road approach and impacts would be less
than significant at this location.
b) Whitehorse Road Looking West Along Glenshire Drive
Whitehorse Road looking to the west along Glenshire Drive is roughly 195 feet,
which does not meet the Town’s 330-foot requirement (see Figure 4.14-8). The
corner sight distance at this location is limited by the existing embankment and
vegetation on the northwest corner of the intersection, as well as by the horizontal
and vertical curvature along Glenshire Drive. The corner sight distance improves as
the driver on Whitehorse Road approaches the edge of the travel lane on Glenshire
Drive. Measured 10 feet back from the edge of the traveled way, the corner sight
distance is approximately 195 feet, and when measured from a 5-foot setback the
corner sight distance increases to approximately 255 feet; however, these values do
not achieve the Town’s 330-foot requirement and impacts to drivers on White-
horse Road would be potentially significant.
100feet
FIGURE–
ExistingDriverSightDistanceatWhitehorseApproachtoGlenshireDrive
SightDistanceforDriverssoutheast-
boundonWhitehorseDrivelooking
northeastonGlenshireDrive=170feet.
Constrainedbyutilityboxandvegetation.
SightDistanceforDriverssoutheast-
boundonWhitehorseDrivelooking
southwestonGlenshireDrive=195
feet.Constrainedbyhorizontaland
verticalcurvatureonGlenshireDrive.
FIGURE 4.14-8
WHITEHORSE ROAD/GLENSHIRE DRIVE INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-55
The corner sight distance at this location could be improved by modifying the ex-
isting embankment on the northwest corner of the intersection. However, such an
improvement would likely require the acquisition of right-of- way from the single-
family parcel located on this corner. Town standards indicate that “where restric-
tive conditions do not allow compliance with the specified sight distance require-
ments, the Town Engineer may approve a reduction of the corner sight distance to
the minimum stopping sight distance as outlined in the Caltrans Highway Design
Manual.” According to Caltrans standards, at a 30-mile-per-hour design speed, the
minimum stopping sight distance is 200 feet. Measured stopping sight distance for
drivers approaching along Glenshire Drive from the west is 210 feet measured to
an object six inches in height, and at least 255 feet to a vehicle turning into the
eastbound through lane. Therefore, adequate stopping sight distance is provided
for eastbound drivers along Glenshire Drive to see and react to a driver pulling out
from Whitehorse Road. Furthermore, no accidents were reported at this intersec-
tion during the 5-year period from 2006 to 2010. Therefore, hazardous driving im-
pacts at this location would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are
warranted.
c) Whitehorse Road Looking East Along Glenshire Drive
The corner sight distance from Whitehorse Road looking to the east along Glen-
shire Drive is roughly 170 feet, which does not meet the Town’s 330-foot corner
sight distance requirement. To the east of the intersection Glenshire Drive curves
to the north and then back to the south. When looking east from Whitehorse Road,
a driver can see a portion of the road, but as it turns to the north it disappears from
sight and reappears into the driver’s sight as it curves back to the south. The corner
sight distance at this location is limited by an existing utility box in the northeast
quadrant of the intersection, as well as by existing vegetation. If the existing utility
box and vegetation were removed, then the corner sight distance to the east would
be improved to roughly 580 feet, thereby meeting minimum corner sight distance
requirements. However, the stopping sight distance along Glenshire Drive east of
Whitehorse Drive (measured along the travel lane) is over 500 feet, as the existing
utility box does not block the driver sight line along the traveled way. Therefore,
adequate stopping sight distance is provided. If a driver makes a right turn from
Whitehorse Road without an adequate gap, a vehicle traveling on Glenshire Drive
westbound would have adequate stopping sight distance to react and come to a
stop. Furthermore, no accidents were reported at this intersection during the 5-year
period from 2006 to 2010. Therefore, hazardous driving impacts at this location
would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-56
ii. Roadway Segment Hazards
The Glenshire Drive east of Martis Peak Road roadway segment has an average
accident rate (from 2006 to 2010) about two times the State and County average
rates for similar facilities. The injury and fatal accident rate is also higher than the
State and County average rates for similar facilities. However, the severity of the
accidents is relatively minor overall, given that no fatalities were reported, and two-
thirds of the accidents resulted in property damage only (no injuries). Furthermore,
while one-third of the accidents occurred under icy/snowy road conditions, which
represents a relatively small proportion of the overall winter, each of these acci-
dents involved a single vehicle, and there were no injuries.
This roadway segment has a steep grade of about nine percent. The existing travel
lane width is striped to accommodate two 11-foot travel lanes with an outside fog
line22 and the actual asphalt roadway is 24 to 25 feet wide in all locations. Paved
and unpaved shoulder widths are generally 2 to 4 feet wide. Both Nevada County
and Town of Truckee roadway design standards call for 12-foot travel lanes with
4-foot shoulders, and maximum grade of eight percent. Therefore, while this seg-
ment of Glenshire Drive is deficient with respect to the current County standards
for this type of roadway in some areas, it essentially meets the required design
standards. It should be noted that Glenshire Drive met the standards that were
applicable at the time it was constructed. As the County standards have been up-
dated over the years, most of the rural County roadways do not meet the current
County standards.
In 2008, Nevada County installed several hundred feet of guardrail along the por-
tion of the roadway segment approximately 1,500 feet east of the Martis Peak
Road/Glenshire Drive intersection, and rehabilitated the pavement on the Nevada
County section of Glenshire Road in 2009. As previously stated, the Nevada
Community Development Agency Department of Public Works’ investigations on
this road show a majority of crashes occurred in 2006 and 2007 and were concen-
trated in a 500 foot area approximately 1,500 feet east of the Martis Peak Road
intersection. While the guardrail and pavement improvements were not specifically
intended as safety projects, according to the Nevada Community Development
Agency Department of Public Works, both improvements have contributed to
overall improved roadway conditions at this location. The Nevada Community
Development Agency Department of Public Works found that accident rates at
this location have been reduced since these improvements have been installed. This
22 A fog line is the line painted on a road (usually bright white) that marks the edge
of the legally drivable portion.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-57
is consistent with the County’s findings that crash rates typically drop after a pave-
ment improvement project, either due to the improved pavement surface or the
improved striping associated with pavement projects.23
While the accident rate along this roadway segment is higher than State and County
averages, it would be speculative to try and predict potential traffic impacts based
on variables such as icy/snowy road conditions or illegal driving behaviors such as
speeding or using handheld electronics (e.g. smart phones) while driving. It is driver
responsibility to comply with the law and exercise safe driving practices such as
slowing down, leaving more distance between vehicles and avoiding sudden stops
and quick direction changes in icy/snow conditions, which are often the cause of
accidents. Additionally, in rural communities throughout California, including
Truckee and the area surrounding the project site, the incident of vehicular and
wildlife collisions is an expected and unpredictable hazard.
Although the proposed project would result in an increase of up to 1,600 daily one-
way trips, including 160 peak-hour trips, on this roadway segment, which when
compared to existing conditions, equates to about a 50-percent increase in the total
peak-hour traffic volume, the 2008 and 2009 roadway improvements, as described
above, have reduced potential hazards at this roadway segment. Therefore, poten-
tial hazardous driving impacts related to the additional vehicle trips of the proposed
project at this roadway segment would be less than significant.
e. Result in inadequate emergency access.
While Glenshire Drive and Martis Peak Road currently serve the project area, new
internal access roads would be created on the project site. The privately owned and
maintained internal roadway system would provide residential and emergency vehi-
cle access. Vehicles would circulate through the project area using the internal
roadway system and main entrance point off Martis Peak Road approximately 690
feet south of its intersection with Glenshire Drive. As noted in the Chapter 3, Pro-
ject Description, and shown on Figure 3-5 of the 2012 Draft EIR, emergency ac-
cess would be provided by creating a secondary access point to the project off of
Edinburgh Drive located on the western border of the project site. Fire lanes and
turning radii would be designed to meet the standards of the TFPD so as to be
adequate for emergency response vehicles. Roadways would be designed with all
23 Written correspondence from Steve Castleberry, Director, Nevada County De-
partment of Public Works, to Denyelle Nishimori, Senior Associate, Town of Truckee, Feb-
ruary 13, 2013.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-58
weather surfaces and would be capable of supporting emergency vehicles up to
40,000 pounds. Consistent with General Plan Policy SAF-P4.7, the project’s final
site plans would be reviewed by the TFPD for adequate emergency access, site
design for maintenance of defensible space and use of non-materials prior to the
issuance of building permits.
Furthermore, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, project construction
Phase 1 would include the construction of the connecting roadway between the
project’s main access point and the secondary emergency access point at Edinburgh
Drive prior to the completion of the proposed homes. Therefore, considering the
completion of this connecting road between the project’s two access points and
roadways built to Town and TFPD standards the project would provide adequate
emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safe-
ty of such facilities.
The project is consistent with General Plan Policy CIR-P4.1 and CIR-P10.2, which
requires transportation systems to be planned and constructed in conjunction with
significant development projects, including roads, trails, bikeways, and other im-
provements, to provide links to the existing transportation network, and implement
the network of trails and bikeways described in the TBMP. The project would cre-
ate internal roads that would interface at various points on the project site and
would connect to Edinburgh Drive and Martis Peak Road. As described in detail in
Chapter 3, Project Description, and Chapter 4.13, Public Services and Recreation,
of the 2012 Draft EIR, the project includes a 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail sys-
tem. Consistent with General Plan Policy CIR-P10.5, the proposed trail network
includes public access points that utilize existing trail alignments to provide connec-
tivity to the surrounding community and adjacent open spaces for permitted and
lawful use of on-site trails by the public. Similar to surrounding residential areas,
the project would not include sidewalks. The project’s proposed 4.5-mile trail sys-
tem exceeds the new pedestrian facilities beyond those identified in the TBMP con-
sistent with General Plan Policy CIR-P10.3.
While there are no bicycle lanes currently proposed as part of the project, the pro-
posed publicly accessible trail system would connect to the Town’s proposed recre-
ational trail corridor as identified in the TBMP generally crossing the project site in
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-59
an east and west direction.24 The vehicular roadway network would include signage
to instruct drivers to be aware of cyclists and to share the road.
General Plan Policy CIR-P4.2 requires planning for land use and transportation
systems in new growth areas that provides opportunities for residents, employees,
and those without vehicles to accomplish many of their trips by walking, bicycling
or using transit. While the project is a permitted land use consistent with General
Plan land use designations (RC/OS and RES) and zoning districts (OS and RS-1.0)
it is located on the eastern border of the Town limit and is not located in close
proximity to basic commercial services. Future residents would have access to the
Dial-A-Ride bus service in the provided throughout the greater Truckee area.
However, it is likely future residents of the project, similar to those of the sur-
rounding Glenshire area, would rely on “trip-chaining”25 to reduce trips as opposed
to alternate modes of transportation. Therefore, future residents of the project
would be primarily automobile dependent as the project is not in close proximity to
basic commercial services and the project would not be consistent with this policy.
Nonetheless, when considering the project’s rural location and overall consistency
with the General Plan and the TBMP as identified above, the project would not
conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.
2. Cumulative Impacts
The addition of the 2031 project-generated turning movement volumes to the
“2031 without project” intersection volumes yields the “2031 with project” vol-
umes that are shown in Figure 4.14-9 and Table 4.14-13.
Furthermore, as previously described this Revised Draft EIR includes cumulative
2031 summer PM peak-hour intersection turning-movement volumes under the
2011 TransCAD model that were developed for the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass
Road and Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension intersections for the pro-
posed project. Adding the Canyon Springs project-generated traffic volumes to the
24 Town of Truckee Trails and Bikeway Master Plan Appendix D, Exhibit 1, Existing
and Proposed Trail and Bikeway Network, Section 42, as of May 17, 2007.
25 Due to the relatively long travel distance from Glenshire to the rest of the Truckee
community, “trip chaining” (making multiple stops as part of a single external round-trip
from the residential area) would occur resulting in reduced vehicular trips.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-60
updated “2031 without project” volumes at the two intersections yields the “2031
with project” volumes shown in Figure 4.14-9.
a. 2031 Level of Service Impacts
All study intersections were evaluated to determine operational conditions under
future 2031 traffic volumes.26 Table 4.14-14 summarizes the results for future 2031
conditions without the project. In comparison with existing 2011 conditions, the
level of service at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection would im-
prove to an acceptable level (LOS F with less than 4 vehicle-hours of delay on the
worst approach) in the future peak hours, due to the addition of the Donner Pass
Road Extension. The level of service is expected to degrade by one level at some of
the other study intersections in the future, due to growth in background traffic.
However, as indicated in Table 4.14-14, all study intersections would operate within
the applicable level of service thresholds in 2031 with the proposed project. There-
fore, 2031 level of service impacts would be less than significant.
b. 2031 Intersection Queuing Analysis
As previously described, traffic queues at specific intersections that exceed the stor-
age capacity of turn lanes or ramps, or that block turn movements at important
nearby intersections or driveways, can cause operational problems beyond those
identified in the level of service analysis. Similar to existing conditions, the 95th-
percentile traffic queue length was reviewed at locations where queuing could po-
tentially cause traffic problems in 2031. The traffic queue lengths for the left-turn
movement from Glenshire Drive onto Donner Pass Road during the summer PM
peak hour are expected to decrease in the future, due to the implementation of the
Donner Pass Road Extension. The longest traffic queue length for vehicles stopped
on Dorchester Drive (West) waiting to turn onto Glenshire Drive occurs during
the AM peak hour. The 95th-percentile queue length on this approach is approxi-
mately three vehicles in 2031 without the proposed project. Assuming 25 feet per
vehicle, this equates to a total queue length of about 75 feet. As the nearest drive-
way on Dorchester Drive is located about 180 feet from the intersection, no opera-
tional problems are identified without the proposed project. Therefore, queuing
impacts would be less than significant.
26 The output from each of the LOS calculations for the study intersections is pro-
vided in Appendix F of the Traffic Impact Analysis, which is included in Appendix I of the
2012 Draft EIR. The output from the level of service calculations for the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road and Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension intersections
in included in Appendix B of the Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum, which is included in Ap-
pendix B of this Revised Draft EIR.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
225
510
358
50
221 449
47
42120
264
318
153
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
HIRSCHDALED.R615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
113
36
8
51
147 122
0
03 8
98 112
35
12
144
120
137
12027
106144
53
104
51 162 30
84 24 117
29
132
6
21
125
9
921
38 45 135
238
363
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE
0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURG
H
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2014.
FIGURE 4.14-9
2031 PROJECT GENERATED PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-62
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
3
20
3
1
TRA
F
F
I
C
VOL
U
M
E
S
DUR
I
N
G
AM
A
N
D
SCH
O
O
L
PM
PEA
K
HOU
R
S
WIT
H
PRO
J
E
C
T
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Total
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
15
1
-
-
4
7
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
8
1
5
0
1
3
2
1
8
5
-
-
1
,
1
7
5
Sc
h
o
o
l
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
--
-
-
-
-
7
2
-
-
2
3
9
1
5
6
96
-
-
-
-
2
6
6
8
0
9
0
9
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
48
-
-
1
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
3
1
8
9
1
1
8
-
-
2
6
2
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
66
0
9
7
1
3
0
1
8
7
8
9
3
5
3
4
3
8
6
4
0
3
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
--
-
-
-
-
7
5
-
-
1
5
7
2
1
1
2
3
4
-
-
-
-
1
6
2
3
8
8
7
7
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
23
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
7
3
9
8
9
4
-
-
2
8
6
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
43
0
6
2
6
0
1
3
1
2
6
2
7
6
1
0
5
8
1
1
7
4
7
7
No
t
e
:
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
Ta
b
l
e
1
2
.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-63
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
4
20
3
1
INT
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
LEV
E
L
O
F
SER
V
I
C
E
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
Ty
p
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
With Projecta
To
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
Delay (sec/veh)LOS
Su
m
m
e
r
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
6
.
1
C
O
V
F
Fb
16
.
6
C
O
V
F
Fb
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
E
x
te
n
s
i
o
n
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
7
.
3
A
1
3
1
.
9
Fb
9.
5
A
1
8
2
.
4
Fb
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
Si
de
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
5
A
1
8
.
5
C
5
.
9
A
2
3
.
0
C
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
All
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
8
.
6
A
8
.
7
A
9
.
3
A
9
.
6
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
.
6
A
1
0
.
4
B
4
.
4
A
1
3
.
1
B
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
9
.
7
A
1
9
.
0
C
1
1
.
8
B
2
7
.
9
D
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
a
m
p
s
Si
d
e
St
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
6
.
1
A
1
2
.
5
B
6
.
7
A
1
4
.
0
B
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
W
B
R
a
m
p
s
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
3
A
9
.
9
A
5
.
9
A
1
0
.
2
B
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
8
.
5
C
4
9
.
6
E
1
8
.
5
C
4
9
.
7
E
Sc
h
o
o
l
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
Si
de
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
8
.
0
A
1
7
.
7
C
8
.
3
A
2
0
.
1
C
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
All
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
7
.
5
A
7
.
6
A
7
.
7
A
7
.
9
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
2
.
5
A
9
.
4
A
5
.
8
A
1
0
.
6
B
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
4
20
3
1
INT
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
LEV
E
L
O
F
SER
V
I
C
E
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
4.14-64
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
T
y
p
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
W
i
t
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
To
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
Delay (sec/veh)LOS
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
Si
de
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
7
.
0
A
1
7
.
0
C
7
.
2
A
1
9
.
6
C
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
All
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
7
.
4
A
7
.
5
A
7
.
8
A
7
.
8
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
.
9
A
9
.
3
A
4
.
8
A
1
1
.
4
B
a
As
s
u
m
e
s
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
b
Th
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
f
o
r
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
a
pp
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
s
t
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
n
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
L
O
S
F
w
i
t
h
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
4
t
o
t
a
l
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
-
h
o
u
r
s
o
f
d
e
l
a
y is unacceptable. As the total delay
fo
r
t
h
i
s
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
4
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
-
h
o
u
r
s
,
t
h
e
L
O
S
i
s
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
.
OV
F
=
O
v
e
r
f
l
o
w
.
O
v
e
r
f
l
o
w
i
n
di
c
a
t
e
s
a
n
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
H
C
M
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
Ta
b
l
e
1
3
a
n
d
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
,
T
a
b
l
e
4
.
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-65
c. 2031 Turn Lane Warrants
As discussed above under 2011 conditions, the need for left-turn lanes was evaluat-
ed at the following two locations:
Glenshire Drive at the Western End of Dorchester Drive: Based upon the
2011 AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes, an eastbound left-turn lane is
warranted along Glenshire Drive at its intersection with Dorchester Drive
(West), with or without the project under future conditions. The calculated
95th-percentile traffic queue length on the eastbound left-turn movement is
less than one vehicle.
Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road Intersection: The traffic volumes at
the Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road intersection do not
warrant a left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive under future conditions, with or
without the project. Therefore, a left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive is not
warranted at this location.
The need for right-turn lanes was evaluated at the following two locations:
Glenshire Drive at Dorchester Drive (West): The right-turn lane warrant is
not met under future conditions, with or without the project. Therefore, the
addition of new right-turn lanes is not warranted.
Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road Intersection: The right-turn lane
warrant is not met under future conditions, with or without the project. There-
fore, the addition of new right-turn lanes is not warranted.
Because a left-turn lane is warranted at the Glenshire Drive at the western end of
Dorchester Drive, turn lane impacts would be significant under 2031 conditions.
d. 2031 Roadway Capacity
Table 4.14-15 presents a comparison of 2031 roadway volumes with the pertinent
standards. The ADT volumes for 2031 conditions were estimated using the same
methodology as the 2011 volumes described above. As shown, all study roadway
segments are expected to operate within the allowable traffic volume threshold,
with or without implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, roadway ca-
pacity impacts at future buildout would be less than significant.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.
1
4
-
6
6
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
5
20
3
1
ROA
D
W
A
Y
LEV
E
L
O
F
SER
V
I
C
E
ANA
L
Y
S
I
S
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
LO
S
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Al
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
Vo
l
u
m
e
t
o
O
b
t
a
i
n
LO
S
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Tw
o
-
W
a
y
Vo
l
u
m
e
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Pe
a
k
-
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Vo
l
u
m
e
A
D
T
a,bLOS Threshold Exceeded?
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Pe
r
L
a
n
e
A
D
T
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
Ro
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
1
,
0
9
1
6
8
6
1
1
,
5
6
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
Av
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
8
5
5
5
8
2
8
,
9
0
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
Dr
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
a
n
d
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
5
6
0
3
6
0
5
,
8
3
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
3
0
4
1
6
7
3
,
1
6
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
Ro
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
-
-
7
,
6
0
0
3
0
4
1
5
5
3
,
0
3
0
N
o
3
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
-
-
7
,
6
0
0
5
3
2
2
6
8
5
,
3
0
0
N
o
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
R
o
a
d
N
/
A
d N
/
A
d N
/
A
d 2
6
1
5
2
5
0
N
o
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
an
d
C
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
2
1
7
1
5
8
2
,
0
6
0
N
o
Co
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
an
d
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
6
2
4
5
5
9
0
N
o
Re
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
6
0
44
5
7
0
N
o
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
1
6
12
1
5
0
N
o
Wi
t
h
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
Ro
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
1
,
1
2
2
7
1
0
1
1
,
8
9
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
Av
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
9
3
4
6
3
2
9
,
7
2
0
N
o
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
5
20
3
1
ROA
D
W
A
Y
LEV
E
L
O
F
SER
V
I
C
E
ANA
L
Y
S
I
S
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
4.14-67
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
LO
S
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Al
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
Vo
l
u
m
e
t
o
O
b
t
a
i
n
LO
S
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Tw
o
-
W
a
y
Vo
l
u
m
e
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Pe
a
k
-
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Vo
l
u
m
e
A
D
T
a,bLOS Threshold Exceeded?
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Pe
r
L
a
n
e
A
D
T
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
Dr
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
a
n
d
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
6
4
8
4
1
6
6
,
7
5
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
4
0
0
2
2
8
4
,
1
6
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
Ro
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
-
-
7
,
6
0
0
4
6
4
2
5
8
4
,
6
3
0
N
o
3
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
-
-
7
,
6
0
0
6
8
3
3
6
2
6
,
8
1
0
N
o
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
f
Co
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
f D
8
9
0
-
-
2
8
3
1
7
9
2
,
6
8
0
N
o
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
an
d
C
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
Lo
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
2
1
7
15
8
2
,
0
6
0
N
o
Co
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
an
d
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
6
2
45
5
9
0
N
o
Re
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
6
0
44
5
7
0
N
o
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
1
6
12
1
5
0
N
o
No
t
e
s
:
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
AD
T
=
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
a
AD
T
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
A
D
T
-
t
o
-
p
e
a
k
-
ho
u
r
v
o
l
u
m
e
f
a
c
t
o
r
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
,
e
x
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
.
b
Lo
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
A
D
T
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
d
a
i
l
y
t
o
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
I
T
E
t
r
i
p
r
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
.
c
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
,
t
h
i
s
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
h
a
s
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
g
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
d
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
h
a
v
e
a
v
o
lu
m
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
f
o
r
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
r
o
a
d
s
.
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
a
r
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
a
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
t
r
i
p
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
s
e
r
v
ed
.
f
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
T
o
w
n
l
i
m
i
t
s
,
t
h
i
s
ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
m
e
e
t
T
o
w
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
ec
t
,
a
s
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
i
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
ng
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
Ta
b
l
e
1
4
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-68
e. 2031 Local Residential Roadways Impacts
Similar to existing conditions, the increase in traffic on the local roadways as a re-
sult of the proposed project under 2031 conditions would not impact the traffic
volumes on local roadway segments from Somerset Drive to Edinburgh Drive giv-
en that the Edinburgh access point would be gated for emergency access only. Fur-
thermore, as described under 2011 Local Roadway Impacts, the segment of Martis
Peak Road between Glenshire Drive and the proposed main project access point
would not meet Town standards with the project. Therefore, the proposed project
would not meet the adopted standard for impacts to local residential roadways and
impacts would be significant.
E. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact TRANS-1: The Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection exceeds
the level of service thresholds during the PM peak hour in 2011 without the pro-
posed project. Implementation of the proposed project would exacerbate an exist-
ing deficiency at this intersection, as it would result in increased vehicular delays
during the PM peak hour.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: The project applicant shall construct a center
turn lane on Donner Pass Road to allow two-stage left-turn movements to be
made from Glenshire Drive. The turn lane shall be constructed during Phase
1 of project construction and prior to any Parcel or Final Map recordation. If
the two-stage left-turn lane is constructed prior to Canyon Springs Phase I
construction, the project applicant shall pay its fair share portion of the cost.
The Town Engineer shall not approve a Parcel Map or Final Map that would
result in the creation of more than a total of 84 single-family lots and eight af-
fordable housing lots within the project unless (i) the completion of the Don-
ner Pass Road Extension is identified in the Town’s Capital Improvement
Plan, fully funded, and scheduled for completion within three years of any
Parcel or Final map that would bring the recorded lot total above 84; or (ii) all
of the following criteria are met:
A minimum of five years have elapsed since the final approval of the pro-
ject by the Town Council;
A minimum of 30 single-family homes have been constructed and certifi-
cates of occupancy issued by the Town Building Division;
The project applicant provides an updated traffic analysis of the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection using the existing Town-approved
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-69
traffic analysis model and the trip generation numbers from the occupied
single-family homes within the project;
The updated traffic analysis demonstrates that there is sufficient capacity at
the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection to accommodate the
additional requested units while remaining in compliance with General Plan
Circulation Element Policy P2.1 (maintain LOS E for the intersection and
any individual turning movement, not cause a cumulative vehicle delay of
four vehicle hours).
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact TRANS-2: The segment of Martis Peak Road that provides access to the
project site is subject to the Town’s thresholds and would have an ADT volume
exceeding 2,000 vehicles, and it would function as a collector roadway. This road-
way segment has a total pavement width ranging from 20 to 23 feet and does not
meet the adopted standard for impacts to local residential roadways and impacts
local roadways under 2011 conditions.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-2: The project applicant shall widen the segment
of Martis Peak Road between Glenshire Drive and the project’s main entrance
to provide 12-foot travel lanes with 2-foot shoulders during Phase 1 of project
construction.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact TRANS-3: Based upon the AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes, an
eastbound left-turn lane is warranted along Glenshire Drive at its intersection with
Dorchester Drive (West), with or without the project under 2011 and 2031 condi-
tions.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-3: Install an eastbound left-turn lane along Glen-
shire Drive at its intersection with Dorchester Drive (West) during construc-
tion Phase 1 of the proposed project. The turn lane shall provide approximate-
ly 50 feet of storage length. If the left-turn lane is constructed prior to Canyon
Springs Phase I construction, the project applicant shall pay its fair share por-
tion of the cost.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-70
Impact TRANS-4: Construction trips added to Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass
Road or the eastbound left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive at its intersection with
the western end of Dorchester Drive intersection would exacerbate these already
deficient intersections.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a: A Construction Traffic Management Plan
(CTMP) shall be prepared and approved by the Town’s Public Works De-
partment prior to Phase 1 construction of the project. The CTMP shall be up-
dated and approved by the Town prior to the start of each construction phase
The CTMP shall include the following:
An on-site staging and materials storage plan.
Haul routes and general procedures for managing traffic, including tempo-
rary traffic advisory signage to be posted along construction routes at least
one month in advance of construction to alert traffic, pedestrian, and bicy-
clists about the upcoming construction traffic.
Public notification materials, which may include information post cards to
be distributed to adjacent residents and/or e-mail alerts to interested parties
about the upcoming construction traffic. Notification materials shall be dis-
tributed up to one month in advance of upcoming construction activities.
Training materials for construction workers, which shall include information
on haul routes, speed limits, location of flaggers, wildlife awareness and oth-
er relevant safety information. Training materials shall be updated as road-
way and other surrounding area conditions change.
A construction monitoring plan to identify traffic congestion, safety con-
cerns regarding truck, vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle conflicts and to adjust
the CTMP as needed.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-4b: Construction traffic shall not be permitted to
exceed the Town's level of service standards at the Glenshire Drive/Donner
Pass Road and Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive intersections and construc-
tion traffic shall not travel to and from the project site using the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection during the AM or PM peak hour.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-1
A. Introduction
The State CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs include the identification and evalu-
ation of a reasonable range of alternatives that are designed to reduce the signifi-
cant environmental impacts of the project while still meeting the general project
objectives. The State CEQA Guidelines also set forth the intent and extent of al-
ternatives analysis to be provided in an EIR. Those considerations are discussed
below.
B. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states: “An EIR shall describe a
range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,
which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would
avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evalu-
ate the comparable merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every con-
ceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of po-
tentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public
participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.
The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for exam-
ination and must publicly disclose it’s reasoning for selecting those alternatives.
There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be
discussed other than the rule of reason.”
1. Purpose
The alternatives evaluated in this EIR were developed with the intent of avoiding
or lessening significant effects of the project as identified in Chapter 4 of the 2012
Draft EIR and listed below.
2. Potentially Significant Project Impacts
The project impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation include the
following:
Air Quality – conflict with the goals and policies of the Town of Truckee’s
Particulate Matter AQMP, construction PM10 levels, Northern Sierra Air Qual-
ity Management District’s Level B threshold for PM10 levels.
Biological Resources – Sierra Nevada red foxes, nesting birds, and roosting
bats.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-2
Cultural Resources – archaeological resources and paleontological resources.
Geology and Soils – rupture of a known earthquake fault, landslides, loss of
topsoil and soil erosion, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lat-
eral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials – wildland fires.
Hydrology and Water Quality – reduce water quality through sedimentation
of on-site and off-site watercourses and urban runoff.
Traffic and Circulation – increased vehicular delays during the AM and PM
peak hours, exceeding roadway capacity, construction trip generation, and
roadway design hazards.
All other impacts were found to be less than significant without mitigation.
3. Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed project are as follows:
Create a residential community compatible with adjacent neighborhoods in the
Town and Nevada County;
Provide additional affordable housing in the Town;
Provide low impact recreational opportunities (i.e. trails, trailheads, informal
parking areas, information/interpretive kiosks, and directional/way finding
signage) for future residents, surrounding neighbors and the public;
Protect open space areas that serve as native habitat and wildlife corridors;
Cluster development, and enhance and improve the existing on-site informal
trail network to avoid environmentally sensitive areas;
Complement the natural forest setting through project design and landscaping;
and
Achieve sustainable aspects of construction through green building practices.
4. Alternatives Considered and Rejected as Being Infeasible
As described above, Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires
EIRs to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were
rejected as infeasible during the scoping process, and briefly explain the reasons
underlying the lead agency’s determination. The following is a discussion of alterna-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-3
tives that were considered and rejected, along with the reasons they are not includ-
ed in the analysis.
a. Off-Site Analysis
An alternate site with the same General Plan Land Use and Town Zoning designa-
tion of a size to accommodate 185 single-family residential was not found within
the Town limit; therefore, an off-site alternative was determined to be infeasible.
Additionally, an off-site alternative would not meet the project objectives and
would not necessarily reduce the potentially significant impacts associated with the
proposed project.
b. Alternate Land Use
Alternative land uses, such as open space/non-motorized recreational, commercial,
or institutional uses, were also rejected as being infeasible because they are not al-
lowed under the General Plan Land Use and Town Zoning designations for the
site. In addition alternate land uses would not meet the project objectives.
c. Higher Density Alternative
While it is not an infeasible alternative, an alternative to develop the allowed 213
lots was not analyzed. This alternative could increase the project’s impacts as the
increase of 28 lots over the proposed project could increase trip generation impacts
as well as the demand for public services and utilities. Therefore, this proposal
would not meet the intent of the alternatives analysis under CEQA, which evaluat-
ed alternatives that would reduce the significant environmental impacts of the pro-
ject while still meeting the general project objectives.
d. Rural Residential Alternative
An alternative considering development on the project site applying the General
Plan Land Use designation standards for Residential Cluster – 5 acres (RC-5) and
Rural Residential (RR) zoning district standards was considered. Under this pro-
posal 42 lots would be permitted on 213 acres of the project site designated for
residential development, which represents a 77-percent reduction in the number of
residential lots on the site. However, this alternative was considered infeasible as it
would increase the private development area by 49 percent from the proposed pro-
ject (107.29 acres compared to 213 acres) and would reduce the public open space
from 176.17 acres to 70.76 acres. In addition, this proposal would not achieve a
minimum density of at least 50 percent of the maximum allowed density under
current zoning.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-4
e. No Open Space Crossing
An alternative similar to Alternative C, but with no bridge over the main drainage,
was considered. Under Alternative C, the proposed roadway that connects the east-
ern and western sides of the project over the main drainage through the open space
area would be gated and restricted to use by emergency vehicles only. In contrast,
under this alternative considered there would no connection between the two
groupings of homes. Similar to Alternative C, public access to the development
would be from Edinburgh drive on the west and Martis Peak Road on the north.
Unlike Alternative C, emergency response vehicles would not be able to cross the
main drainage between the two groupings of homes. It is not considered to be ac-
ceptable for the fire department to only have one entrance to each of the groupings
of homes.
5. Overview of Selected Alternatives
The alternatives to be analyzed in comparison to the proposed project include:
Alternative A: No Project
Alternative B: Edinburgh Drive Open Access (185 lots)
Alternative C: No Open Space Crossing (185 lots)
Alternative D: Medium Density Cluster (185 lots)
Alternative E: Reduced Density (88 lots)
Alternative F: Open Space Buffer (185 lots)
These alternatives were selected because of their potential to reduce the significant-
but-mitigable impacts of the proposed project. A discussion of each of the selected
alternatives is provided below.
Table 5-1 summarizes the comparative impacts of each of the alternatives com-
pared to the project.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
A
D
M
I
N
I
ST
R
A
T
I
V
E
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
AL
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
S
T
O
T
H
E
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
5-
5
TAB
L
E
5-
1
ALT
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
S
IMP
A
C
T
S
COM
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
S
Im
p
a
c
t
A
r
e
a
EI
R
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
C
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
D
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
E
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
F
No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
Dr
i
v
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
(1
8
5
l
o
t
s
)
No
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
(1
8
5
l
o
t
s
)
Me
d
i
u
m
De
n
s
i
t
y
C
l
u
s
t
e
r
(1
8
5
l
o
t
s
)
Re
d
u
c
e
d
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(88 lots) Open Space Buffer (185 lots)
Ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
L
T
S
++
=
+
+
+ =
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
a
n
d
F
o
r
e
s
t
r
y
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
LT
S
++
=
+
+
+ =
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
LT
S
/
M
++
+
+
+
+ =
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
LT
S
/
M
+
=
+
+
+ =
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
LT
S
/
M
+
=
=
=
+ =
Ge
o
l
o
g
y
,
S
o
i
l
s
a
n
d
S
e
i
s
m
i
c
i
t
y
LT
S
/
M
++
=
=
=
= =
Gr
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
G
a
s
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
LT
S
/
M
++
+
+
=
+ =
Ha
z
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
LT
S
/
M
+
=
=
=
= =
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
LT
S
/
M
++
=
=
+
+ =
La
n
d
U
s
e
a
n
d
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
LT
S
=
=
=
=
- - =
No
i
s
e
L
T
S
++
-
-
=
+ =
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
LT
S
=
=
=
=
= =
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
R
e
c
r
ea
t
i
o
n
L
T
S
+
=
=
=
+
=
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
LT
S
/
M
++
=
=
=
+ =
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
LT
S
++
=
=
=
= =
++
+ =
- -
-
Su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
c
o
m
p
a
r
ed
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Sl
i
g
h
t
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
co
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Si
m
i
l
a
r
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
op
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Sl
i
g
h
t
d
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
m
p
a
r
ed
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
m
p
ar
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-6
a. Assumptions and Methodology
The anticipated means for implementation of the alternatives can influence the
assessment and/or probability of impacts for those alternatives. For example, a
project may have the potential to generate significant impacts, but considerations in
project design may also afford the opportunity to avoid or reduce such impacts.
The alternatives analysis is presented as a comparative analysis to the proposed
project and assumes that all applicable mitigation measures proposed for the pro-
ject would apply to each alternative. Impacts associated with the alternatives are
compared to project-related impacts and are classified as greater, less, or essentially
similar to (or comparable to) the level of impacts associated with the proposed
project.
The following analysis compares the potential significant environmental impacts of
five alternatives with those of the proposed project for each of the environmental
topics analyzed in detail in Chapter 4 of the 2012 Draft EIR.
C. Alternative A: No Project
1. Description
As required by CEQA, this subsection analyzes a “No Project” Alternative (Alter-
native A) and describes the effects of taking no action or not receiving project ap-
proval. Under Alternative A, the proposed project would not be constructed, and
the project site would remain in its current condition. As described in Chapter 3,
Project Description, the project site is generally undeveloped. A well-developed
network of unpaved roads and trails is distributed throughout the site. The project
site is accessed by surrounding subdivision residents through connecting trails and
experiences year-round unregulated and unauthorized use. In the winter, the site is
used by cross-country and backcountry skiers, snowshoers, and snowmobile users.
In other seasons the project site is used by hikers with unleashed dogs,1 mountain
bikers, equestrians, and off-road vehicle users. The only formal development on the
project site is the Liberty Energy – California Pacific Electric Company’s overhead
1 According to Municipal Code, Title 8, Animal Control, Chapter 8.01, Humane
Animal Control, Section, 8.01.420, Animals Running At Large, it is unlawful for any person
owning or having possession, charge, custody, or control of any animal to cause, permit or
allow the animal to stray, run or in any other manner to be at large in or upon any public
street, sidewalk, park, school ground, or other public place, or upon any private place or
property without consent of the owner or person in control of such private place or proper-
ty.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-7
high-power transmission line and associated access road that spans the project site
in a southwest-northeast orientation for approximately 2,300 feet. In addition, a
well exists near the central portion of the project site on Assessor Parcel Number
49-020-20. The potential environmental impacts associated with Alternative A are
described below and are compared to the proposed project.
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Under Alternative A, no grading, tree and vegetation removal, or new development
would occur on the project site and the existing aesthetic characteristics would re-
main unchanged. There would be no changes to the visual character and no new
sources of light and glare on the site. Therefore, this alternative would eliminate the
aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed project. Overall aesthetics impacts
under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project since no
development would occur on the site.
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Similar to the proposed project, no agricultural lands would be impacted by devel-
opment on the project site. Therefore, agricultural impacts would be the same as
those of the proposed project. However, as no trees would be removed under this
alternative, impacts to forestry resources would be less than those under the pro-
ject.
c. Air Quality
Project-generated fugitive dust and other pollutant emissions associated with con-
struction activities at the site would not occur under this alternative; thereby, elimi-
nating the project’s significant-but-mitigable air quality impacts. Under Alternative
A, pollutant emissions associated with vehicle trips would not occur and emissions
associated with residential development would not occur. However, the unregulat-
ed and unauthorized snowmobile and off-road vehicle use could potentially con-
tinue, which would generate fugitive dust and other pollutant emissions associated
with these uses. Nonetheless, overall impacts to air quality would be likely be less
than those of the proposed project.
d. Biological Resources
Under this alternative the proposed project would not be developed and therefore,
no impacts to biological resources as a result of future development on the site
would occur. However, the unregulated and unauthorized recreational uses, which
include hikers, dog walkers, mountain bikers, equestrians, and off-road vehicles,
could potentially continue. These recreational uses, when unregulated, have the
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-8
potential to modify habitat for identified special-status species and impact riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural communities, including federally protected wet-
lands. Alternative A would not result in development that would potentially inter-
fere or remove access to a migratory wildlife corridor or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites; however, the unregulated and unauthorized recreational uses
that occur on the site have the potential to disturb these biological resources. Al-
ternative A, same as the proposed project, would not be inconsistent with local
regulations pertaining to biological resources or conservation plans. Nonetheless,
overall impacts to biological resources would be less than those of the proposed
project under Alternative A because no development on the project site would
occur.
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative A, no ground-disturbing activities would occur as a result of
future development on the site; however, the unregulated and unauthorized recrea-
tional uses that occur on the site have the potential to disturb the known and un-
known cultural resources on the site. Therefore, this alternative, similar to the pro-
ject, would have the potential to damage or destroy known and unknown archaeo-
logical resources or unknown paleontological resources and human remains. Under
this alternative the known cultural resource sites within the Town’s OS Zoning
District (Open Space) areas would not be permanently reserved under the protec-
tive conservation easement or dedication to the Town of Truckee/Truckee Donner
Land Trust that is included as part of the proposed project. However, since imple-
mentation of the project would disturb land area to a greater degree through exca-
vation and grading than the current uses, impacts to cultural resources would be
less than those of the proposed project under this alternative.
f. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under Alternative A, no new development would occur on the site, which elimi-
nates the potential for damage to residential land uses from soil/geologic condi-
tions (i.e. seismicity and ground shaking; flooding; liquefaction, lateral spreading;
geologic and soil instabilities; soil erosion/loss of topsoil; expansive and corrosive
soils; and groundwater). Therefore, overall impacts from seismic hazards would be
less than those of the proposed project under Alternative A.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative A, no new development requiring grading, tree and vegetation
removal, and construction and landscaping improvements would occur on the site.
However, the unregulated and unauthorized snowmobile and off-road vehicle use
could potentially continue, which would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-9
associated with these uses. Nonetheless, this alternative would not result in the
same level of GHG emissions and would eliminate impacts related to a net increase
in GHG emissions and overall impacts would be less.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative A, no new development would occur on the site. Therefore, this
alternative would eliminate impacts related to introducing a residential development
in an area with a high risk of wildfire hazards, potential high voltage transmission
line hazards, and impacts related to emergency evacuation. While the project site
would remain an area of high wildfire risk, because no residential land uses would
be developed on the site, the overall impacts related to wildfire hazards would be
less than those of the proposed project under Alternative A.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
This alternative would eliminate the project’s less-than-significant and significant-
but-mitigable impacts to water quality as a result of the development of the project.
However, the existing areas of erosion within the ephemeral drainages would con-
tinue to occur from natural occurrences and as a result of the unregulated and un-
authorized recreational uses on the site. Nonetheless, under Alternative A, impacts
to hydrology and water quality are considered to be less than those under the pro-
posed project less land would be disturbed.
j. Land Use and Planning
Because Alternative A would not involve any new development the site would re-
main in its current condition. There are no land use conflicts under the proposed
project and current conditions, with the exception of unauthorized use of the site
for unregulated recreational activities. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative
A would meet the intent of the General Plan RC/OS (Resource Conserva-
tion/Open Space) and Town’s OS Zoning District (Open Space) as no develop-
ment is permitted on this portion of the project site. Therefore, under Alternative
A, impacts would be the same as those of the proposed project.
k. Noise
Because Alternative A would not involve any short-term noise from construction
nor long-term project noise from project operation, this alternative would eliminate
the project’s less-than-significant construction and long-term operational noise
impacts. Therefore, noise impacts under Alternative A would be less than those of
the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-10
l. Population and Housing
A would result in no residential uses on the project site. Alternative A would not
achieve a minimum density of at least 50 percent of the maximum allowed density
and Alternative A would not provide affordable housing. However, neither Alter-
native A nor the proposed project would displace substantial numbers of existing
housing or people, and would not induce unanticipated growth in the Town. As
such, overall impacts to population and housing would be the similar to those of
the proposed project.
m. Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, and Parks) and Recreation
Alternative A would result in no new development of the project site and would
not change the type and frequency of fire and police protection services required.
Alternative A would not directly contribute any school-aged children to the Tahoe-
Truckee Unified School District. Alternative A would not generate the greatest
users of parks and recreational facilities (families with children); therefore, impacts
to schools and parks would be less than the proposed project. Overall impacts to
public services would be less than those of the proposed project.
While the proposed project’s features that would increase the permitted and lawful
recreational opportunities in the Town (i.e. 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail system
and recreation center) and the 176.17 acres of open space that would be perma-
nently reserved by protective conservation easement or dedication to the Town of
Truckee/Truckee Donner Land Trust would not occur under Alternative A, the
introduction of new users of recreational amenities in the Town and surrounding
area would not occur; therefore, overall impacts to recreation would be less than
that of the proposed project.
n. Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative A, no new development on the site would occur. As such, no
new traffic trips would be generated and no traffic impacts as a result of develop-
ment on the project site would occur. Overall impacts to transportation and traffic
would be less than those of the proposed project.
o. Utilities and Service Systems (Sewer, Water, Solid Waste, Natural Gas and
Electricity)
Under Alternative A, no new development on the project site would occur and
there would be no changes to demand for sewer, water supply, solid waste disposal
services, natural gas, or electricity. Therefore, impacts to these utilities and service
systems would be less than those of the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-11
3. Relationship of the Alternative to the Objectives
Under Alternative A, the proposed project would not be constructed and therefore
this alternative does not meet any of the project objectives.
D. Alternative B: Edinburgh Drive Open Access (185 Lots)
1. Description
Alternative B would be essentially the same as the proposed project with the excep-
tion of providing open, unrestricted access to the site from Edinburgh Drive, west
of the project. With the Edinburgh Drive access open, this alternative is expected
to result in an increase of vehicular trips on the local roadways in the Glenshire
subdivision, including Edinburgh Drive, Somerset Drive, Courtenay Lane, Regency
Circle, Rolands Way, Dorchester Drive, Wellington Way, Oxford Circle, Canter-
bury Lane, and Wiltshire Lane. Based on the layout of the site, it is assumed that 85
percent of trips made to/from points west of Glenshire would use the Edinburgh
Drive access, and the remaining 15 percent of these trips would use Martis Peak
Road. All other aspects of the project would be the same as those described in
Chapter 3, Project Description, of the 2012 Draft EIR. A site plan of this alterna-
tive is shown in Figure 5-1.
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal and new development
with landscaping improvements would occur on the site in the same manner that
would occur under the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not
eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts to aesthetics. Overall,
impacts to aesthetics under this alternative would be the same as those of the pro-
posed project since development would be exactly the same.
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Similar to the proposed project, no agricultural lands would be impacted by devel-
opment on the project site. Therefore, agricultural impacts would be the same as
those of the proposed project. Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation
removal, and new development and landscaping improvements would occur on the
site in the same manner that would occur under the proposed project. Therefore,
this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant
impacts to agricultural and forestry resources. Overall, impacts to agricultural and
forestry resources under this alternative would be the same as those of the pro-
posed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-12
c. Air Quality
Under Alternative B, air quality impacts would occur at the same level as those of
the proposed project. Thus, this alternative would generate the same degree of fugi-
tive dust and other pollutant emissions associated with construction activities at the
site. Additionally, under Alternative B, the same number of new traffic trips would
be generated and Alternative B would generate pollutant emissions associated with
long-term operation of a residential development. However, this alternative would
generate fewer vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the region during the summer PM
peak hour, which would result in relatively lower air quality impacts. All mitigation
measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Al-
ternative B. Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the project’s
less-than-significant or significant-but-mitigable impacts to air quality. Overall, con-
struction and operational air quality impacts under Alternative B would be less than
that of the proposed project.
d. Biological Resources
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new development
and landscaping improvements would occur on the site in the same manner that
would occur under the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not
eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts to biological re-
sources. Furthermore, all mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed
project would also be applied to Alternative B; therefore Alternative B would not
eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to biological re-
sources. Overall, impacts to biological resources under this alternative would be the
same as those of the proposed project.
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative B, the ground-disturbing activities would be exactly the same as
those of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or
reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts to human remains. All mandatory
regulations and mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project
would also be applied to Alternative B; therefore Alternative B would not eliminate
or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to unknown archaeological
resources or unknown paleontological resources. Overall, impacts to cultural re-
sources under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed project.
ALTERNATIVE B (EDINBURGH DRIVE OPEN ACCESS) SITE PLAN
Source: SCO Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 5-1
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
4000 800 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-15
f. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under Alternative B, new development would occur on the site in the same man-
ner as that of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate
the proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts related to soil/geologic condi-
tions (i.e. seismicity and ground shaking, flooding, liquefaction, lateral spreading,
and expansive and corrosive soils). All mitigation measures that are applicable to
the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative B; therefore Alternative
B would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to
fault rupture, geologic and soil instabilities and soil erosion/loss of topsoil. Overall,
impacts to geology and soils under this alternative would be the same as those of
the proposed project.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the same level as
those of the proposed project. However, the open access at Edinburgh Drive
would result in less VMT generated. Thus, this alternative would generate less net
increase in GHG emissions as that of the proposed project. All mitigation
measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Al-
ternative B; therefore Alternative B would not eliminate or reduce the project’s
significant-but-mitigable impacts related to GHG emissions. Overall, impacts from
GHG emissions under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed
project.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the same level as
those of the proposed project. This Draft EIR found that potential impacts associ-
ated with the development of the project with respect to the high voltage transmis-
sion line hazards in the project area would be less than significant; accordingly, the
same would be true for Alternative B. Further, all mitigation measures that are ap-
plicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative B; therefore
Alternative B would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable
impacts related to introducing a residential development in an area with a high risk
of wildfire hazards. Under Alternative B, with the Edinburgh access open, more
project trips would tend to use surface streets to access locations to the west.
Therefore, under an emergency evacuation situation, more vehicles would exit the
site to the west. However, as under the proposed project, intersections between the
project site and major points west and east, including State Route 267 and Inter-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-16
state 80, would operate under acceptable traffic conditions. Therefore, traffic con-
gestion under Alternative B would not be expected to interfere with emergency
evacuation. Overall, impacts from hazards under this alternative would be the same
as those of the proposed project.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the same level as
those of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would have the same sig-
nificant-but-mitigable water quality impacts from the sedimentation of on-site and
off-site watercourses and urban runoff associated with the development on the site.
All mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be
applied to Alternative B; therefore Alternative B would not eliminate or reduce the
project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts related to water quality. Overall, impacts
to hydrology and water quality under this alternative would be the same as those of
the proposed project.
j. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative B, a residential development would occur on the project site in
the same manner as that of the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative B would
meet the intent of the General Plan land use designations for RES (Residential) 0.5
to 1 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) land use designations or the Town’s RS-1.0
Zoning District (Single-Family Residential, density of 1 du/acre). Furthermore,
Alternative B would be consistent with the Overlay Area 6 land use designation,
which requires a planned development that links access, open space areas, and in-
frastructure between the properties. In addition, similar to the proposed project,
Alternative B would meet the intent of the General Plan RC/OS and Town’s OS
Zoning District.
Under Alternative B the residential land uses on the site would be consistent with
the overall intent of the General Plan land use designations and the Town’s zoning
districts for the site. Alternative B would achieve a minimum density of at least 50
percent of the maximum allowed density and Alternative B would provide afforda-
ble housing units consistent with the minimum 15 percent affordable housing allo-
cation for new residential developments (i.e. eight lots.) As such, impacts related to
policy consistency and land use compatibility would be considered the same as
those of the proposed project under Alternative B.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-17
k. Noise
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the same level as
those of the proposed project. Under Alternative B, the infrastructure construction
would span an eight-year period and the overall buildout of the proposed 185
housing lots would span approximately 20 years. However, the traffic patterns
would be changed and more traffic would be distributed on local roadways when
compared to the proposed project. While the Draft EIR found that only the road-
way segment from Martis Peak Road east of Glenshire Drive would experience an
increase in project-related traffic noise levels, and as noted in the Traffic Impact
Analysis, no local roadways would experience an equivalent volume of traffic; the
increase of trips on local roadways is considered a substantial change. Therefore,
this alternative would result in the same less-than-significant construction impacts,
but potentially greater operational noise impacts compared to the proposed project.
l. Population and Housing
Similar to the project, Alternative B would result in residential uses on the project
site and as noted above, this alternative would achieve a minimum density of at
least 50 percent of the maximum allowed density and provide affordable housing.
However, neither Alternative B nor the proposed project would displace substantial
numbers of existing housing or people, and would not induce unanticipated growth
in the Town. As such, overall impacts to population and housing would be the
same as those of the proposed project.
m. Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, and Parks) and Recreation
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative B would result in new development of
the project site and would change the type and frequency of fire and police protec-
tion services required; therefore, impacts to these services under Alternative B
would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative B would result in the same
amount of new residential housing (i.e. 185 lots) as that of the proposed project
and therefore, would directly contribute to the population of school-aged children
that could attend the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District and would also gener-
ate the greatest users of parks and recreational facilities (families with children);
therefore, impacts to schools and parks would be the same as the proposed project.
Alternative B would also include the 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail system and
recreation center, thus impacts to parks and recreational services would be the
same as those under the proposed project. Accordingly, overall impacts to public
services and recreation would be the same as those of the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-18
n. Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative B, the same amount of residential development on the project
site would occur and as such, the same level of new traffic trips would be generat-
ed. However, unlike the proposed project, under Alternative B the two proposed
vehicular access points at Martis Peak Road to the north of the project site and
Edinburgh Drive to the west of the project site would both provide unrestricted
access.
As analyzed in the Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis, which is included in Appen-
dix I of the 2012 Draft EIR and the 2014 Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis Ad-
dendum prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., this alternative would
generate the same number of trips; however, the Edinburgh Drive access would
present many additional possible route choices. The addition of the Edinburgh
Drive route lessens the travel time advantage of using the Hirschdale
Road/Interstate 80 route for trips to/from the west. Therefore, with the Edin-
burgh access open, more project trips would tend to use surface streets to access
locations to the west.
Under Alternative B, similar to the proposed project, all traffic impacts would gen-
erally be the same as that of the proposed project including impacts to local road-
ways.2 Figures 5-2 through 5-5 show the net project and total PM peak hour trips
in 2011 and 2031 under this alternative. With the Edinburgh Drive connection
open to general traffic, the Alternative B is expected to result in an increase of up
to approximately 89 PM peak-hour one-way trips and 840 average daily traffic
(ADT) in 2011, and 91 PM peak-hour trips and 860 ADT in 2031 on the local
roadway segments in the project study area. As this increase is less than 1,000
ADT, Alternative B would meet the Town’s adopted standard for impacts on local
residential roadways, so long as the provisions of Circulation Element Policy P2.4
can be met. As discussed in Chapter 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the 2012
Draft EIR, the project would be consistent with this policy. Alternative B would
also be consistent with this policy as it would improve connectivity throughout the
Town's roadway network, through roadway improvements, while minimizing envi-
ronmental, circulation, and residential neighborhood impacts. Furthermore, with
Edinburgh Drive open, a slightly lower level of project traffic would use the Glen-
shire Drive/Martis Peak Road/Whitehorse Road intersection; however, the haz-
ardous conditions are existing conditions; therefore, the conclusions regarding
driver sight distance would not be affected.
2 Alternative B analysis is provided in detail in the Traffic Impact Analysis, which is
provided in Appendix I of this Draft EIR.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
HIRSCHDALED.R615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
0
17
34
0 41
14
-2
-1
430
46 0
0
014 37
00 0
0
0
0
101
36
430
1257
1
11
6
100
0
52
51
0 23 2
0 0 41
0
-1
17
0
-2
103
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURGH
11
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
2011 PROJECT NET IMPACT ON PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH EDINBURGH ACCESS
FIGURE 5-2
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
R.DELADHCSRIH615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
0
12
21
-3
0 12
13
-2
-1
46
16 45
0
013 35
00 0
5
3
0
97
31
320
1464
1
13
7
110
0
50
52
0 17 2
0 0 30
0
-1
17
0
-2
104
24
0 0 26
34
18
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
8
89
SITE
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
EDINBURG
H
80
80
267
Negativenumbersreflecttheshiftinexisting
trafficvolumesthatwouldusethenewprojectroadways.
NOTE:
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
2031 PROJECT NET IMPACT ON PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH EDINBURGH ACCESS
FIGURE 5-3
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
247
238
140
199
368 396
41
3897
195
279
153
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
HIRSCHDALED.R615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
89
22
5
77
121 133
0
016 45
95 7
2
2
12
254
181
13727
86128
67
60
41 101 54
33 60 110
21
129
21
21
123
112
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURGH
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
2011 PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH EDINBURGH ACCESS
FIGURE 5-4
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
225
522
379
47
221 461
54
53120
264
368
205
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
HIRSCHDALED.R615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
126
34
7
97
163
167
0
016 43
98 112
40
15
144
217
168
15227
120208
54
117
51 179 32
84 24 147
29
131
23
21
123
113
945
38 45 161
272
381
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE
0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURG
H
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2014.
2031 PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH EDINBURGH ACCESS
FIGURE 5-5
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-23
Therefore, overall impacts to transportation and traffic under Alternative B would
be similar to those of the proposed project.
o. Utilities and Service Systems (Sewer, Water, Solid Waste, Natural Gas and
Electricity)
Under Alternative B, the same demand for utilities and services would occur as that
of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to these utilities and service systems
would be the same as those of the proposed project.
3. Relationship of the Alternative to the Objectives
Under Alternative B, the proposed project would be constructed in the exact same
way as that of the proposed project. However, the gated emergency only vehicular
access point at Edinburgh Drive would provide unrestricted access. Therefore,
Alternative B would meet all of the project objectives.
E. Alternative C: No Open Space Crossing (185 Lots)
1. Description
Alternative C would be similar to the proposed project with the exception of pro-
ject access and lot cluster design. Under Alternative C, the proposed roadway that
connects the eastern and western sides of the project through the open space area
would be gated and restricted to use by emergency vehicles only. Consequently,
access to the development would be from Edinburgh drive on the west and Martis
Peak Road on the north. The west side would include 64 lots (compared to 100 lots
under the proposed project) and the north side would include 121 lots (compared
to 85 lots under the proposed project). The 121 lots on the northern side would be
smaller than the proposed project, resulting in the same development area. The
west side would have fewer lots under Alternative C and the overall building area
would be reduced; however, all buffers between the Glenshire area to the west
would be the same as the proposed project. All other aspects of the project would
be the same as those described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the 2012 Draft
EIR. A site plan of this alternative is shown in Figure 5-6.
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new development
with landscaping improvements would occur on the site in the same manner that
would occur under the proposed project, albeit slightly less on the west side due to
the reduced lots. Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the pro-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-24
ject’s less-than-significant impacts to aesthetics. Overall, impacts to aesthetics un-
der this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project since devel-
opment would be less on the west side.
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Similar to the proposed project, no agricultural lands would be impacted by devel-
opment on the project site. Therefore, agricultural impacts would be the same as
those of the proposed project. Under Alternative C, slightly less tree removal
would occur due to less development occurring on the west side. Therefore, this
alternative would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts
to agricultural and forestry resources, but it would reduce the impacts. Overall,
impacts to agricultural and forestry resources under this alternative would be less
than those of the proposed project.
c. Air Quality
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at generally the same
level as that of the proposed project. Less tree removal would occur on the west
side due to fewer lots. Thus, this alternative would generate the same degree of
fugitive dust and other pollutant emissions associated with construction activities at
the site. Additionally, under Alternative C, the same number of new traffic trips
would be generated resulting in similar criteria pollutants emission as the proposed
project. However, this alternative would generate fewer VMT in the region during
the summer PM peak hour due to the open access point at Edinburgh Drive, which
would result in fewer emissions. All mitigation measures that are applicable to the
proposed project would also be applied to Alternative C. Therefore, this alternative
would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant or significant-but-
mitigable impacts to air quality. Overall, construction impacts would be the same as
the proposed project and operational air quality impacts would be less than that of
the proposed project.
ALTERNATIVE C (NO OPEN SPACE CROSSING) SITE PLAN
Source: SCO Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 5-6
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
4000 800 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-27
d. Biological Resources
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new development
and landscaping improvements would occur on the site in generally the same man-
ner that would occur under the proposed project, with less development occurring
on the west side. It is possible that fewer trees would be retained on the smaller lots
in the northern portion of the project site. While future traffic would not routinely
cross the open space corridor located in the middle of the site, no impacts were
identified in the Draft EIR that would be reduced by prohibiting such access.
Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-
significant impacts to biological resources. Furthermore, all mitigation measures
that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative C;
therefore Alternative C would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-
mitigable impacts to biological resources. Overall, impacts to biological resources
under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project.
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative C, the ground-disturbing activities would be generally the same
as those of the proposed project with less development occurring on the west side.
Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-
significant impacts to human remains. All mandatory regulations and mitigation
measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Al-
ternative C; therefore Alternative C would not eliminate or reduce the project’s
significant-but-mitigable impacts to unknown archaeological resources or unknown
paleontological resources. Overall, impacts to cultural resources under this alterna-
tive would be the same as those of the proposed project.
f. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under Alternative C, new development would occur on the site in the same man-
ner as that of the proposed project, but with less development on the west side. It
is possible that increased grading would occur under this alternative due to the
smaller lot sizes on the northern portion of the project site, because the smaller lots
would require a reduced length to transition driveways into the lots to the finish
floor elevation. Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate the proposed pro-
ject’s less-than-significant impacts related to soil/geologic instabilities (i.e. seismici-
ty and ground shaking, flooding, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and expansive and
corrosive soils). All mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project
would also be applied to Alternative C; therefore Alternative C would not eliminate
or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to fault rupture, geologic
and soil instabilities, and soil erosion/loss of topsoil. Overall, impacts to geology
and soils under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-28
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at generally the same
level as that of the proposed project, but with less development on the west side,
which would consequently reduce the VMT generated. Thus, this alternative would
generate slightly less net increase in GHG emissions as that of the proposed pro-
ject. All mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also
be applied to Alternative C; therefore Alternative C would not eliminate or reduce
the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts related to GHG emissions. Overall,
impacts from GHG emissions under this alternative would be less than those of
the proposed project.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the same level as
that of the proposed project. This Draft EIR found that potential impacts associat-
ed with the development of the project with respect to the high voltage transmis-
sion line hazards in the project area would be less than significant; accordingly, the
same would be true for Alternative C. Further, all mitigation measures that are ap-
plicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative C; therefore
Alternative C would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable
impacts related to introducing a residential development in an area with a high risk
of wildfire hazards. Under Alternative C, as under Alternative B, with the Edin-
burgh access open, more project trips would tend to use surface streets to access
locations to the west. Therefore, under an emergency evacuation situation more
vehicles would be expected to exit the site to the west. However, as under the pro-
posed project, intersections between the project site and major points west and
east, including State Route 267 and Interstate 80, would operate under acceptable
traffic conditions. Therefore, traffic congestion under Alternative C would not be
expected to interfere with emergency evacuation. Overall, impacts from hazards
under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed project.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative C, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction and land-
scaping improvements would occur at the project site at the same general level as
that of the proposed project, but with fewer lots on the west side. It is possible that
increased grading would occur under this alternative due to the smaller lot sizes on
the northern portion of the project site, because the smaller lots would require a
reduced length to transition driveways into the lots to the finish floor elevation.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-29
However, this alternative would have generally the same significant-but-mitigable
water quality impacts from the sedimentation of on-site and off-site watercourses
and urban runoff associated with the development on the site. All mitigation
measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Al-
ternative C; therefore Alternative C would not eliminate or reduce the project’s
significant-but-mitigable impacts related to water quality. Overall, impacts to hy-
drology and water quality under this alternative would be the same as those of the
proposed project.
j. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative C, a residential development would occur on the project site in
the same manner as that of the proposed project, but with less development on the
west side. Therefore, Alternative C would result in the similar land use impacts
compared to those of the proposed project. The closed access point between the
two development areas could promote connectivity between the two residential
areas within Canyon Springs and maintains connection to the adjacent residential
areas within Glenshire. For these reasons, the impacts related to policy consistency
and land use compatibility would be considered the same as those of the proposed
project compared to Alternative C.
k. Noise
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at generally the same
level as that of the proposed project, but with less development on the west side.
Under Alternative C, the infrastructure construction would span an eight-year peri-
od and the overall buildout of the proposed 185 housing lots would span approxi-
mately 20 years. However, the traffic patterns would be changed and more traffic
would be distributed on local roadways when compared to the proposed project.
While the Draft EIR found that only the roadway segment from Martis Peak Road
east of Glenshire Drive would experience an increase in project-related traffic noise
levels, and as noted in the Traffic Impact Analysis, no local roadways would experi-
ence an equivalent volume of traffic; the increase of trips on local roadways is con-
sidered a substantial change. Therefore, this alternative would result in the same
less-than-significant construction impacts, but greater operational noise impacts
compared to the proposed project.
l. Population and Housing
Similar to the project, Alternative C would result in residential uses on the project
site and as noted above, Alternative C would achieve a minimum density of at least
50 percent of the maximum allowed density and Alternative C would provide af-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-30
fordable housing. However, neither Alternative C nor the proposed project would
displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, and would not induce
unanticipated growth in the Town. As such, overall impacts to population and
housing would be the same as those of the proposed project.
m. Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, and Parks) and Recreation
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative C would result in new development of
the project site and would change the type and frequency of fire and police protec-
tion services required; therefore, impacts to these services under Alternative C
would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative C would result in the same
amount of new residential housing (i.e. 185 lots) as that of the proposed project
and therefore, would directly contribute to the population of school-aged children
that could attend the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District and would also gener-
ate the greatest users of parks and recreational facilities (families with children);
therefore, impacts to schools and parks would be the same as the proposed project.
Alternative C would also include the 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail system and
recreation center, and would provide more open space than under the proposed
project. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreational services would be the same as
those under the proposed project. Accordingly, overall impacts to public services
and recreation would be the same as those of the proposed project.
n. Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative C, the same amount of residential development on the project
site would occur and as such, the same level of new traffic trips would be generat-
ed. However, unlike the proposed project, under Alternative C the two proposed
vehicular access points at Martis Peak Road to the north of the project site and
Edinburgh Drive to the west of the project site would both provide unrestricted
access and the road that crosses the open space area through the center of the site
would be gated for emergency vehicle use only. Although the west side of the de-
velopment would contain fewer lots than the proposed project, vehicle trips on
local roadways would be higher due to the unrestricted access. ADT is projected to
increase by 995 average daily trips.
As described above, similar to Alternative B, the site access patterns would be af-
fected by the change in access options. Under Alternative C, traffic impacts would
be similar to the proposed project trips, which is under the Town’s standard re-
garding local road impacts threshold of “not more than 1,000 ADT” under existing
and future conditions. Therefore, transportation and traffic impacts under Alterna-
tive C would be similar to those of the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-31
o. Utilities and Service Systems (Sewer, Water, Solid Waste, Natural Gas and
Electricity)
Under Alternative C, the same amount of residential development on the project
site would occur and the same demand for sewer, water supply, solid waste disposal
services, natural gas, or electricity would occur. It is possible that reduced lot sizes
would allow for less flexibility for solar orientation in building design. Overall, im-
pacts to these utilities and service systems would be the same as those of the pro-
posed project.
3. Relationship of the Alternative to the Objectives
Under Alternative C, the proposed project would be constructed in generally the
same way as that of the proposed project and therefore, would meet all of the pro-
ject objectives.
F. Alternative D: Medium Density Cluster (185 lots)
1. Description
Alternative D would reduce the lot size for each of the 185 proposed residential
lots, which would decrease the overall development area and increase the open
space area from that of the proposed project. Under Alternative D, the residential
lots would be designed to be consistent with the Medium Density Residential Clus-
ter standards outlined in Table LU-7, Cluster Development Types and Applicable
Land Use Designations, in the Land Use Element of the 2025 General Plan. As
such, the residential lots would cover approximately 54 acres (approximately 3 to 4
dwelling units/acre) and public open space areas would cover approximately 230
acres, an increase of 54 acres of open space from that of the proposed project. The
development area would be reduced approximately 50 percent (53.8 acres versus
107.6 acres). In general, all other aspects of the proposed development under Al-
ternative D would be essentially the same as the proposed project in Chapter 3,
Project Description, of the 2012 Draft EIR. A site plan of this alternative is shown
in Figure 5-7.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-32
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Under Alternative D, the area of disturbance would be lower than the proposed
project and public open space areas would cover approximately 230 acres, an in-
crease of 54 acres of open space from that of the proposed project (230 acres ver-
sus 176.17 acres). Similar to the proposed project, the proposed residential lots
would be sited under the existing tree canopy and would not be developed on
hillsides, prominent slope exposures, ridges, or bluff lines. Subsequently, no views
of the site from high mountain peaks and ridges of the Sierra Nevada and Carson
Range would be adversely impacted. Under Alternative D, no development would
occur within the proposed open space area and the increased open space areas
would provide additional screening of the residential lots; therefore, adjacent resi-
dential land uses and users of the publicly accessible trails network and open space
would not be subject to blocked views of scenic resources, same as the proposed
project. The visual buffer ranging from 100 to 300 feet between the proposed
homes and the existing adjacent homes would be the same as the buffer under the
proposed project. The Draft Design Guidelines prepared for the project would also
apply to the development under Alternative D.
This alternative would not eliminate the project’s less-than-significant impacts to
aesthetics, but would slightly reduce the impacts as fewer tree and vegetation re-
moval would occur and open space would be increased. Overall, impacts to aes-
thetics under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project since
the overall development area would be reduced.
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Similar to the proposed project, no agricultural lands would be impacted by devel-
opment on the project site. Therefore, agricultural impacts would be the same as
those of the proposed project. Under Alternative D, the area of disturbance would
be reduced by 50 percent and the open space would be increased by 54 acres. Simi-
lar to the proposed project, this alternative would provide the same restoration
opportunities as the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not elimi-
nate the project’s less-than-significant impacts to agricultural and forestry re-
sources, but it would reduce the impacts. Overall, impacts to agricultural and for-
estry resources under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed pro-
ject.
ALTERNATIVE D (MEDIUM DENSITY CLUSTER) SITE PLAN
Source: SCO Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 5-7
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
4000 800 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-35
c. Air Quality
Under Alternative D, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new development
with landscaping improvements would occur on the site; however, the reduced
development area would result in less overall grading than the proposed project.
Additionally, the same number of new traffic trips would be generated, and Alter-
native D would generate pollutant emissions associated with long-term operation
of a residential development. All mitigation measures that are applicable to the
proposed project would also be applied to Alternative D. Therefore, this alternative
would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant or significant-but-
mitigable impacts to air quality. Overall, construction and operational air quality
impacts under Alternative D would be less than those of the proposed project.
d. Biological Resources
Under Alternative D, the area of disturbance would be reduced by 50 percent and
the open space would be increased by 54 acres. Fewer trees would be retained be-
cause all the lots on the project site would be smaller and more clustered than un-
der the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would
provide the same restoration opportunities as the proposed project. Alternative D
would also provide the same level of recreational and open space amenities. How-
ever, unlike the proposed project, the close proximity of the houses would create a
wall effect, which could reduce the ability of resident wildlife species to move
throughout the project site. Nonetheless, this alternative would reduce the project’s
less-than-significant impacts and significant-but-mitigable impacts to biological
resources since the overall development area would be less when compared to the
proposed project, and the same restoration opportunities would occur. All mitiga-
tion measures that are recommended for the proposed project would also be ap-
plied to Alternative D as necessary; therefore Alternative D would result in less-
than-significant impacts to biological resources, same as the proposed project.
Overall, impacts to biological resources under this alternative would be slightly less
than those of the proposed project.
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative D, the ground-disturbing activities would be less than those of
the proposed project, which reduces potential impacts to cultural resources. How-
ever, because the potential for the discovery of unknown human remains, unknown
archaeological resources and/or unknown paleontological resources would still
exist during the construction phase, Alternative D would not eliminate or reduce
the project’s less-than-significant or significant-but-mitigable impacts to unknown
cultural resources. However, all mandatory regulations and mitigation measures
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-36
that are recommended for the proposed project would also be applied to Alterna-
tive D as applicable; therefore, impacts to unknown cultural resources would be the
same as those of the proposed project. Furthermore, similar to the proposed pro-
ject, no construction would occur on the areas within the project site with known
cultural resources; therefore, impacts to cultural resources would be the same as
those of the proposed project.
f. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under Alternative D, new development would occur on the site in generally the
same manner as that of the proposed project, albeit on a smaller area (53.8 acres
versus 107.6 acres). It is possible that increased grading would occur under this
alternative due to the reduced lot sizes on the entire site, because the smaller lots
would require a reduced length to transition driveways into the lots to the finish
floor elevation. The reduction in the development area does not have any bearing
on the existing geologic setting of the project site or project area. Therefore, this
alternative would not eliminate the proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts
related to soil/geologic instabilities (i.e. seismicity and ground shaking; flooding;
liquefaction, lateral spreading; and expansive and corrosive soils). All mitigation
measures that are recommended for the proposed project would also be applied to
Alternative D as applicable; therefore Alternative D would not eliminate or reduce
the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to fault rupture, geologic and soil
instabilities and soil erosion/loss of topsoil. Overall, impacts to geology and soils
under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed project.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative D, the development area would be reduced by approximately 50
percent (53.8 acres versus 107.6 acres); however, this would not reduce the amount
of overall development. Accordingly, this alternative would generate the same net
increase in GHG emissions as that of the proposed project. Similar to the pro-
posed project, design features to reduce energy consumption would be incorpo-
rated, and Alternative D would be required to conform to applicable plans and
policies related to energy conservation and solid waste reduction, and would not
conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of reducing
GHG emissions. Nonetheless, Alternative D would not eliminate or reduce the
project’s less-than-significant impacts related to GHG emissions. Overall, impacts
from GHG emissions under this alternative would be the same as those of the
proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-37
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative D, the development area would be reduced by 50 percent from
that of the proposed project; however, the introduction of 185 residential lots
would occur on the site, which is considered to have a high risk of wildfire hazards.
Therefore, wildfire hazards would be the same as those of the proposed project.
This Draft EIR found that potential impacts associated with the development of
the project with respect to the high voltage transmission line hazards in the project
area would be less than significant; accordingly, the same would be true for Alter-
native D. Further, all mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed pro-
ject would also be applied to Alternative D; therefore Alternative D would not
eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts related to intro-
ducing a residential development in an area with a high risk of wildfire hazards.
Overall, impacts from hazards under this alternative would be the same as those of
the proposed project.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative D, new development would occur on the site in generally the
same manner as that of the proposed project, albeit on a smaller area (53.8 acres
versus 107.6 acres). However, it is possible that increased grading would occur un-
der this alternative because the smaller lots would require a reduced length to tran-
sition driveways into the lots to the finish floor elevation. Alternative D would im-
plement the same waterway setback standards that are applied to the proposed
project, and all mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project
would also be applied to Alternative D. Therefore, similar to the proposed project,
any significant water quality impacts under Alternative D would be reduced to less-
than-significant levels. However, the reduction in the development area would re-
duce the potential for water quality impacts from the sedimentation of on-site and
off-site watercourses and urban runoff associated with the development on the site.
Therefore, overall impacts to hydrology and water quality under this alternative
would be less than those of the proposed project.
j. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative D, a residential development would occur on the project site in
the same manner as that of the proposed project, but on a reduced area (53.8 acres
versus 107.6 acres). Therefore, Alternative D would meet the intent of the General
Plan land use designations for RES (Residential) 0.5 to 1 du/acre land use designa-
tions or the Town’s RS-1.0 Zoning District (Single-Family Residential, density of 1
du/acre). Furthermore, Alternative D would be consistent with the Overlay Area 6
land use designation, which requires a planned development that links access, open
space areas, and infrastructure between the properties. In addition, similar to the
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-38
proposed project, Alternative D would meet the intent of the General Plan RC/OS
and Town’s OS Zoning District.
Alternative D would achieve a minimum density of at least 50 percent of the max-
imum allowed density, and Alternative D would provide affordable housing units
consistent with the minimum 15 percent affordable housing allocation for new
residential developments (i.e. eight lots). Under Alternative D, a trail would connect
to the Town’s proposed recreational trail corridor as identified in the Town of
Truckee Trails & Bikeways Master Plan. Furthermore, Alternative D would preserve
approximately 230 acres of public open space. Overall, impacts related to policy
consistency and land use compatibility under Alternative D would be considered
the same as those of the proposed project.
k. Noise
Under Alternative D, similar to the proposed project, the same number of new
homes would occur on the project site, and therefore the same number of trips
would be generated. Under Alternative D, the infrastructure construction would
span an eight-year period and the overall buildout of the proposed 185 housing lots
would span approximately 20 years. Therefore, this alternative would result in the
same less-than-significant construction and operational noise impacts as those of
the proposed project.
l. Population and Housing
Similar to the project, Alternative D would result in residential uses on the project
site and as noted above, would achieve a minimum density of at least 50 percent of
the maximum allowed density would provide affordable housing. However, neither
Alternative D nor the proposed project would displace substantial numbers of ex-
isting housing or people, and would not induce unanticipated growth in the Town.
As such, overall impacts to population and housing would be the same as those of
the proposed project.
m. Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, and Parks) and Recreation
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative D would result in new development of
the project site and would change the type and frequency of fire and police protec-
tion services required; therefore, impacts to these services under Alternative D
would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative D would result in the same
amount of new residential housing (i.e. 185 lots) as that of the proposed project
and therefore, would directly contribute to the population of school-aged children
that could attend the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District. Furthermore, Alter-
native D would also generate the greatest users of parks and recreational facilities
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-39
(families with children); therefore, impacts to schools and parks would be the same
as the proposed project.
Alternative D would also include the same publicly accessible trail system and rec-
reation center and would provide more open space than under the proposed pro-
ject. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreational services would be the same as
those under the proposed project. Accordingly, overall impacts to public services
and recreation would be the same as those of the proposed project.
n. Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative D, the same amount of residential development on the project
site would occur and as such, the same level of new traffic trips would be generated
under both 2011 and 2031 conditions. As with the proposed project, vehicular ac-
cess at Edinburgh Drive would be restricted to emergency vehicles only. All mitiga-
tion measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to
Alternative D; therefore Alternative D would not eliminate or reduce the project’s
significant-but-mitigable impacts related to transportation and traffic. Overall, im-
pacts to transportation and traffic under this alternative would be the same as those
of the proposed project.
o. Utilities and Service Systems (Sewer, Water, Solid Waste, Natural Gas and
Electricity)
Under Alternative D, the same amount of residential development on the project
site would occur and like the proposed project the same demand for sewer, water
supply, solid waste disposal services, natural gas, or electricity would occur. It is
possible that reduced lot sizes would reduce flexibility for solar orientation in build-
ing design. Overall, impacts to these utilities and service systems would be the same
as those of the proposed project.
p. Relationship of the Alternative to the Objectives
Alternative D would meet all of the project objectives given the similarity to the
proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-40
G. Alternative E: Reduced Density (88 Lots)
1. Description
Alternative E is a reduced density development that proposes the number of lots to
be reduced by 53 percent compared to the proposed project (88 lots compared to
185 lots) over the proposed development area of 107.59 acres. Under this alterna-
tive the development area would essentially be the same as the proposed project;
however, the lot sizes would be larger than those of the proposed project. Alterna-
tive E would result in one dwelling unit per 1.2 acres. All other development as-
pects of Alternative E would be the same as those of the proposed project de-
scribed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the 2012 Draft EIR. A site plan of this
alternative is shown in Figure 5-8.
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Under Alternative E, fewer homes would be constructed and housing lots would
be larger than those of the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the
lots would be sited under the existing tree canopy and would not be developed on
hillsides, prominent slope exposures, ridges, or bluff lines. Subsequently, no views
of the site from high mountain peaks and ridges of the Sierra Nevada and Carson
Range would be adversely impacted. Under Alternative E, no development would
occur within the proposed public open space area and the public open space areas
would provide screening of the residential lots; therefore, as with the proposed
project, adjacent residential land uses and users of the publicly accessible trails net-
work and public open space would not be subject to blocked views of scenic re-
sources. Development areas and visual buffers ranging from 100 to 300 feet be-
tween the proposed homes and the existing adjacent homes would be the same as
the proposed project. The Draft Design Guidelines prepared for the project would
also apply to the development under Alternative E.
Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate the project’s less-than-significant
impacts to aesthetics, but would slightly reduce the area of disturbance, including
trees and vegetation. Overall, impacts to aesthetics under this alternative would be
less than those of the proposed project since the development would be reduced
from that of the proposed project.
ALTERNATIVE E (REDUCED DENSITY) SITE PLAN
Source: SCO Planning, Engineering & Surveying.
FIGURE 5-8
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
3000 600 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-42
Back of 5-8
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-43
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Similar to the proposed project, no agricultural lands would be impacted by devel-
opment on the project site. Therefore, agricultural impacts would be the same as
those of the proposed project. Under Alternative E, the overall development area
would be the same as that of the proposed project, but the development on indi-
vidual housing lots would be reduced from that of the proposed project; therefore,
fewer trees would likely be removed and less land disturbance would occur when
compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative
would provide the same restoration opportunities and amenities. Accordingly, this
alternative would reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts to agricultural
and forestry resources. Overall, impacts to agricultural and forestry under this al-
ternative would be less than those of the proposed project.
c. Air Quality
Under Alternative E, less fugitive dust and other criteria pollutant emissions associ-
ated with construction activities at the site would be generated. Additionally, under
Alternative E, the development of 88 housing units would generate lower traffic
volumes overall and therefore fewer air emissions associated with long-term opera-
tion of a residential development. All mitigation measures that are applicable to the
proposed project would also be applied to Alternative E. Therefore, this alternative
would slightly reduce the project’s less-than-significant or significant-but-mitigable
impacts to air quality, but would not eliminate the impacts. Overall, construction
and operational air quality impacts under Alternative E would be less than that of
the proposed project.
d. Biological Resources
Under Alternative E, the overall development area would be the same as that of the
proposed project, but the development on individual housing lots would be re-
duced from that of the proposed project. Therefore, less land disturbance would
occur when compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project this
alternative would provide the same restoration opportunities and amenities. Ac-
cordingly, this alternative would reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts
or significant-but-mitigable impacts to biological resources. All mitigation measures
that are recommended for the proposed project would also be applied to Alterna-
tive E as applicable; therefore Alternative E would result in less-than-significant
impacts to biological resources, same as the project. Overall, impacts to biological
resources under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-44
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative E, the ground-disturbing activities would be generally the same
as those of the proposed project since the overall development area would be the
same. Therefore, this alternative would be a slight improvement to the proposed
project. All mandatory regulations and mitigation measures that are recommend for
the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative E as applicable; therefore
Alternative E would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable
impacts to unknown archaeological resources or unknown paleontological re-
sources. Overall, impacts to cultural resources under this alternative would be less
than those of the proposed project, because of less ground disturbance.
f. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under Alternative E, new development would occur on the site in the same man-
ner as that of the proposed project albeit with fewer residential lots (88 lots com-
pared to 185 lots). However, as with any development on the site, the reduction in
the development area does not have any bearing on the existing geologic setting of
the project site or project area. Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate the
proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts related to soil/geologic conditions.
All mitigation measures that are recommended for the proposed project would also
be applied to Alternative E as applicable; therefore Alternative E would not elimi-
nate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to fault rupture, geo-
logic and soil instabilities and soil erosion/loss of topsoil. Overall, impacts to geol-
ogy and soils under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed
project.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative E, the development area would be the same as that of the pro-
posed project; however, homes would be constructed resulting in fewer GHG
emissions than those of the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project de-
sign features to reduced energy consumption would be incorporated, and Alterna-
tive E would be in conformance with applicable plans and policies related to energy
conservation and solid waste reduction, and would not conflict with any applicable
plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Nonethe-
less, Alternative E would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant
impacts related to GHG emissions, but overall, impacts from GHG emissions un-
der this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative E, the development area would be the same as that of the pro-
posed project, but fewer homes would ultimately be constructed (88 lots versus 185
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-45
lots) than the proposed project and the introduction of residential lots in an area
considered to have a high risk of wildfire hazards would occur. Therefore, wildfire
hazards would be the same as those of the proposed project. This Draft EIR found
that potential impacts associated with the development of the project with respect
to the high voltage transmission line hazards in the project area would be less than
significant; accordingly, the same would be true for Alternative E. Further, all miti-
gation measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied
to Alternative E; therefore Alternative E would not eliminate or reduce the pro-
ject’s significant-but-mitigable impacts related to introducing a residential develop-
ment in an area with a high risk of wildfire hazards. Overall, impacts from hazards
under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed project.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative E, the overall development area would be the same as that of the
proposed project, but less development would occur (88 lots compared to 185
lots). Accordingly, the overall grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new con-
struction and landscaping improvements would be less than that of the proposed
project. Alternative E would implement the same waterway setback standards that
are applied to the proposed project, and all mitigation measures that are applicable
to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative E. Therefore, this
alternative would reduce the potential for water quality impacts from the sedimen-
tation of on-site and off-site watercourses and urban runoff associated with the
development on the site same as the proposed project. Overall, impacts to hydrol-
ogy and water quality under this alternative would be less than those of the pro-
posed project since less development would occur.
j. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative E, a reduced density residential development is proposed. There-
fore, Alternative E would meet the intent of the General Plan land use designations
for RES (Residential) 0.5 to 1 du/acre land use designations or the Town’s RS-1.0
Zoning District (Single-Family Residential, density of 1 du/acre). Furthermore,
Alternative E would be consistent with the Overlay Area 6 land use designation,
which requires a planned development that links access, open space areas, and in-
frastructure between the properties. In addition, similar to the proposed project,
Alternative E would meet the intent of the General Plan RC/OS and Town’s OS
Zoning District. However, Alternative E would not achieve a minimum density of
at least 50 percent of the maximum allowed density.
As with any development on the project site, a minimum 15 percent affordable
housing allocation for new residential developments would be required under Al-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-46
ternative E. Under Alternative E, a trail would connect to the Town’s proposed
recreational trail corridor as identified in the Town of Truckee Trails and Bikeways
Master Plan. Furthermore, Alternative E would preserve 176.17 acres of public open
space, as under the proposed project. Overall, since Alternative E would not meet
the minimum density standards, impacts would be considered greater than those of
the proposed project.
k. Noise
Under Alternative E, fewer new homes would occur on the project site and there-
fore fewer vehicle trips would be generated. Under Alternative E the infrastructure
construction would span an eight-year period and the overall buildout of the pro-
posed 88 housing lots would span approximately 20 years, same as the proposed
project. Therefore, while this alternative would result in the same less-than-
significant construction and operational noise impacts as those of the proposed
project, the overall noise impacts would be less due to fewer vehicle trips and less
overall construction.
l. Population and Housing
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative E would result in residential uses on
the project site. As noted above, Alternative E would not achieve a minimum den-
sity of at least 50 percent of the maximum allowed density, but would provide af-
fordable housing as required. However, neither Alternative E nor the proposed
project would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, and
would not induce unanticipated growth in the Town. As such, overall impacts to
population and housing would be the same as those of the proposed project.
m. Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, and Parks) and Recreation
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative E would result in new development of
the project site and would change the type and frequency of fire and police protec-
tion services required albeit less than that of the proposed project, and impacts to
these services under Alternative E would be the similar to those of the proposed
project. Alternative E would result new residential housing and therefore, would
directly contribute to the population of school-aged children that could attend the
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District. Alternative E would also generate the
greatest users of parks and recreational facilities (families with children); therefore,
impacts to schools and parks would be the similar to that of the proposed project.
Alternative E would also include the publicly accessible trail system and recreation
center, thus impacts to parks and recreational services would be the same as those
under the proposed project. Accordingly, overall impacts to public services and
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-47
recreation would generally be the less when compared to those of the proposed
project as fewer residential lots are proposed.
n. Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative E, less residential development on the project site would occur
and as such, fewer new traffic trips would be generated under both 2011 and 2031
conditions. Because the mitigation measures that are recommended for the pro-
posed project are required to improve existing deficiencies to which the addition of
any new trips would result in significant impact, the mitigation measures would also
be applied to Alternative E as applicable; therefore Alternative E would not elimi-
nate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts related to transporta-
tion and traffic. Overall, impacts to transportation and traffic under this alternative
would generally be the less than those of the proposed project since fewer trips
would be generated.
3. Utilities and Service Systems (Sewer, Water, Solid Waste, Natural Gas
and Electricity)
Under Alternative E, less residential development on the project site would occur
and therefore less demand for sewer, water supply, solid waste disposal services,
natural gas, or electricity would occur. Therefore, impacts to these utilities and ser-
vice systems would be the less than those of the proposed project.
4. Relationship of the Alternative to the Objectives
Under Alternative E, the proposed project would be constructed in a similar man-
ner as that of the proposed project, but with fewer residential lots. Therefore, Al-
ternative E would meet all of the project objectives.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-48
H. Alternative F: Open Space Buffer (185 Lots)
1. Description
Alternative F would result in less development in the southeast corner of the pro-
ject site when compared to the proposed project. Development under this alterna-
tive would provide an increased buffer between the development area and the open
space in the southeast corner of the project site. As such, the public open space
areas would cover 180.8 acres, an increase of approximately 4.6 acre of open space
from that of the proposed project. In general, all other aspects of the project would
be the same as those described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the 2012 Draft
EIR. A site plan of this alternative is shown in Figure 5-9.
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Under Alternative F, grading, tree and vegetation removal and new development
with landscaping improvements would generally occur on the site in the same
manner that would occur under the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative
would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts to aesthet-
ics. Overall, impacts to aesthetics under this alternative would be the same as those
of the proposed project since development would be the same with the exception
of one less acre of development in the southeast corner of the project site.
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Similar to the proposed project, no agricultural lands would be impacted by devel-
opment on the project site. Therefore, agricultural impacts would be the same as
those of the proposed project. Under Alternative F, grading, tree and vegetation
removal, and new development and landscaping improvements would occur on the
site in the same manner that would occur under the proposed project. Therefore,
this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant
impacts to agricultural and forestry resources. Overall, impacts to agricultural and
forestry resources under this alternative would be the same as those of the pro-
posed project.
ALTERNATIVE F (OPEN SPACE BUFFERS) SITE PLAN
Source: SCO Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 5-9
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-51
c. Air Quality
Under Alternative F, air quality impacts would occur at the same level as those of
the proposed project. Thus, this alternative would generate the same degree of fugi-
tive dust and other pollutant emissions associated with construction activities at the
site. Additionally, under Alternative F, the same number of new traffic trips would
be generated and Alternative F would generate pollutant emissions associated with
long-term operation of a residential development. All mitigation measures that are
applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative F. There-
fore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-
significant or significant-but-mitigable impacts to air quality. Overall, construction
and operational air quality impacts under Alternative F would be the same of the
proposed project.
d. Biological Resources
Under Alternative F, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new development
and landscaping improvements would occur on the site in the same manner that
would occur under the proposed project. However, under this alternative, the over-
all development footprint would be reduced by approximately 4.6 acres in the
southeast corner of the project site. This would provide an additional open space
buffer between the future homes and the undeveloped land in the southeast corner
of the site. In addition, the portion of the publicly accessible trail system would be
re-routed to avoid direct access to the southeast corner of the project site, which
includes the large pebble meadow. Consistent with Town Policies regarding preser-
vation of open space, maintaining the southeastern portion of the subject property
as open space would provide protection for the pebble meadow habitat and would
preclude introduction of any barriers to wildlife movement.
Therefore, this alternative would further reduce the project’s less-than-significant
impacts to biological resources by providing additional open space for sensitive
biological habitat. Furthermore, all mitigation measures and project design features
that minimize impacts to wildlife corridors and resident wildlife species that are
applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative F; therefore
Alternative F would further reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts
to biological resources. Overall, impacts to biological resources under this alterna-
tive would be similar to those of the proposed project.
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative F, the ground-disturbing activities would be similar to those of
the proposed project, albeit at a slightly reduced area. Therefore, this alternative
would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts to human
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-52
remains. All mandatory regulations and mitigation measures that are applicable to
the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative F; therefore, Alternative
F would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to
unknown archaeological resources or unknown paleontological resources. Overall,
impacts to cultural resources under this alternative would be similar to those of the
proposed project.
f. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under Alternative F, new development would occur on the site in generally the
same manner as that of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not
eliminate the proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts related to
soil/geologic conditions (i.e. seismicity and ground shaking, flooding, liquefaction,
lateral spreading, and expansive and corrosive soils). All mitigation measures that
are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative F;
therefore, Alternative F would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-
mitigable impacts to fault rupture, geologic and soil instabilities, and soil ero-
sion/loss of topsoil. Overall, impacts to geology and soils under this alternative
would be the same as those of the proposed project.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative F, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at generally the same
level as those of the proposed project. Under this alternative, slightly more grading
and vegetation removal would occur to realign the publicly accessible trail in the
southeast corner of the site. Thus, this alternative would generate about the same
net increase in GHG emissions as that of the proposed project. All mitigation
measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Al-
ternative F; therefore, Alternative F would not eliminate or reduce the project’s
significant-but-mitigable impacts related to GHG emissions. Overall, impacts from
GHG emissions under this alternative would be the same of those of the proposed
project.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative F, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the same level as
those of the proposed project. This Draft EIR found that potential impacts associ-
ated with the development of the project with respect to the high voltage transmis-
sion line hazards in the project area would be less than significant; accordingly, the
same would be true for Alternative F. Further, all mitigation measures that are ap-
plicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative F; therefore,
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-53
Alternative F would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable
impacts related to introducing a residential development in an area with a high risk
of wildfire hazards. Overall, impacts from hazards under this alternative would be
the same as those of the proposed project.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative F, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the same level as
those of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would have the same sig-
nificant-but-mitigable water quality impacts from the sedimentation of on-site and
off-site watercourses and urban runoff associated with the development on the site.
All mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be
applied to Alternative F; therefore, Alternative F would not eliminate or reduce the
project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts related to water quality. Overall, impacts
to hydrology and water quality under this alternative would be the same as those of
the proposed project.
j. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative F, a residential development would occur on the project site in
generally the same manner as that of the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative F
would meet the intent of the General Plan land use designations for RES (Residen-
tial) 0.5 to 1 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) land use designations or the Town’s
RS-1.0 Zoning District (Single-Family Residential, density of 1 du/acre). Further-
more, Alternative F would be consistent with the Overlay Area 6 land use designa-
tion, which requires a planned development that links access, open space areas, and
infrastructure between the properties. In addition, similar to the proposed project,
Alternative F would meet the intent of the General Plan RC/OS and Town’s OS
Zoning District.
Under Alternative F, the residential land uses on the site would be consistent with
the overall intent of the General Plan land use designations and the Town’s zoning
districts for the site. Alternative F would achieve a minimum density of at least 50
percent of the maximum allowed density and Alternative F would provide afforda-
ble housing units consistent with the minimum 15 percent affordable housing allo-
cation for new residential developments (i.e. eight lots). As such, impacts related to
policy consistency and land use compatibility would be considered similar to those
of the proposed project under Alternative F.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-54
k. Noise
Under Alternative F, similar to the proposed project, the same number of new
homes would occur on the project site, and therefore the same number of trips
would be generated. Under Alternative F, the infrastructure construction would
span an eight-year period and the overall buildout of the proposed 185 housing lots
would span approximately 20 years. Therefore, this alternative would result in the
same less-than-significant construction and operational noise impacts as those of
the proposed project.
l. Population and Housing
Similar to the project, Alternative F would result in residential uses on the project
site and as noted above, would achieve a minimum density of at least 50 percent of
the maximum allowed density and provide affordable housing. However, neither
Alternative F, nor the proposed project would displace substantial numbers of ex-
isting housing or people, and would not induce unanticipated growth in the Town.
As such, overall impacts to population and housing would be the same as those of
the proposed project.
m. Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, and Parks) and Recreation
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative F would result in new development of
the project site and would change the type and frequency of fire and police protec-
tion services required; therefore, impacts to these services under Alternative F
would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative F would result in the same
amount of new residential housing (i.e. 185 lots) as that of the proposed project,
and therefore, would directly contribute to the population of school-aged children
that could attend the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District, and would also gen-
erate the greatest users of parks and recreational facilities (families with children);
therefore, impacts to schools and parks would be the same as the proposed project.
Alternative F would also include the 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail system and
recreation center, thus impacts to parks and recreational services would be the
same as those under the proposed project. Accordingly, overall impacts to public
services and recreation would be the same as those of the proposed project.
n. Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative F, the same amount of residential development on the project
site would occur and as such, the same level of new traffic trips would be generated
under both 2011 and 2031 conditions. As with the proposed project, vehicular ac-
cess at Edinburgh Drive would be restricted to emergency vehicles only. All mitiga-
tion measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to
Alternative F; therefore, Alternative F would not eliminate or reduce the project’s
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-55
significant-but-mitigable impacts related to transportation and traffic. Overall, im-
pacts to transportation and traffic under this alternative would be the same as those
of the proposed project.
o. Utilities and Service Systems (Sewer, Water, Solid Waste, Natural Gas and
Electricity)
Under Alternative F, the same demand for utilities and services would occur as that
of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to these utilities and service systems
would be the same as those of the proposed project.
3. Relationship of the Alternative to the Objectives
Under Alternative F, the proposed project would be constructed in the same way as
that of the proposed project, but would preserve and additional acre of open space
and slightly re-route the publicly accessible trail system. Therefore, Alternative F
would meet all of the project objectives.
I. Environmentally Superior Alternative
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the proposed project
and the alternatives, Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that
an “environmentally superior” alternative be selected and the reasons for such a
selection to be disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is the
alternative that would be expected to generate the least amount of significant im-
pacts. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational
procedure and the alternative selected may not be the alternative that best meets
the goals or needs of the Town. The project under consideration cannot be identi-
fied as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Additionally, in accordance with
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the Environmentally Superior
Alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environ-
mentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
As discussed in the analysis above, Alternative D (Medium Density Cluster: 185
lots) and Alternative E (Reduced Density Alternative: 88 lots) would result in less
development than that of the proposed project and would therefore reduce the
less-than-significant impacts to aesthetics and agricultural and forestry resources.
Alternative D and E would also reduce the significant-but-mitigable impacts to air
quality, biological resources, and hydrology and water quality. However, Alternative
E would also reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts to noise and public
services, and the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to cultural resources,
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-56
greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation and traffic due to the reduced num-
ber of lots. For these reasons, Alterative E is considered the Environmentally Supe-
rior Alternative. Alternative E would meet the project objectives, decrease the
overall development area and increase the open space area from that of the pro-
posed project and, with 185 lots, would achieve the minimum density of at least 50
percent of the maximum allowed density.