Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPublic Comment #042 (MAP-SOSG)SHUTE,MIHALY U---\ØE IN B E RG E, R np 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T: (a1s) s52-7272 F: (415) ss2-s816 www.smwlaw.com ELLISON FOLK Atto rn ey folk@smwlaw.com November 19,2014 Via E-Mail and Federøl Express Ms. Denyelle Nishimori Town of Truckee 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee, CA 96161 Re: Canvon Sprinss ect Revised Draft Tmnact Reoort Dear Ms. Nishirnorr: On behalf of Mountain Area Preservation Foundation ("MAP") and Saving Open Space around Glenshire ("SOSG"), we have reviewed the September 2014 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report ("RDEIR") for the proposed Canyon Springs Project ("Project"). As you are aware, this firm submitted an extensive comment letter on the 2012 DEIR for the same project. In response to our DEIR comments and those submitted by rnany others, the Town required revised analyses related to the Project's impacts on transportation and biological resources and of Alternatives to the Project. The Town has now released its revised DEIR for the proposed Project. We submit this letter to state our position that the RDEIR does not comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, for all of the reasons set forth below, as well as all of the reasons stated in our letter of March 5,2013 commenting on the DEIR ("SMW DEIR letter"), which is attached as Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein in its entirety. Because the RDEIR fails to address our previous comments we are resubmitting our comments on the DEIR as well as submitting additional comtnents on the RDEIR. This letter, along with the transportation report prepared by MRO Engineers, attached as Exhibit B, and the report on biological resources by Conservation Biology Institute ("CBI"), attached as Exhibit C, constitute MAP's and SOSG's additional comments on the EIR. We respectfully refer the Town to the MRO report and the CBI report, both here and throughout these comments, for further detail and Ms. Denyelle Nishimori November 19,2014 Page2 discussion of the EIR's inadequacies. We request that the Town respond to all of the comments subrnitted herein, including our comments on the DEIR. I. The RDEIR Ignores Many of the Issues Raised by SOS Glenshire and MAP in Their Initial Comments on the DEIR. Approximately one year ago, members of the public expressed outrage at the failure of the Project's proponents to present a clear project description and a thorough environmental analysis of the Project's 185 plus homes. Now, one year later, the RDEIR is plagued by the same problems and the RDEIR still clings to its unsupportable conclusion that this residential project will cause no significant impacts, despite evidence in the record to the contrary. It is confounding to us that the Town took the time and energy to prepare a revised DEIR but failed to address most of its real inadequacies. The SMW DEIR letter raised numerous deficiencies in the project description, the environmental impact analyses, and the alternatives analysis. The RDEIR remains inadequate and subject to a number of the same deficiencies as its predecessor. It ignores most of the flawed impact analyses and makes half-hearted corrections to others. In addition, the Project demonstrates a disturbing disregard for the Truckee General Plan and completely ignores the Project's fundamental conflict with the Town's General Plan. In light of these fundamental CEQA violations, the Project may not be approved on the basis of this EIR. One of the RDEIR's most glaring inadequacies relates to its continued reliance on an unstable project description. The DEIR acknowledged signihcant Project irnpacts to arcawatercourses resulting from increased run-off and associated pollutants and sedimentation. Yet, the RDEIR provides no additional information on project elements relevant to these impacts. The RDEIR's analysis of Project impacts is based on an incomplete description of the Project since it continues to rely on an outdated drainage plan that does not appear to be feasible for the site. SMW DEIR letter at3, attached as Exhibit A. Similarly, the DEIR presented misleading information about the Project including setbacks from on-site watercourses. SMW DEIR letter at 4. The RDEIR provides no information to correct these elrors. The RDEIR continues to rely on outdated data and methodologies and fails to accurately describe the existing setting of the Project site and adjacent areas. For exarnple, the RDEIR fails to accurately describe existing traffic conditions in the Project area. Instead, the RDEIR relies on outdated data to perform level of service calculations. The RDEIR also continues to rely on estimated peak hour and daily traffrc volumes rather than actual traffic counts of existing traffic, even though such data collection is standard SHUTE/ MIHALY e>-vEtNBERCERLLp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori November 19,2014 Page 3 practice for conducting an accurate traffic impact analysis. MRO Report at 2 and 3 . Similarly, the RDEIR relies on outdated biological surveys and fails to adequately describe the Project's biological setting. Specif,rcally, the RDEIR continues to rely on outdated vegetation maps and defers data collection and analysis of Project impacts to the several special status species including the State threatened Sierra Nevada Red Fox. RDEIR at 4.4-50 and 4.4-51. Moreover, the RDEIR completely ignores previous cornments regarding the EIR's reliance on site surveys dating back to 2003 for the description of the site's hydrology and drainage conditions. SMW DEIR letter at 6. Thus, the RDEIR fails to provide an accurate baseline for the Project. With regard to biological resource impacts, this RDEIR plays down the Project area's recognized high sensitivity and dramatically understates the importance of the Project site as a wildlife corridor, providing connectivity to other open spaces in the area. The site and the vicinity contain locally and regionally significant natural resources. RDEIR at 4.4-24-4.4-35; CBI Report at 9 . Yet, the RDEIR again takes a blinkered approach to evaluating impacts on biological resources and fails to adequately analyze the Project's long terrn effects on sensitive species. Perhaps most importantly, the RDEIR continues to assert that the Project's open spac e area will be adequate to serve as a migration corridor for the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee deer herd. As discussed extensively in our DEIR comments, and as made clear in comments from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW"), "the Project will significantly impact foraging habitat and the migration corridor" of this herd. See CDFW DEIR comment letter dating March 1,2013 and SMW DEIR letter at 16-19. Ignoring previous comments, the RDEIR continues to defer analysis and mitigation of impacts related to traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology, and water quality to some point in the future. For example, the RDEIR continues to rely on a drainage plan that is likely infeasible on the project site. SMW DEIR letter at 13 and 14. The DEIR deferred analysis of the Project site's infiltration capacity and the RDEIR fails to provide the omitted analysis. But this deferral of mitigation violates CEQA. See CEQA Guidelines g 15 f26.a@)Q)(B) ("Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time."); Communíties þr a Better Environment v. City of Richmond, I 84 Cal.App.4th 7 0, 93 (20 10). On land-use impacts, the RDEIR similarly misses the mark, failing to account for manifest violations of the current Town of Truckee General Plan. The Project continues to be fatally inconsistent with multiple provisions of the Town's General Plan. SMW DEIR letter at26-27 and32. Furthermore, the Project's SHUTE/ MIHALY e¡-VEINBERCERLLT Ms. Denyelle Nishimori November 19,2014 Page 4 inconsistency with the General Plan results in the Town's inability to make the necessary findings under zoning code requirements to grant the use permit for the site. Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter 18.96 - Tentative Map Filing And Processing, Section 18.96.060 and Chapter 18.30, General Property Development Standards, Section 1 8.30.050.F.3. The RDEIR continues to ignore the Project's growth inducing impacts. As explained in the SMW DEIR letter, the Project would be required to install infrastructure sized to serve the adjacent property (i.e., the Teel parcel) and to provide easements to facilitate future service to that property, which is within the Town's Sphere of Influence. SMW DEIR letter at 31 and 32. The Teel parcel comprises 850 acres zoned for Planned Residential Development (PRD) which could result in the development of 250 plus homes and commercial development. Therefore, the Project would facilitate new growth by removing the obstacle of limited existing infrastructure. The RDEIR fails to provide any analysis of this growth inducing impact. il. The Revised DEIR for the Project Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate Significant Project Impacts. CEQA requires thaf an EIR provide the analysis and detail about environmental impacts that is necessary to enable decision-makers to make intelligent decisions in light of the environmental consequences of their actions. See CEQA Guidelines g 15 l5l; King County Farm Bureau v. Cíty of Hanford,22l Cal.App.3 d 692 (1990). The EIR is also the "primary means" of ensuring that public agencies "take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance" the environment. Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'nv. Regents of the University of California,4T Ca1.3d 376,392 (1988). Thus, CEQA incorporates a substantive requirement that the lead agency adopt feasible rnitigation measures or alternatives that can substantially lessen the project's significant environrnental impacts. Pub. Resources Code $ 21002; CEQA Guidelines $ 15002(aX3). Finally, the EIR is a "document of accountability," intended to demonstrate to the public that the agency has considered the environmental implications of its action. Laurel Heights,4T Cal.3d at392. As detailed below, the RDEIR does not comply with CEQA's requirements or satisfy CEQA's objectives: (1) the RDEIR fails to provide suff,rcient information about the Project's impacts to enable informed decision-making by the Town; (2) the RDEIR fails to satisfy CEQA's substantive mitigation requirement; and (3) the RDEIR fails to demonstrate to the public that the Town has fully grappled with the environmental implications the Proj ect. SHUTE/ MIHALY U'-vIEINBERCERLL' Ms. Denyelle Nishimorr November 19,2014 Page 5 As documented in our previous comments and below, the Project RDEIR fails to adequately analyze or support with substantial evidence its conclusions regarding the Project's significant environmental impacts. These deficiencies clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of the RDEIR under CEQA. A. The RDEIR's Analysis of and Mitigation for the Project's Transportation Impacts Remains Factually and Legally Deficient. The RDEIR's transportation and traffic analysis contains numerous dehciencies that must be remedied if the public and decision makers are to fully understand this Project's potential effects. Specifically, the evaluation of the Project's transportation and traffic impacts must be revised to address: (1) potentially signihcant freeway system irnpacts; (2) incomplete analysis of peak traffic operation periods; (3) use of obsolete traffic volume data; (4) impacts under cumulative conditions; (5) construction related impacts; (6) safety analysis; (7) impacts to bicyclists; (8) impacts on school traffic and (9) feasible, effective mitigation measures. These issues are discussed in greater detail in the September l0,20I4,1etter of MRO Engineers ("MRO Report"), which is attached as Exhibit B. 1. The RDEIR Continues to Ignore Analysis of Potential Freeway System Impacts. The RDEIR acknowledges that a substantial amount of Project generated traff,rc will use Interstate 80. RDEIR at 4.14-30. However, as discussed in the MRO Report, the RDEIR fails to analyze potential project-related traffic impacts on the freeway mainline or at any of the on- or off-ramps or the merge/diverge points where the ramps rneet the freeway mainline. Consequently, the RDEIR fails to determine whether the proposed project will adversely impact traff,rc operations on the freeway facilities. 2. The RDEIR Presents an Incomplete Analysis of Project Traffic Operations During Peak Periods. The RDEIR's analysis focuses on traff,rc operations during the evening ("PM") peak-hour period, paying short shrift to the morning ("4M") peak hour period. This approach is unacceptable because directional traff,rc patterns are different in the two peak-hour periods, so problems that may occur during the AM period are not apparent in the PM peak hour. MRO RDEIR Report at2.For example, left turns are often the critical consideration in intersection operations. Project-generated traffic will be added to different left-turn movements in the AM and PM peak hours. By analyzing only the PM peak hour, any related AM peak hour impacts will be missed. SHUTE, N4IHALY U--wEINBERcERLLp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori November 19,2014 Page 6 CEQA requires that all signif,rcant impacts associated with the proposed project be disclosed and analyzed. Given that the AM and PM peak-hour trip generation values for the project are not substantially different and that different traffic flow patterns exist in the AM and PM peak hours, there is a reasonable likelihood that significant impacts might be found in the AM peak hour that differ from those identified in the PM peak hour. MRO RDEIR Report at 2. 3. The RDEIR Continues to Rely on Obsolete Traffic Volume Data The RDEIR, like the DEIR before it, relies on manipulated trafhc counts from 2004 to estimate existing conditions for the Project site. MRO Report at2 and3. As explained in detail in the SMW DEIR letter and the attached MRO Report, the EIR preparers had ample time to collect traffic volume data between submittal of our February 2013 comments and completion of the revised trafhc impact analysis. Id. Instead, the RDEIR continues to rely on outdated information. MRO RDEIR Report at 3. Traffic volumes represent the most critical input in evaluating level of service. If the trafhc analysis uses the wrong numbers, it will misrepresent the environmental setting and project impacts. Thus, the traffic impacts of the Project must be reanalyzed using up-to-date traffic volume data, for both peak hour and daily trafhc volume, and the EIR rnust be revised to reflect the corrected analysis. 4. The RDEIR Continues to Understate the Project's Traffic Impacts under Cumulative Conditions. Like its predecessor, the RDEIR's analysis of cumulative traffic conditions assumes the Donner Road Extension Project will be complete by the year 2031. As we explained in our previous comments, this project is tied to the private sector Railyard Master Plan project. As such, it is not guaranteed to be implemented. Similarly, the RDEIR assumes completion of two other road system improvements: the Pioneer Trail Extension and the Bridge Street Extension. MRO Report at 10. These improvements would provide additional connections between Downtown Truckee, Tahoe Donner and Pioneer Trail. As explained in the MRO Report, the RDEIR provides no evidence that these projects are funded or that they will actually be built by build-out of the Canyon Springs Project. If these critical roadway projects are not completed, the entire cumulative traffic impacts analysis will prove to be inaccurate, presenting an overly-optimistic view of future traffic conditions in the Project area. MRO Report at 4 and I0. SHUTE, MIHALY(f-wEINBERcERLLp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori November 19,2014 Page 7 Moreover, the RDEIR indicates that the analysis of the Project's cumrrlative impacts to traff,rc extends to the year 2031. RDEIR at 4.14-59, 4.14-60, 4.14- 65 and 4.14-68. However, as explained in the MRO Report, the RDEIR is misleading. The RDEIR uses the Town of Truckee's TransCAD travel demand forecasting model, which provides traff,rc volume projections to 2025 and assumes no traffic growth from 2025 to 2031. MRO Report at 3. Therefore, the analysis only covers a fourteen year period not a twenty year period as indicated by the RDEIR. Furthermore, the RDEIR unjustifiably dismisses the need for updating the traffic model for the Project idea. Instead, the RDEIR once again relies on dated and obsolete information- a2011 traff,rc model that addresses only two intersections in the study area. This approach further undermines the validity of the RDEIR's traffic analysis. 5. The RDEIR Understates the Project's Construction-Related Transportation Impacts. According to the RDEIR, construction of the proposed Project would occur over the next 20 years. RDEIR at 4.14-50. One would expect that, given the scale and prolonged duration of such a construction project, the RDEIR would have comprehensively analyzedwhat are certain to be extensive local and regional traffic impacts. For example, traff,rc patterns will be impacted from lane closures, rerouting of traffic, delivery of materials, hauling of excavated material, and construction employees commuting tolfrom the job site. Instead, the RDEIR provides only a cursory analysis of construction period traffic impacts, which appears to underestimate construction-related traffic. Members of MAP researched recent construction projects in the area. Specihcally, MAP acquired data about the number of employees working on a roadway repaving/widening project in the Glenshire area. Personal communication, Nikki Riley, MAP and Todd Landry, Town of Truckee, October 2014. That data indicates that a road pavement project employed an average of 30 people each week. By contrast, the Canyon Springs Project, would include site preparation, construction of roadways and 9 bridges, and installation of water, sewer and electrical lines on a 300 acre site. The RDEIR states that the Project will involve 12 employees for construction of the roadways. RDEIR at Table 4.14-12. Given that smaller projects involving only repaving and widening involved more than twice that number of construction workers, we suspect that the RDEIR grossly underestimates construction traffic for the Canyon Springs Project. S H UTE, N{ IHALY (T--\TEINBERCERLLp Ms. Denyelle Nishimorr November 19,2014 Page 8 Moreover, the RDEIR identifies signif,rcant impacts resulting from the Project's construction period trafftc, but defers mitigation for this impact. RDEIR at 4.14- 70. Instead, the RDEIR looks to a future "Traffltc Management Plan" to minimize the expected traffic delays and closures. Id. But this deferral of mitigation violates CEQA. See CEQA Guidelines $ 15126.a@)Q)(B) ("Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time."); Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond, 184 Cal.App.4thl0,93 (2010). The RDEIR must be revised to (1) provide a complete analysis of the Project's construction-related impacts, and (2) include the Project's actual mitigation plan. The public and decision-makers must be apprised of the magnitude of these irnpacts and the actions that will be necessary to mitigate them, prior to the Project's approval. 6. The RDEIR Fails to Correct the Deficient Safety Analysis. The RDEIR's analysis of safety conditions with Project implementation is incomplete and therefore inadequate. The RDEIR acknowledges that the project area has safety problerns and discloses that historical accident rates in the area are substantially higher than California and Nevada County averages for similar roads. RDEIR at 4.14-57. Given that there exists a current safety risk, the EIR has an obligation to analyze the potential for the Project to add to that safety risk. Instead, the RDEIR continues to ignore this important issue. It fails to evaluate the Project's contribution of substantial traff,rc that will exacerbate resident's chances of being involved in injury-causing collisions. Moreover, the RDEIR completely failed to analyze impacts to school children on area roadways. Children routinely wait for the school bus along Glenshire Drive and other neighborhood streets. There are no safe zones for children to wait so that children stand at stop signs or at uncontrolled intersections. The substantial increase in traffic in the neighborhood will exacerbate the safety risks to school children and other pedestrians. Until the EIR provides a detailed analysis of Project-related safety impacts, and identifies feasible measures to mitigate any significant impacts, the EIR will remain legally def,rcient. 7. The RDEIR Fails to Analyze Project Impacts On Bicyclists. The RDEIR fails to analyze impacts to bicyclists in the Project area. A two-mile section of Glenshire Drive between Martis Peak Road and Hirschdale Road, commonly known as the Hirschdale Hill, is frequently used by bicyclists. This route is steep, curvy, and relatively narrow, making it impossible to accommodate the width that SHUTE, MIHALY(¡-vEtNBERCERLLp Ms. Denyelle Nishrmon November 19,2014 Page 9 would be necessary to provide two standard travel lanes in combination with standard bike lanes on each side. Project-related increases in traffic volumes on Glenshire Drive will exacerbate existing bike safety deficiencies. The EIR fails to evaluate this potentially signifi cant impact. 8. The RDEIR Provides an Incomplete Evaluation of the Project's Impacts on School-related Traffic. The Project site is in close proximity to the Glenshire Elementary School, located on Dorchester Drive, just to the west of the Project site. The RDEIR's analysis of traffic irnpacts on area intersections presents a truncated analysis that fails to include all the intersections impacted by school traff,rc that would be further impacted by the Project' Particularly important is the RDEIR's omitted analysis of the following intersections: Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive (East), which will provide the primary access to the school from the Project site; and Glenshire Drive/Rolands Way, which is likely to be used for outbound trips from the school. It is essential that these two intersections be evaluated, especially given that morning peak traffic period coincides with school drop- off traffic. MRO Report at 7 and 8. 9. The RDEIR Lacks the Evidentiary Support to Conclude that the Proposed Mitigation Measures Would Reduce Traffic Impacts to a Less Than Significant Level. The RDEIR identifies signihcant impacts to the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection. RDEIR at2-13 and 4.14-45. The RDEIR proposes Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, which calls for implementation of a center refuge/acceleration lane for vehicles turning left from Glenshire Drive to westbound Donner pass Road to address this impact. The RDEIR concludes that construction of this improvement, along with measures to stagger construction of the Project, will reduce the impact to less than signif,rcant levels. RDEIR at 4.14-68. However, as discussed below and in the MRO Report, the RDEIR fails to provide evidence that this measure is feasible to implement or that it will be effective. As explained in detail in the MRO Report, there is insufficient distance available between Glenshire Drive and Keiser Avenue to construct an adequate acceleration lane to allow vehicles to move safely into the trafhc stream on Donner Pass Road. MRO Report at 5. The RDEIR proposes a 120-foot acceleration lane. But, industry standards for acceleration lanes on rural high-speed highways with a grade greater than two percent (such as the case here) range from 1,000 to 1,235 feet. MRO Report at 4 and 5. The proposed Project mitigation is thus, approximately one tenth the SHUTE, MIHALY (9--vEINBERcERLTT. Ms. Denyelle Nishirnori November 19,2014 Page 10 required length for a safe acceleration lane. Id. Drivers attempting to merge into the flow of traffic on westbound Donner Pass Road would not have suff,rcient distance to accelerate and merge into high-speed traffic. Therefore, construction of this mitigation Íteasure, even if funding for it was guaranteed (which it is not) would potentially induce a signihcant safety hazard at the Glenshire Drive/ Donner Pass Road intersection. Id. Furthermore, the RDEIR itself indicates that this mitigation measure would not be effective. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, the delay at this intersection would be up to 7.0 vehicle hours, exceeding the Town's standard of 4.0 vehicle hours. RDEIR at 4.14-43 and MRO Report at 5. In other words, even with implementation of the proposed mitigation, the intersection will fail to operate acceptably. MRO Report at 6. The RDEIR also dismisses feasible options for mitigation at this intersection, such as traffic signals, without supporting evidence. The RDEIR analysis disrnissed the use of a traff,rc signal as infeasible due to the existing steep grade. RDEIR at 4.14-40. However, as explained in the MRO Report, other jurisdictions with similar topography and weather conditions have successfully implemented traffic signals in sirnilar situations. MRO Report at 6. Finally, despite our detailed comments regarding the DEIRs failure with regard to mitigating Project-related construction period braffitc, the RDEIR does little to rernedy that failure. The measures listed in Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a are vague, insubstantial, and non-binding, and thus cannot be relied up on to mitigate Project irnpacts. Measures relied upon to mitigate impacts must be "fully enforceable" through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. Pub. Res. Code $ 21081.6(b); CEQA Guidelines $ 15126.a@)Q), Similarly, they must actually be irnplemented, not merely adopted and then disregarded, and thus the mitigation must provide assurance that such implementation will in fact occur. Anderson Fírst Coalítion v. City of Anderson 130 Cal.App.4thll73,l136-87(2005); Fed'n of Híllside & Canyon Ass'ns v. Cíty of Los Angeles 83 Cal. App. 4th 1252,1261(2000) . The transportation- related mitigation measures do not meet this standard. 10. The RDEIR's Presents a Faulfy Analysis of the Edinburgh Drive Access Alternative. The RDEIR's alternatives analysis includes Alternative B, which describes a circulation plan allowing unrestricted access to and from the Project via Edinburgh Drive on the west side of the Project site. The RDEIR concludes that this alternative would result in traffic impacts "similar to those of the proposed Project." SHUTE, MIHALY e¡-vEINBERCERiLp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori November 19,2014 Page 11 RDEIR at 5-23. As explained in the MRO Report, this conclusion is simply not credible. MRO Report at 8. As the RDEIR acknowledges, a Project that includes access from Edinburgh Drive will alter the geographic distribution of project-related trips so that approximately 85 percent of trips made to and from points west of Glenshire would use the Edinburgh Drive access and the remaining 15 percent of these trips would use Martis Peak Road. RDEIR at 5-11. However, as explained in detail in the MRO Report, the traffic analysis contains arithmetic errors that skew the analysis results for this alternative. MRO Report at 9. Specifically, the RDEIR estimates 89-91 PM peak hour project trips on local residential streets, but the accurate number of trips will be over 200. MRO Report at 9. More importantly, rather than 840 or 860 daily trips added to neighborhood roadways, the actual number will be more than twice as large - almost 2,200 trips per day. Id. Therefore, the RDEIR analysis grossly underestimates the traffic irnpacts associated with this alternative. Alternative B would result in double the number of trips per day that the Town uses as a standard for residential streets travelling along four local roads in the Glenshire neighborhood. Thus, this alternative would clearly result in a significant impact. B. The RDEIR's Analysis of and Mitigation for the Project's Biological Resources Impacts Remains Inadequate. The RDEIR's so-called analysis of biological impacts achieves a result exactly opposite from what CEQA requires. Under CEQA, decision makers and the public are to be given sufficient information about impacts and mitigation to come to their own judgments and decisions. ,See Pub. Res. Code 21061. ("The purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect that aproposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minirnized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.") Where, as here, the environmental review document fails to fully and accurately inform decision-makers, and the public, of the environmental consequences of proposed actions, it does not satisSr the basic goals of CEQA. It appears this RDEIR's strategy is to withhold information and to encourage the public and decision makers to trust that the applicant will ultimately mitigate the Project's impacts. The Project's critical discussion of biological impacts must explain exactly what will happen on the Project site and the surrounding ecosystem if the Project goes forward. See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors 52 Cal.3d 553, 568 (1990) ("[T]he EIR must contain facts and analysis, not the agency's bare SHUTE/ MIHALY ú--vEINBERCERTLT Ms. Denyelle Nishrmorr November 19,2014 Page 12 conclusions . . . ."). The RDEIR must offer some specific information about the consequences of this Project. It cannot, as the RDEIR does over and over again, merely acknowledge that the Project will have consequences and then assert that those consequences will be mitigated without providing evidentiary support. Thus, this document, like its predecessor remains inadequate under CEQA. The RDEIR ignores detailed comments submitted by CDFW and this f,rrm regarding the DEIR's failure to adequately analyze impacts to sensitive biological resources on the Project site. ,See SMW DEIR letter, attached as Exhibit A and CDFW DEIR comments. As described below, and in detail in the CBI Report (attached as Exhibit C), the RDEIR continues to underestimate Project-related biological impacts as a result of a series of errors, including: (l) the failure to describe accurately the baseline conditions , (2) the deferral of analysis of impacts to special status species and habitats; and (3) the failure to propose adequate mitigation measures to address those impacts. As a result of the RDEIR's numerous and serious inadequacies, there can be no rneaningful public review of the Project. The Town must revise the EIR in order to permit an adequate understanding of the environmental issues at stake. Further, the Town must develop feasible and prudent alternatives. The Town also must require redesign of the Proj ect so that it provides permanent protection of a viable migration corridor for the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee deer herd similar to what is currently available, does not encroach into environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and does not impact sensitive species. 1. The RDEIRs Description of the Project's Biological Setting Remains Inadequate. a.The RDEIR Relies on Outdated Information and Methods. An EIR must provide comprehensive information about the Project's environmental setting in order to provide a baseline against which to evaluate Project impacts. This requirement derives from the principle that without an adequate description of the Project's local and regional context, the EIR, and thus the decision makers and the public who rely on the EIR, cannot accurately assess the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project. The EIR lacks suff,rcient detail in describing existing conditions and identiffing potential impacts so the document fails to provide an accurate assessment of resulting impacts. The description of the existing setting suffers from the same failures SHUTE, MIHALY Cz-"1øEINBERGERTp Ms. Denyelle Nishimorr November 19,2014 Page 13 as its predecessor because it continues to rely on outdated information to describe the existing the biological setting of the site. For example, as explained in the CBI Report, the RDEIR uses an outdated classification system from 1995 to characterize the vegetation on-site. The more recent 2009 classification system not only updates the information, but includes a greater level of detail based on additional sampling and analysis. The RDEIR's use of outdated methods leads to mappingthatuses an overly broad classification system lacking in detail, which fails to identiff all of the biological resources on site including sensitive and unique vegetation communities (e.g., wetlands), wildlife habitat (e.g., mule deer habitat) and the site's biodiversity. CBI at2-4. Similarly, the RDEIR continues to rely on reconnaissance level surveys conducted a decade ago. CBI Report at2 and 5. As pointed out in previous comments subrnitted by CDFW, the DEIR and now the RDEIR, fail to conduct surveys for several special status species, including black-backed woodpecker, which is pending consideration for listing as threatened or endangered. The RDEIR omits analysis of impacts to the federally endangered and State-threatened yellow-legged frog, which may use upland habitat on-site for feeding and refuge. CBI Report af 5. Moreover, CDFW has recent data on the mule deer showing that the deer are known to use the Project site, which the RDEIR fails to include. CBI Report at 6. These omissions and the RDEIR's use of outdated information to describe the project's biological setting result in an underestimation of impacts to these and other sensitive resources. b. The RDEIR's Description of On-site Wetlands is Incomplete. The RDEIR incorporates a wetland delineation that identihes 5.94 acres of wetlands on the site. RDEIR at 4.4-35. However, the RDEIR provides an incomplete inventory of potential wetland areas on-site. CBI Repoft at 4. Specihcally, recent aerial photographs of the site indicate the potential for additional wetland areas along identified Intermittent Drainage 1 as presented in the DEIR Delineation Map. Id. The RDEIR failed to include the westernmost portion of Intermittent Drainage 1 in the wetland delineation or in the analysis. Id. This omission is pertinent because the westernmost portion of Intermittent Drainage I (along with other drainages on the Project site) is designated by the U.S. Forest Service as a Sierra Nevada Riparian Conservation Area. CBI Report at 4. Riparian conservation areas are 'land allocations that are managed to maintain or restore the structure and function of aquatic , úparian and meadow ecosystems. The intent of SHUTE, MIHALY(r-wEINBERCERLTp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori November 19,2014 Page 14 management direction for RCAs is to (1) preserve, enhance, and restore habitat for riparian- and aquatic-dependent species; (2) ensure that water quality is maintained or restored; (3) enhance habitat conservation for species associated with the transition zone between upslope and riparian areas; and (4) provide greater connectivity within the watershed' . Id.Inclusion of Intermittent Drainage I in a RCA further indicates that this area should be assessed for the presence of wetlands. Id. In addition, the RDEIR acknowledges that the wetland delineation was conducted during a dry period, when the hydrology of the site could not be observed and several wetland plant species cannot be identified. Therefore, because of the timing of the site field work, the wetland delineation likely missed critical wetland indicators (hydrology and wetland plant species). The result is an EIR analysis that likely underestimates the wetland acreage found on the Project site. Id. )There Is No Evidence That Impacts on Sensitive Biological Resources Will Be Reduced to a Less Than Significant Level. ^. Impacts to Special Status Species The RDEIR fails to include a comprehensive analysis of impacts to special status anirnal species. The RDEIR, like the DEIR before it, identifies a number of sensitive species likely to occur on the Project site and in the immediate vicinity, including the Sierra Nevada red fox (State threatened); Lewis' woodpecker (USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern); bald eagle (State endangered); northern goshawk and yellow warbler (both State species of special concern); and willow flycatcher (State endangered). RDEIR at 4.4-25-44.29. The RDEIR also acknowledges the potential for other nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the State Fish and Game Code as occurring on the Project site. Id. Despite acknowledging the potential presence of these species and acknowledges that the Project's removal of more than 30 acres of their habitat, the RDEIR does not analyze the resulting impacts on these species. It fails to include surveys of the species on and adjacent to the Project site, and it fails to quanti$r or otherwise analyze the impacts to the species from habitat removal and other disturbances. Instead, the RDEIR summarily concludes that the loss of suitable habitat represents a less-than-significant impact to regional populations of these species and that Project- related impacts would be less than significant. RDEIR at 4.4-37,4.4-38 and 4.4-43. Once again, the RDEIR provides no evidence or documentation to support its conclusion. SHUTE, MIHALY C9--vEINBERCE.RLLp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori November 19,2014 Page 15 In some cases, the RDEIR fails to analyze impacts to particular species altogether. For example, the RDEIR continues to ignore analysis of impacts to the black- backed woodpecker (a 'candidate for listing' under the California Endangered Species Act). This omission is particularly egregious given CDFW's specific guidance directing the Town to analyze impacts to this species. CDFW DEIR comments at 4. As CDFW explained, the black-backed woodpecker is considered a "Rare" species under CEQA and is protected from "take" under the California Fish and Game Code. CDFW DEIR comments at 4. In addition, area residents have observed Northern Flicker, a State endangered species, on the Project site. The RDEIR acknowledges that Jeffrey pine habitat on site provides nesting cover for this species. RDEIR at 4.4-20. Yet, the RDEIR fàils to evaluate impacts to the species from Project-related loss of 28 acres of Jeffrey pine habitat. RDEIR at 4.4-38. Because the RDEIR fails to analyze impacts to these species, it also fails to identiff mitigation measures to minimize impacts. Accordingly, the RDEIR's analysis of the Project's impacts to sensitive wildlife species is incomplete. b. Impacts to Wetlands The RDEIR claims the Project will maintain appropriate buffers that will avoid ìrnpacts to the wetlands. RDEIR at 4.4-38 through 4.4-41. The RDEIR describes wetland buffers of up to 100 feet in some areas, but as small as 50 feet in other areas, and then concludes that maintenance of these buffers would reduce impacts to wet meadows to less-than-significant levels. However, the RDEIR fails to provide evidence to support this conclusion. RDEIR at 4.4-41. As explained below and in the CBI Report, the buffers proposed are far from adequate to protect the integrity of wetland resources. The Town's Development Code recognizes the importance of adequate buffer areas to protect wetlands. As such, the Code requires a use permit for "projects resulting in the disturbance of land or located within 200 feet of any wetland area, unless the Director finds that the topographic conditions of the surrounding area will clearly preclude any disturbance of wetland areas and will ensure that any runoff from the project will not result in any water quality impacts to a wetland area." Truckee Municipal Code Chapter I8.30, General Property Development Standards, Section 18.30.050.F.3; emphasis added. Furthermore, current literature indicates thata buffer of 200 feet or greater is optimal to effectively protect wetland resources from edge effects, such as the proliferation of invasive plants, trampling, and excessive run-off. CBI at 6 and7. Therefore, the Project's proposed buffer widths of 50 feet to 100 feet are generally insufficient to protect sensitive habitat in wetland areas. CBI at7. SHUTE, MIHAL\ (r-vIEINBERCERLLp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori November 19,2014 Page 16 In addition, it is important to note that the reduced setbacks for lots 122-l3l are adjacent to the most extensive wet meadow habitat onsite. CBI at 6. The RDEIR acknowledges that the Project could indirectly impact sensitive habitats (i.e., wet meadow, pebble meadow, and federally protected wetlands) through modification of the hydrology of these areas. The RDEIR goes on to claim that the Project design will limit runoff into these habitats, thus avoiding impacts. RDEIR at 4.4-41. However, the RDEIR again fails to support this statement with any evidence. The RDEIR fails to quantify the amount of runoff the Project will produce and fails to adequately describe the Project's proposed drainage facilities. See SMV/ DEIR letter at 13-15. 3. The RDEIR Continues to Ignore the Projects Significant Indirect Impacts to Sensitive Habitat and Species. The RDEIR gives short shrift to the analysis of indirect impacts on the Project's biological resources. Under CEQA, an EIR must evaluate foreseeable, indirect physical changes resulting from a project. CEQA Guidelines $ 1506a(d). As CDFW noted, the DEIR failed to adequately analyze indirect impacts related to edge effects and habitat fragmentation. CDFW DEIR comments at 4.The RDEIR fails to provide the omitted analysis. In addition, the RDEIR fails to evaluate other project-related indirect irnpacts such as increased deer mortality from increased traffic and the proliferation of invasive species. CBI Report at9. 4. The RDEIR Analysis of Impacts to the Deer Migration Corridor Is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence. It is widely acknowledged that loss or significant disruption of wildlife corridors may adversely affect species population dynamics, inhibit evolutionary changes and the ability for species ranges to shift in response to climate change, prevent re- population of areas following catastrophic events (e.g., frre), and effectively reduce habitat size for area-dependent species. Despite the importance of wildlife corridors, particularly as in this case where a wildlife corridor is located within aî area under extreme development pressure, the RDEIR's handling of impacts to wildlife movement remains deficient. Not surprisingly, the RDEIR ignores agency comments regarding potential irnpacts to the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd and the migration corridor that traverses the Project site. CDFW commented that the DEIR's conclusion regarding impacts to the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd is incorrect. CDFW at2-3. The agency's DEIR comments enumerated the Project's significant impacts to the herd, including impacts from habitat modification, limitations SHUTE, MIHALY e¡-vEtNBERCERLLp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori November 19,2014 Page l7 on deer movement, increased pressure on browsing material, increased vulnerability to disease and predation and the potential for the herd to cease migrating into California frorn their winter range in Nevada. CDFW DEIR Comments at 3. Despite this, the RDEIR continues to ignore these impacts and provides no analysis of potential impacts to the corridor. In fact, not only does the RDEIR fail to provide the needed analysis, it states that the site is not part of the corridor at all. RDEIR at 4.4-43. Instead, the RDEIR characterizes deer's use of the site as incidental. Id.(...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)...in the region exist within the project site.") However, as CDFW explained, ample evidence indeed exists. Specifically, surveys on the site indicate that "deer use of the Project site is very active, contrary to statements made in the DEIR" and "hundreds of deer, including fawns, does, and bucks" use the site. CDFW DEIR comments at 2. The RDEIR argues that because the Project proposes to maintain an area of open space, the project would not impact the migration corridor. RDEIR at 4.4-45 and 4.4-47. However, the open space does not sufficiently off-set the loss of habitat or rnovement corridor for the deer. CDFW DEIR comments at2 and CBI Report at 8. First, as previous comments pointed out, the deer herd's migratory route is oriented northeast to southwest through the Canyon Springs site. Yet, the Project locates the open space corridor in in the opposite direction. CBI at 8. Second, the Project as designed encroaches into both the northern and southern portions of the site where deer migration has been documented to occur. Id. In addition, the proposed open space area will be fragmented by roadways, trails, footbridges, retention ponds, and as yet unspecified recreational facilities. RDEIR at2-2 ("The recreational area could include features such as a tot-lot, swing set, play structure, picnic shelter, pool, clubhouse, and or multi-use play court.") Thus, rather than an undisturbed, undeveloped area, the proposed "open space" design will include features that make it unlikely that wildlife would use this open space. CDFW DEIR comments at 2 and CBI Report at 8. Neither the DEIR nor the RDEIR provide any analysis to determine how construction of the project and the high level of disturbance resulting frorn the project would impact the deer migration corridor and its use by wildlife. Therefore, the RDEIR's conclusion amounts to nothing more than a conclusory statement. The RDEIR fails to provide a substantive revision to the biological resources analysis prepared in response to CDFW's and the public's comments. This SHUTE, MIHALY CT-WEINBERCERLLp Ms, Denyelle Nishimori November 19,2014 Page 18 approach runs afoul of CEQA's mandate that in responding to comments, an agency must provide a reasoned analysis supported by factual information. CEQA Guidelines $ 1508S(c). Where an agency fails to provide analysis and data in response to a comment regarding a specific environmental issue, the response is inadequate. See Santa Clarita Org.for Planningthe Envtv. County of Los Angeles,106 Cal. App.4th 715,722 (2003). Moreover, inasmuch as CDFW is a responsible and trustee agency for this Project, its statements carry considerably more weight than the EIR consultants. The EIR must be revised to accurately analyze and mitigate the Project's significant impacts to sensitive species. Until such responses are provided and the document is recirculated, the EIR will remain inadequate. 5. The RDEIR Fails to Analyze the Project's Impacts to Regional Habitat Connectivify. The Project site is located between larger preserved areas of open space that serve to protect conservation values and connectivity for wildlife. The Canyon Springs site is located between the state-owned Truckee River Wildlife Area to the northeast and the Martis Valley Conservation Area to the southwest. CBI Report at 9. The Project site is important not only because biological resources found on the site, but also because it provides linkages and connectivity to other open space in the region. Id.In fact, the project site is included in the Sierra Valley Conceptual Area Protection Plan (CAPP) Amendment, which lists high priority lands targeted for acquisition. Id. Specifically, three parcels on the Project site have been designated high priorities for acquisition under the CAPP. CBI Report at 10. As explained in the CBI Report, the purpose of the CAPP is to consolidate conservation efforts within the Sierra-Cascade region and expand protection for the Loyalton-Truckee deer herd. CBI Report at9. The RDEIR fails to evaluate the Project site within this regional context. The Project's inconsistency with this plan constitutes a significant impact under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Section X(b) and (c). 6. The RDEIR Anatysis Fails to Consider the Effects of the Project's Construction Period on Wildlife. The RDEIR ignores public comments on the Project's effects on wildlife during the construction period. Despite the fact that land development construction would last for more fhan 2 years and build-out of the site would Lake 20 years or more (RDEIRat4.4-44),theRDE'IRfailstoidenti$'constructionimpactssuchasnoise, deforestation, and dust on wildlife as signif,rcant impacts. Instead, it continues to assert that "there would be adequate undisturbed areas for wildlife throughout the build-out period for project completion." Id. However, the RDEIR's description of construction SHUTE/ N4IHALY C9-'løEINBERCERLLp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori November 19,2014 Page 19 activities remains incomplete and the Project's allotted setbacks and open space areas inadequate to prevent impacts to wildlife movement. The DEIR's Analysis of the Project's Cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources Remains Inadequate and Violates CEQA Not surprisingly, the RDEIR fails to correct the DEIR's failures with regard to analysis of cumulative impacts. The RDEIR analysis of cumulative impacts in the RDEIR remains cursory and superf,rcial and fails to analyze adequately a number of potential cumulative impacts. For example, the RDEIR identifies potentially significant cumulative impacts to sensitive species and to the ecological systems in the vicinity, stating that "the encroachment of development area 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, increase fragmentation of open space in the region effecting wildlife dispersal, and results in an increased human presence leading to the degradation of natural undisturbed habitats." RDEIR at 4.4-49.It also acknowledges potentially significant cumulative impacts to wildlife movement. Id. However, without any evidence, the RDEIR concludes that the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts. ,See RDEIR at 4.4-50. This approach fails to comply with CEQA on two fronts. First, the RDEIR provides no quantitative evidence that implementation of the RDEIR's proposed mitigation measures would ensure that either project-level or cumulative noise impacts would be less than significant. Without substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that mitigation would be effective, the EIR remains inadequate. Second, the RDEIR concludes that if the Project and the other contributing projects each rnitigate their individual impacts on sensitive wildlife and habitat, there would result no cumulative impacts. The EIR in essence reasons that a less than significant project-level impact never makes a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative irnpact. As explained in the SMW DEIR letter, this approach to cumulative analysis is a plain violation of CEQA. An EIR may not conclude that a project will not contribute to cumulative impacts simply because it has a less than significant impact on a project level. See Kings County Farm Bureau v. Cíty of Hanford 221 Cal.App.3 d at 720- 2l(1990). The purpose of analyzing cumulative impacts is to determine whether a collection of less than signihcant impacts may combine to be cumulatively considerable. Furthermore, as discussed above, in the absence of detailed Project-specific analysis of biological resource impacts, the EIR simply has no evidentiary basis to conclude that Project-specific impacts would be less than significant. C SHUTE, MIHAL\ Cr-vEINBERCERLn Ms. Denyelle Nishimori November 19,2014 Page20 In addition, the RDEIR fails to analyze cumulative impacts on the deer herd resulting from the Project in combination with the foreseeable development of the adjacent parcel to the east of the Project site, known as the "Teel parcel". SMW DEIR comrnents at 30 and 31. The RDEIR also fails to analyze cumulative impacts to the deer herd resulting from development of new roadways and increases in traffic along those roadways, which will increase deer mortality. SMW DEIR comments at3l. Unless and until the EIR conducts this analysis, it will remain inadequate. In approving the Project, the Town is likely allowing fragmentation of a known deer migration corridor resulting in significant cumulative impacts to the Loyalton-Truckee deer herd and surrounding wildlands in perpetuity - but under the "trust us" approach favored by the EIR nobody would know the severity of the impacts until after Project approval. In order to assess impacts intelligently, the Town Council must know what contribution its approval of the Project would make to environmental irnpacts over the long-term. ilI. CONCLUSION In light of the numerous adverse environmental impacts, many of which have not yet been fully disclosed and properly analyzed in the RDEIR, MAP and SOSG oppose certification of this EIR and approval of the Canyon Springs Project. The current design of the Project would threaten public safety, contradict the General Plan and Development Code, adversely affect community character, and cause irreversible harm to the environment. For the foregoing reasons, we urge the Town to delay further consideration of the Canyon Springs Project unless and until the Town prepares and recirculates a revised draft EIR that fully complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Ellison Folk ) Carmen J. Borg, AICP Urban Planner c'\- SHUTE, N4IHALY U--wEINBERCERTp Ms. Denyelle Nishimori November 19,2014 -Page2l Attachments Exhibit A: Comment letter on the DEIR from Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger to Denyelle Nishimori, Town of Truckee Planner. March 5,2013 Exhibit B Letter report from Neal Liddicoat, MRO Engineers to Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP. November 5,2014 Exhibit C: Letter from Patricia Gordon-Reedy, Conservation Biology Institute to Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP. November 18,2014 cc Alexis Ollar, Executive Director, MAP Leigh Golden, President, SOSG Tina Bartlett, Regional Manager, CDFW, North Central Region 6406t2.2 st-tuTE, MIHAI]/ *r*wElNBERcERr.r-p November 5, 2014 Ms. Carmen Borg, AICP Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, California 94102 Subject: Review of Transportation and Traffic Impact Analysis Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report – Canyon Springs, Truckee, California Dear Ms. Borg: As requested, MRO Engineers, Inc., (MRO) has reviewed the traffic impact analysis addendum completed with respect to the proposed Canyon Springs project in Truckee, California. The revised traffic impact analysis was prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., and was documented in a letter report dated January 17, 2014. The traffic impact analysis addendum report has been incorporated into a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) prepared by Placeworks (formerly The Planning Center/DCE) on September 29, 2014. Background On February 20, 2013, MRO completed a letter report documenting the results of our review of the “Transportation and Traffic” section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Canyon Springs project. That review focused on the adequacy of the DEIR’s transportation and traffic analysis, including the detailed procedures and conclusions documented in the LSC Transportation Consultants report, which formed the basis for that section of the DEIR. Our letter report documented eight areas of concern with respect to the DEIR traffic analysis. Based on that, we concluded that the DEIR was deficient and needed to be revised, then recirculated for further public comment. The introduction to the January 2014 traffic impact analysis addendum states that certain additional or revised traffic analyses were undertaken, “. . . in response to comments received during the DEIR public review period.” We initially assumed that the addendum report would fully address the eight deficient areas that we identified in our February 2013 letter. Unfortunately, however, that was not the case. In fact, only one of the problem areas was addressed, while ignoring the remaining seven. The following section summarizes the results of our review of the traffic impact analysis addendum that was incorporated into the RDEIR. Following that, we present several additional comments resulting from our review of the RDEIR. Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum/RDEIR Review As indicated above, the traffic impact analysis addendum failed to address a number of deficiencies that we identified within the DEIR. Those deficiencies included significant traffic impacts that were not disclosed or mitigated in the DEIR, which should be addressed prior to certification of the environmental document by the Town of Truckee. The status of these issues is summarized below. M R O ENGINEERS 660 Auburn Folsom Rd. Suite 201B Auburn, California 95603 PHONE (916) 783-3838 FAX (916) 783-5003 Ms. Carmen Borg November 5, 2014 Page 2 1. No Analysis of Potential Freeway System Impacts – In our February 20, 2013 letter, we noted the following: • Thirty-five percent of the Canyon Springs-generated traffic was assigned to/from the west on I-80 at the Hirschdale Road ramps in the PM peak hour. • Twenty-five percent of the project-generated trips were assigned to/from the east on I-80 at the Hirschdale Road ramps in the PM peak hour. • Under year 2031 conditions, 39 percent of the project-generated trips were assigned to/from west on I-80 in the PM peak hour, and 18 percent of the total were assigned to/from the east. Despite this, no analysis was conducted to assess potential project-related traffic impacts on the freeway mainline or at any of the on- or off-ramps or the merge/diverge points where the ramps meet the freeway mainline. Consequently, no determination could be made as to whether the proposed project will adversely impact traffic operations on the freeway facilities. The RDEIR continues to ignore the proposed project’s potential impacts on the freeway system. 2. Level of Service Calculation Methodology – The DEIR traffic analysis failed to employ the latest (year 2010) version of the Highway Capacity Manual, in violation of the Town of Truckee General Plan Policy CIR-P3.1. The traffic impact analysis addendum report presents revised level of service results, based on application of the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. As such, no further comment is presented with respect to this issue. 3. Analysis Periods – The DEIR traffic analysis largely focused on traffic operations in the PM peak hour, although AM peak-hour analyses were performed at four of the eight study intersections. We pointed out that, although it might be true that PM peak hour volumes are greater than AM peak hour volumes, because directional traffic patterns are different in the two peak-hour periods, problems that may not be apparent in the PM peak hour are sometimes revealed in the AM peak hour. Further, the volume of project-related trips in the AM peak hour is substantial – 194 total trips, 148 of which will be outbound from the project site (which is only 16 trips fewer than the peak direction volume in the PM peak hour). In short, by analyzing only the PM peak hour, any AM peak hour impacts will be missed. Although CEQA requires that all significant impacts associated with the proposed project be revealed in the DEIR, the RDEIR failed to address the possibility of AM peak-hour traffic impacts. We believe there is a reasonable likelihood that significant impacts might be found in the AM peak hour that are in addition to those identified in the PM peak hour. 4. Peak Hour Traffic Volume Data – In our February 2013 letter, we summarized the circuitous process used to estimate the year 2011 (i.e., existing) traffic volumes used in the analysis. At certain locations, this process consisted of manipulation of traffic count data from the year 2004, a full ten years ago. Despite this, the DEIR makes the dubious assertion that the traffic volumes used in the analysis are conservative. Of course, the standard approach to developing “existing conditions” traffic volume information is simply to perform counts at the study locations. Given the almost one-year interval between submittal of our February 20, 2013 comment letter and completion of the January 17, 2014 M R O ENGINEERS M R O ENGINEERS M R O ENGINEERS Ms. Carmen Borg November 5, 2014 Page 3 traffic impact analysis addendum, there was clearly sufficient time to collect data that would satisfy the Town’s policy calling for analysis of the tenth-highest summer PM peak hour. It is unclear, therefore, why no counts were performed in the summer of 2013. Those counts could have then been adjusted as necessary to represent the tenth-highest hour. As we noted in our February 2013 letter, this approach is vastly superior to basing the existing conditions volumes on counts conducted in the spring or summer of 2004. Because no effort was expended to obtain valid, up to date traffic volume data, we remain concerned that the estimated traffic volumes used in the RDEIR analysis may not accurately represent current conditions in Truckee. 5. Daily Traffic Volume Data – The daily traffic volumes used in the analysis of roadway segments were also estimated, based on estimates of peak-hour traffic. The process of developing daily traffic estimates based on estimated peak-hour values results in a substantial margin of error for those daily traffic figures. Again considering the one-year interval between the DEIR comment period and completion of the RDEIR traffic analysis, it is puzzling that no counts were conducted in the summer of 2013. Because the RDEIR failed to address this deficiency in the most basic information employed in the traffic analysis, we continue to question the validity of the fabricated “existing” traffic volumes. 6. Cumulative Conditions Traffic Volume Estimates – Although the cumulative conditions analysis presented in the RDEIR claims to address projected traffic operations in the year 2031, it actually employs year 2025 traffic volume projections. (The Town of Truckee’s TransCAD travel demand forecasting model provides traffic estimates for the year 2025 and no further traffic growth was assumed between 2025 and 2031.) It is simply misleading and inappropriate to suggest that the analysis covers a twenty-year time period when it actually considers only fourteen years. The RDEIR does include a limited evaluation of the updated (June 2011) Truckee model, which has higher trip generation projections in the Glenshire area near the proposed project, as well as a revised trip distribution. Based on consideration of two study intersections, the RDEIR concludes that it is unnecessary to update the analysis for the entire study area. We believe that this is insufficient justification for the use of an obsolete traffic model. Given the complexity of any transportation system, it is simply not possible to make a reasonable judgement of this sort without additional consideration. At a minimum, the RDEIR should document a comparison of the traffic volumes at each study location using each version of the model. A reasonable recommendation could then be documented with respect to the need for additional analysis. 7. Safety Analysis – Our February 2013 letter documented the failure of the DEIR to provide information regarding safety problems in the vicinity of the proposed project. Although the DEIR presented a table and related text describing historical accident rates at seven locations, it neglected the fact that six of those seven locations have accident rates that are substantially higher than California and Nevada County averages for similar roads. Although this information was buried in the LSC traffic report (which was provided as DEIR Appendix I), it is disturbing that such an obvious safety issue was not presented in a more transparent fashion. In addition to the possibility that this could be viewed as a failure to meet the DEIR’s obligations as an informational document, we are concerned that no effort was made to evaluate the potential M R O ENGINEERS M R O ENGINEERS M R O ENGINEERS Ms. Carmen Borg November 5, 2014 Page 4 impacts of the proposed project with respect to the safety of nearby residents. The RDEIR includes no effort to rectify this substantial deficiency. 8. Donner Pass Road Extension Project – As presented in our February 2013 comment letter, the finding of acceptable levels of service under cumulative conditions is dependent upon the assumed completion of the Donner Pass Road Extension. Unfortunately, completion of that critical roadway system improvement project is beyond the control of not only the Canyon Springs project, but also the Town of Truckee. In fact, the Donner Pass Road Extension project is directly tied to the private sector Railyard Master Plan project, and whether this roadway system improvement occurs is dependent upon whether the railyard developer proceeds with the development project and funds its substantial portion of the road improvement. If the developer of the Railyard Master Plan project fails to implement that development for any reason, the Donner Pass Road Extension will not be completed. If that occurs, the entire cumulative conditions traffic analysis presented in the DEIR will be inaccurate, presenting an overly-optimistic view of traffic operations in the year 2031. Consequently, additional cumulative conditions traffic impacts are likely to be found. As with the other issues discussed above, the RDEIR includes no revisions aimed at correcting this deficiency in the environmental documentation. We believe that an enhanced cumulative conditions analysis is necessary, which would reveal the traffic impacts and needed mitigation measures if the Donner Pass Road Extension project is not completed. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS In addition to the comments summarized above, further review of the environmental documentation has revealed several more issues. These are presented below. 9. Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Intersection Mitigation – To offset excessive intersection delay at Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road, Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 (RDEIR p. 4.14-68) calls for implementation of a center refuge/acceleration lane for vehicles turning left from Glenshire Drive to westbound Donner Pass Road, in combination with other actions (including limitation of the development to 84 units until other requirements are met). The RDEIR concludes that construction of this physical improvement, combined with the various development limitations, will reduce the impact to Less Than Significant. However, several issues affect the feasibility of this recommended mitigation measure, primarily relating to funding, safety, and effectiveness of the proposed improvement. With regard to funding of the center refuge/acceleration lane, Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 states that: “. . . the project applicant shall pay its fair share portion of the cost.” No information is provided with respect to how the remaining portion of the improvement cost (i.e., the portion in excess of the project’s fair share) would be funded. Payment of a fair share contribution toward an improvement provides no mitigation unless the full cost of the measure is M R O ENGINEERS Ms. Carmen Borg November 5, 2014 Page 5 guaranteed. Because the mitigation measure described in the RDEIR gives no indication that the improvement project is fully funded, no mitigation exists. The second issue relating to the proposed mitigation measure concerns its feasibility and effectiveness. Construction of this lane would allow left-turning vehicles to perform a “two-stage” movement: first, a left-turn from Glenshire Drive to the refuge/acceleration lane and, second, acceleration into westbound Donner Pass Road traffic. Unfortunately, sufficient distance is not available between Glenshire Drive and Keiser Avenue to construct an adequate acceleration lane that would allow vehicles to move safely into the westbound traffic stream on Donner Pass Road. Specifically, the conceptual design illustrated on RDEIR Figure 4.14-7 (RDEIR p. 4.14-42) shows an acceleration lane that is approximately 120 feet long. This is far less than the acceleration lane length recommended in the 2010 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 650, Median Intersection Design for Rural High-Speed Divided Highways. Table 35 in that document describes the “Desirable Length of Full-Width MAL” [Median Acceleration Lane] for a roadway with a 45 MPH posted speed limit as 820 feet. (Note that introduction of the center refuge/acceleration lane effectively turns the pertinent section of Donner Pass Road into a divided highway with a painted median.) With respect to the length of median acceleration lanes, the Caltrans Highway Design Manual generally defers to the document entitled, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2011). Specifically, the May 7, 2012 version of the Caltrans document states the following (pp. 400-22 – 400-23): “Acceleration Lanes for Turning Moves onto State Highways. At rural intersections, with “STOP” control on the local cross road, acceleration lanes for left and right turns onto the State facility should be considered. . . . For additional information and guidance, refer to AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. . .” Exhibit 10-70 of the AASHTO document shows the minimum acceleration lengths for “entrance terminals.” For a roadway having a 45 MPH design speed with vehicles entering from a “stop condition,” the recommended acceleration length is 560 feet. We should note that this value applies to a facility with a “flat grade of two percent or less,” and Donner Pass Road at Glenshire Drive is on a downgrade that exceeds two percent. Consequently, a substantial portion of the westbound vehicles on Donner Pass Road were observed to be traveling in excess of 45 MPH, which would increase the needed acceleration length. Referring back to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (p. 200-30): “Figure 405.9 shows the standard taper to be used for dropping an acceleration lane at a signalized intersection. This taper can also be used when transitioning median acceleration lanes.” The taper referred to above is equal to the width of the acceleration lane multiplied by the velocity of the vehicles (for speeds greater than or equal to 45 MPH). Thus, for the 15-foot-wide M R O ENGINEERS Ms. Carmen Borg November 5, 2014 Page 6 acceleration lane shown on RDEIR Figure 4.14-7, a taper of 675 feet would be required (15 X 45 = 675). Even if the lane were only the standard width of twelve feet, the taper would need to be 540 feet (12 X 45 = 540). Combining the required acceleration lane length (560 feet) and the taper length needed to blend the lane back into the two-lane road (at least 540 feet and as much as 675 feet) indicates a need for a total length of 1,100 – 1,235 feet. In comparison, RDEIR Figure 4.14-7 shows a 120-foot acceleration lane length combined with a taper or transition section of approximately 65 feet, for a total length of about 185 feet. Therefore, to construct this “mitigation measure” would potentially induce a significant safety issue at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, as drivers attempting to merge into the flow of traffic on westbound Donner Pass Road would have insufficient distance to accelerate to anything close to 45 MPH before being forced to merge with that high-speed traffic. An additional safety issue concerns the likely possibility that vehicles turning left from Keiser Avenue to eastbound Donner Pass Road will also use the refuge/acceleration lane. In this regard, the RDEIR (p. 4.14-41) says the following: “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 potential for traffic accidents.” We note the use of the word “discourage,” rather than the more certain “prohibit.” We believe it is a relative certainty that drivers turning from Keiser Avenue will drive over the painted pavement markings to use the refuge area, leading to confusion, conflicts, and collisions. Furthermore, RDEIR Table 4.17-10 (p. 4.14-43) shows that, even with implementation of the median acceleration lane, the “with project” delay on the worst movement at this intersection would be 5.6 vehicle-hours. The LSC addendum report (p. 4) further states: “Table 5 summarizes the LOS and delay on the worst movement (the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive) under 2011 conditions with the new center lane. . . However, with full buildout of Canyon Springs, the LOS would degrade to an unacceptable level, with approximately 5.6 to 7.0 vehicle-hours of delay on the worst movement, depending on which site access alternative is selected.” LSC’s Table 5 shows that the value of 5.6 vehicle-hours of delay is associated with the proposed project, while the 7.0 vehicle-hours of delay result relates to the Edinburgh Drive Access alternative. In short, even with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, the intersection fails to operate acceptably under full project buildout. Moreover, as described above, the proposed mitigation measure will create a significant safety issue at the intersection. It simply M R O ENGINEERS Ms. Carmen Borg November 5, 2014 Page 7 makes no sense to induce a potentially significant safety problem by constructing an “improvement” that provides insufficient operational benefit. The RDEIR analysis dismisses the possibility of installing a traffic signal at this location, with only the briefest consideration. According to RDEIR p. 4.14-40, a traffic signal was considered infeasible, “due to the existing steep grades.” We note that the traffic volumes at this intersection are sufficient to meet the “Peak Hour” traffic signal warrant, as presented on Figure 4C-3 of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Caltrans, January 12, 2012), and provided here as Attachment A. We believe that it is not sufficient to claim that this intersection cannot be signalized because of the grades on Donner Pass Road at Glenshire Drive. Many jurisdictions have constructed signals in similar locations, with snowy conditions. Features such as advance signal heads, flashing beacons, high-friction pavement, advance detector loops, etc., may be necessary to ensure safety but, with judicious design, a traffic signal is potentially feasible at this location, and needs to be considered. With specific regard to the use of high-friction pavement, we note that neighboring Placer County has recently announced that it will be installing “high friction surface treatment” at 26 locations throughout the county. According to a public notice distributed by the Placer County Public Information Office (“Placer County E-News,” October 24, 2014): “The treatments are effective in reducing accidents by dramatically increasing the friction between vehicle tires and the roadway. This helps vehicles stop faster and drivers maintain better control without skidding. The treatment is especially effective around curves, on downhills, or approaching an intersection. The treatment places a thin layer of specially engineered aggregates as a topping on a coat of resin binder. The resin binder then locks the aggregate firmly in place, creating an extremely rough and durable surface capable of withstanding everyday roadway demands.” In conclusion, the proposed mitigation measure not only has limited beneficial effect with respect to traffic operations, but it will create a significant safety hazard on Donner Pass Road. Installation of a carefully designed traffic signal would appear to be the safest and most effective means of moving traffic through this intersection. More detailed consideration needs to be given to this option to mitigate the project’s significant impact at this location. 10. School-Related Traffic Impacts – To assess the impacts of the project on school-related traffic, the environmental documents evaluated three intersections at which traffic patterns were judged to be influenced by activity at the nearby Glenshire Elementary School: • Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive (West), • Glenshire Drive/Somerset, and • Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road. Unfortunately, these study intersections do not encompass the entire area that will be affected by project-related traffic impacts. Particularly significant is the exclusion of the Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive (East) intersection, as that will provide the primary access to the school from the project site (via Martis Peak Road to Glenshire Drive). In addition, the Glenshire M R O ENGINEERS Ms. Carmen Borg November 5, 2014 Page 8 Drive/Rolands Way intersection should be evaluated, as it is likely to be used for outbound trips from the school. To ensure a thorough analysis of potential school-related traffic impacts, it is essential that these two additional intersections be evaluated for project-related impacts. 11. Edinburgh Drive Access Analysis – Section 5 of the RDEIR documents the analysis of project alternatives. One of those alternatives, designated Alternative B, considers a project circulation plan that includes vehicular access by way of Edinburgh Drive on the west side of the project site (in addition to the access location on the east side of the site that would be provided as part of the proposed project). According to RDEIR Table 5-1 (RDEIR p. 5-5), that alternative would have traffic impacts that are “similar to the proposed project.” This finding is simply not credible, however, as will be demonstrated below. Inclusion of the Edinburgh Drive access point will alter the geographic distribution of the project-related trips. The environmental documents, however, present inconsistent information with respect to the specific magnitude of this change. For example, p. 50 of the August 2012 report by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. (which was incorporated into the DEIR) says: “A key difference between this [Edinburgh Drive] alternative and the proposed alternative is that the majority (60 percent) of project-generated traffic would use the Edinburgh Drive/Glenshire Drive route instead of the Hirschdale Road/I-80 route for trips made to/from points west of the Glenshire area.” In contrast to this, page 48 of the same LSC report states the following: “Based on the layout of the development, 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.” Thus, there seems to be some confusion on the part of the traffic analyst as to the trip distribution for project-generated trips under the Edinburgh Drive access alternative. In any event, the RDEIR has apparently employed the latter (85 percent west/15 percent east) distribution, as described on p. 5-11 of that document, which contains a statement that is almost identical to the second excerpt from the LSC report presented above (differing only in substitution of the word “site” for “development”). We should note that, based on field investigations and evaluation of the study area road system, we would generally support the “85 percent west/15 percent east” distribution of traffic under this alternative. In concluding that the Edinburgh Drive Access alternative’s traffic impacts are similar to those of the proposed project, the RDEIR goes on to say (RDEIR p. 5-18): “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 M R O ENGINEERS M R O ENGINEERS Ms. Carmen Borg November 5, 2014 Page 9 standard for impacts on local residential roadways, so long as the provisions of Circulation Element Policy P2.4 can be met.” Unfortunately, the arithmetic performed in deriving the values presented above is apparently faulty, as those values reflect no more than about 35 percent of the project-generated trips, which is obviously far less than 85 percent. Table 1 summarizes the actual volume of traffic that would be expected on the residential streets upon implementation of this alternative. Table 1 Alternative B: Edinburgh Drive Access Local Roadway Traffic Assignment Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Total Project Trip Generation1 2,578 46 148 194 164 93 257 RDEIR 2011 Local Roadway Trips2 840 --3 -- -- -- -- 89 32.6% -- -- -- -- -- 34.6% RDEIR 2031 Local Roadway Trips2 860 -- -- -- -- -- 91 33.4% -- -- -- -- -- 35.4% Corrected Local Roadway Trips4 2,191 39 126 165 139 79 218 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% Notes: 1 RDEIR Table 4.14-6, p. 4.14-29. 2 RDEIR p. 5-18, as cited above. 3 No figure presented in the RDEIR. 4 Based on the 85 percent westerly trip assumption presented in the RDEIR. Clearly, the volume of project-related traffic on the local roadways that would be affected by implementation of the Edinburgh Drive Access alternative is grossly underestimated in the RDEIR. The number of PM peak hour project trips on the local residential streets will be over 200, not 89 or 91. More importantly, rather than 840 or 860 daily trips added to those roadways, the actual number will be almost 2,200, based on the trip distribution presented in the RDEIR. Further, every single one of these trips will occur on Edinburgh Drive and Regency Circle north of Edinburgh Drive, with the bulk of the trips also using major portions of Courtenay Lane and Somerset Drive. In short, given that 2,200 daily trips is substantially more than the 1,000 trips per day that the Town uses as a standard for residential streets, this alternative would clearly result in a significant impact. Table 21 (p. 61) in the August 2012 LSC traffic impact analysis report summarizes the project- related effects on the local roadways. As noted above, however, the volume of project-generated trips derived for that analysis is incorrect. Table 2 presents a corrected version of that table. M R O ENGINEERS Ms. Carmen Borg November 5, 2014 Page 10 Table 2 Local Road Impacts - Corrected Edinburgh Access Alternative Roadway Segment ADT Exceeds Town Standard for Allowable ADT? Without Project Project Impact With Project Year 2011 Somerset Dr. – Glenshire Dr. to Courtenay Ln. 1,430 2,190 3,620 Yes Courtenay Ln. – Somerset Dr. to Regency Circle 530 2,190 2,720 Yes Regency Circle 510 2,190 2,700 Yes Edinburgh Dr. 130 2,190 2,320 Yes Year 2031 Somerset Dr. – Glenshire Dr. to Courtenay Ln. 2,060 2,190 4,250 Yes Courtenay Ln. – Somerset Dr. to Regency Circle 590 2,190 2,780 Yes Regency Circle 570 2,190 2,760 Yes Edinburgh Dr. 150 2,190 2,340 Yes All four local roads represented in the table would exceed the 1,000 trips per day standard employed by Truckee, in both 2011 and 2031. Traffic on Edinburgh Drive in 2011 would be almost 18 times greater with completion of the project, representing an increase of 1,685 percent). On Regency Circle, an increase of over 400 percent is projected for the year 2011, with lesser, but still significant increases on the other residential streets. Because the RDEIR analysis of project alternatives includes no detailed level of service analyses and the LSC report presents only very limited information of this type, it is impossible to discern the exact impact to the intersections and roadways in the neighborhood to the west of the proposed project (with the exception of the Glenshire Drive/Somerset intersection). Clearly, the facilities that would be impacted with the Edinburgh Drive connection are drastically different from those affected by the proposed project. If the Edinburgh Drive Access alternative is to be given serious consideration, at a minimum, the following locations should be examined: Roadways • Edinburgh Drive, • Regency Drive, • Courtenay Lane, • Somerset Drive, M R O ENGINEERS Ms. Carmen Borg November 5, 2014 Page 11 • Wiltshire Lane, and • Wellington Way. Intersections • Regency Circle/Courtenay Lane, • Somerset Drive/Courtenay Lane, • Wellington Way/Courtenay Lane, • Wellington Way/Glenshire Drive, and • Wiltshire Lane/Glenshire Drive. 12. Potentially Unfunded Transportation Projects Assumed – In addition to the Donner Pass Road Extension Project, which was discussed in our February 2013 letter, the cumulative conditions (year 2031) analysis in the RDEIR assumes completion of two other road system improvements: the Pioneer Trail Extension and the Bridge Street Extension. According to the RDEIR, these projects will provide additional connections between Downtown Truckee, Tahoe Donner, and Pioneer Trail. However, no information is presented with respect to the source(s) of funding to construct these projects (if any). It is, therefore, unclear whether there is a reasonable certainty that the roadway system improvements will actually be built in the cumulative conditions timeframe. If they are not completed, the level of service at certain locations could be worse than stated in the RDEIR, potentially resulting in additional significant impacts. To ensure consideration of a reasonable “worst case” scenario, the RDEIR must be modified to include a cumulative conditions analysis that would reveal traffic impacts and related mitigation measures if the Pioneer Trail Extension, Bridge Street Extension, and Donner Pass Road Extension projects are not completed. 13. Bicycle Safety – The RDEIR fails to address issues related to bicycle safety in the study area. Of particular concern is the two-mile section of Glenshire Drive between Martis Peak Road and Hirschdale Road, which is commonly known as the Hirschdale Hill. Bicyclists commonly use this facility, which is steep, curvy, and relatively narrow (particularly with respect to the width that would be necessary to provide two standard travel lanes in combination with standard bike lanes on each side). Project-related increases in traffic volumes on Glenshire Drive will exacerbate existing bike safety deficiencies, potentially leading to a significant impact. This must be evaluated in detail in the environmental documents. CONCLUSION Our review of the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed Canyon Springs project in Truckee, California revealed continued deficiencies in the document. Several issues that we identified in our February 20, 2013 comment letter were simply ignored in the RDEIR. Moreover, we have identified several additional deficiencies in the environmental documentation, which are presented in this letter. Of particular concern is the inaccurate analysis of the impacts of the Edinburgh Drive Access alternative, particularly with respect to the residential streets in the existing neighborhood immediately to the west of the project. That analysis incorrectly M R O ENGINEERS M R O ENGINEERS M R O ENGINEERS M R O ENGINEERS M R O ENGINEERS Ms. Carmen Borg November 5, 2014 Page 12 concludes that this alternative would have no significant impacts on the neighborhood. We have presented information demonstrating that this conclusion is faulty. Consequently, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations presented in the environmental documents remains questionable, and the proposed project may have additional significant impacts on the environment beyond those identified in the RDEIR. These issues must be fully addressed prior to approval of the proposed project and its related environmental documentation. We hope this information is useful. If you have questions concerning anything presented here, please feel free to contact me at (916) 783-3838. Sincerely, MRO ENGINEERS, INC. Neal K. Liddicoat, P.E. Ann C. Olson, C.E., T.E., P.T.O.E. Traffic Engineering Manager President M R O ENGINEERS ATTACHMENT A Warrant 3 - Peak Hour Signal Warrant Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road M R O ENGINEERS Conservation Biology Institute 1 November 18, 2014 Conservation Biology Institute 136 SW Washington Avenue Suite 202 Corvallis, Oregon 97333 www.consbio.org November 18, 2014 Ms. Carmen Borg, AICP Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Subject: Review of Biological Section of Canyon Springs Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Borg: This comment letter on the Canyon Springs Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) (Placeworks 2014) is submitted by the Conservation Biology Institute (CBI) on behalf of the Mountain Area Preservation Foundation (MAPF) and Saving Open Space Around Glenshire (SOSG). CBI is a non-profit conservation science organization whose mission is providing scientific expertise to support conservation and recovery of biological diversity in its natural state through applied research, education, planning, and community service. I have confined my review primarily to the Biological Resources sections of the RDEIR and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and appendices to these documents. Other relevant documents or data reviewed are included in the reference section of this letter. I also reviewed Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger’s prior comment letter on the DEIR (SMW 2013) and concur with statements in that letter regarding biological issues, particularly the failure of the DEIR to adequately address the biological setting, impacts, and mitigation. Those issues were not adequately addressed in the RDEIR. This letter expands on those and other biological issues. Conservation Biology Institute 2 November 18, 2014 In general, I find the RDEIR inadequate for the following reasons:  The description of existing biological resources is outdated and it is questionable whether it accurately describes current conditions onsite.  Project does not adequately address direct or indirect impacts to biological resources.  Project does not address impacts in a regional context.  Project does not adequately address cumulative impacts to biological resources.  Mitigation for habitat impacts is insufficient. These inadequacies affect the findings presented in the RDEIR. In some cases, the proposed project may result in impacts not addressed in the RDEIR. In other cases, the RDEIR underestimates the proposed project’s impacts and/or additional surveys/analyses are required to support the findings presented in the document. Major areas of concern are addressed below. Inadequate Description of Existing Biological Resource Conditions Setting, p. 4.4-18. The RDEIR relies on outdated information to describe the existing setting on the project site. Specifically, the RDEIR states that since 2011 reconnaissance level surveys determined that site conditions were predominantly unchanged from previous analyses, the existing setting discussion is based largely on previous findings (Placeworks 2014). However, the RDEIR provides very little documentation to support this finding. Descriptions of plant communities are based on surveys conducted at least 10 years ago (Foothill Associates 2004), and updated species lists are not provided to demonstrate that species use of the site is unchanged over the last decade. The project setting discussion and vegetation mapping should reflect current (not past) conditions and analyses. Refer to the earlier letter from Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger (SMW 2013) regarding additional comments on the description of existing biological resource conditions that were not addressed in the RDEIR. Setting, Plant Communities, p. 4.4-19. Vegetation mapping is used to identify sensitive or unique vegetation communities, wildlife habitat, and site biodiversity and thus, is a critical component of biological analyses. At the site (or property) level, vegetation mapping is achieved through field mapping and use of a vegetation classification system that is appropriately detailed to achieve the mapping objectives. Mapping that uses an overly broad classification system that does not recognize all habitats onsite will underestimate impacts to these habitats. Vegetation mapping used to characterize the Canyon Springs project site follows older classification systems (RDEIR, p. 4.4.-19) rather than the most recent (and detailed) system of classification and nomenclature presented in A Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) (Sawyer et al. 2009). The MCV is the standard reference for vegetation mapping in California. It has been adopted by state and federal agencies and conforms to the National Vegetation Classification System (Sawyer et al. 2009, FGDC 2008). The 2009 MCV is a complete revision of the 1995 version cited in the RDEIR (p. 4.4-19), and includes updated and original vegetation Conservation Biology Institute 3 November 18, 2014 descriptions based on additional sampling and analysis. This additional level of detail is important for identifying sensitive or unique vegetation communities (e.g., wetlands), wildlife habitat (e.g., mule deer habitat), and biodiversity. As an example, the RDEIR (p. 4.4-19) identifies a Jeffrey pine community, which likely corresponds to the MCV-identified Jeffrey pine alliance (Pinus jeffreyi Forest Alliance). Within this alliance, the MCV identifies 45 associations, including one association with mountain sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana) as a co-dominant species and four associations with bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) as a co-dominant species. Both mountain sagebrush and bitterbrush occur onsite, but information provided in the RDEIR is not sufficient to relate (or cross-walk) mapped vegetation to MCV association-level vegetation. In addition, the site- specific vegetation descriptions do not provide sufficient detail with regard to species composition and cover. Both ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and white fir (Abies concolor) were identified onsite in the wetland delineation (DEIR, Appendix D, Chapter 4, pg. 4-12) and earlier reports (e.g., Foothills Associates 2004), yet neither species is mentioned in the site- specific vegetation descriptions within the RDEIR. Co-dominance of either species with Jeffrey pine would result in mapping of additional vegetation types onsite, increased site biodiversity, and possibly, additional niche habitat for wildlife species. Failure to identify all vegetation associations onsite may result in underestimating impacts due to loss of habitat. The RDEIR (p. 4.4-20) identifies one sagebrush community dominated by mountain sagebrush, with bitterbrush, low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula), and rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosus) as associated species. Based on species composition, the mapped sagebrush community appears to correspond to one MCV vegetation alliance (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana shrubland alliance), but could fall into three to four different vegetation associations. Bitterbrush is considered a particularly important browse species for mule deer (DEIR, Appendix E, pg. 3.2), yet the RDEIR does not adequately describe how prevalent this shrub is onsite. Failure to identify habitat dominated or co-dominated by bitterbrush would result in underestimating impacts both to this vegetation type and to foraging habitat for mule deer. The vegetation map identifies some areas of low tree cover as sagebrush scrub and other areas with similar tree cover as Jeffrey pine forest. The RDEIR fails to explain the basis for these determinations. The document should include a description of mapping methodology, including (1) minimum mapping units for upland habitats, (2) degree of delineation from aerial imagery (if any) versus field-verification, (3) percent cover of tree species used to delineate forest versus shrub habitats, and (4) vegetation mapping date(s) (year/month). Failure to classify vegetation correctly could result in underestimating impacts to wildlife habitat. Meadow habitats (p. 4.4-23 – 4.4-24) should also be mapped according to MCV mapping standards. The RDEIR identified two meadow types: wet meadows and pebble meadows. The MCV (Sawyer et al. 2009) includes at least five different vegetation alliances that potentially Conservation Biology Institute 4 November 18, 2014 correspond to the wet meadow habitat onsite. Failure to identify all wet meadow vegetation types onsite could result in underestimating both impacts and appropriate mitigation. The description of pebble meadows in the RDEIR identifies biotic (vegetation) attributes of this habitat, but no abiotic attributes (e.g., soils, hydrology). The habitat description should include abiotic features that support this habitat and which may be adversely impacted by project implementation. Failure to include this information precludes a comprehensive analysis of project impacts and appropriate mitigation (e.g., buffers) for this habitat. Wetland Delineation. The wetland delineation (RDEIR, p. 4.4-35) identified 5.94 acres of wetlands onsite and indicated that the wetland-upland boundary was ‘demarked by an abrupt shift in the plant community from those species that are hydrophytes to those that are associated with uplands.’ Based on a cursory review of recent (2010) aerial imagery of the site, there appears to be a shift between potential wetland and adjacent upland associations in Intermittent Drainage 1 (ID-1) (DEIR, Appendix D [HEC 2011b], Delineation map), as well as apparent wetland hydrology (channel). However, there is no indication that ID-1 was sampled for the presence of wetland vegetation during the wetland delineation. The westernmost portion of ID-1 (along with other drainages onsite) is designated by the U.S. Forest Service as a Sierra Nevada Riparian Conservation Area (USFS 2006). Riparian conservation areas are ‘land allocations that are managed to maintain or restore the structure and function of aquatic, riparian and meadow ecosystems. The intent of management direction for RCAs is to (1) preserve, enhance, and restore habitat for riparian- and aquatic-dependent species; (2) ensure that water quality is maintained or restored; (3) enhance habitat conservation for species associated with the transition zone between upslope and riparian areas; and (4) provide greater connectivity within the watershed’ (USFS 2006). Inclusion of ID-1 in a RCA further suggests that this area should be assessed for the presence of wetlands. At a minimum, the RDEIR should indicate why this area is not considered a wetland. The wetland delineation was conducted in late August and early September 2010 under conditions of very little recent rain, and direct observation of hydrology on the site was not possible because very little rain had recently occurred (DEIR, Appendix D, p. 4-13). If wetland hydrology and some wetland species (e.g., herbaceous plants) could not be identified during the survey period, the wetland delineation may have underestimated the wetland acreage onsite. As discussed earlier, the RDEIR (Section 4.4, Biological Resources, p. 4.4-18) indicates that site conditions in 2011 were ‘predominantly unchanged from the conditions reported in the previous analysis prepared for the project site,’ thus providing justification for including descriptions of vegetation derived largely from a 10-year old report (Foothill Associates 2004). However, the 2004 report identified several wetland species, including at least two obligate wetland species (Mimulus primuloides, Stachys ajugoides) and three facultative wetland species (Hypericum scouleri, Ranunculus occidentalis, Salix drummondii), not detected in the recent wetland Conservation Biology Institute 5 November 18, 2014 delineation (DEIR, Appendix D). This suggests that either site conditions have changed since earlier surveys or the recent wetland delineation was conducted at a time of year that was not optimal for detection of these wetland species. Failure to provide current descriptions of wetland habitats or conduct appropriately-timed wetland delineations could result in underestimating wetland impacts from the proposed project. The wetland delineation indicates that a number of plant species were difficult to identify due to the season (DEIR, Appendix D, p. 4-12), but fails to name which plants are in question. This is important because at least two wetland species are also potentially-occurring sensitive species onsite: Carex davyi and Juncus luciensis. If any Carex or Juncus were identified only to generic level during either the wetland delineation or rare plant surveys, then the potential exists for these sensitive taxa to occur onsite. This would warrant either additional surveys to verify identification or consideration of these species in the impact analysis. Special Status Wildlife, p.4.4-25 – 4.4-29 and Table 4.4-2. The RDEIR, DEIR, and appendices indicate that general wildlife surveys and focused deer surveys were conducted on the project site. It is not clear, however, whether focused surveys were conducted for potentially-occurring sensitive wildlife species other than mule deer. Where sensitive wildlife species have a potential for occurrence onsite, focused surveys should be conducted prior to project approval to determine use onsite, particularly if these species are expected to utilize habitat that will be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed project. The project site is not an historic location for the federally endangered and state threatened Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, nor does the site occur within proposed Critical Habitat for this species. However, the applicant should survey specifically for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in upstream reaches of drainages onsite at the appropriate time of year (May-June) to assess whether these areas provide habitat components necessary for the frog to complete its life history. The RDEIR (p. 4.4-23) indicates that the meadow systems onsite are generally dry by mid-summer except in upstream areas directly influenced by off-site perennial springs. While persistence of water is crucial to the survival and recruitment of this species, active-season habitat (feeding, refuge) encompasses all types of aquatic habitats (Brown et al. 2014). Further, studies indicate that this species can move across the landscape, at least on a local level (Brown et al. 2014). Thus, there may be some potential for the species to use selected areas of the site as part of a larger home range. The RDEIR discussion of Special Status Wildlife should include black-backed woodpecker (p. 4.4-25). Although the CDFW recently determined that an endangered or threatened designation is not warranted for this species (CDFW 2013b; California Regulatory Notice Register 2013), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has ruled that they will review the status of this species when funding becomes available to determine if listing is warranted (USFWS 2013). Because of the ongoing potential for this species to be listed at the federal level, it should be included for consideration under Special Status Wildlife. Conservation Biology Institute 6 November 18, 2014 The discussion of mule deer should be updated with the most recent data from CDFW (2014) regarding use of the project site by this species (p. 4.4-31). The RDEIR notes that ‘there is a high potential for mule deer to utilize the project site and surrounding area for foraging, movement, and migration.’ However, based on reports and CDFW data, deer are actively use the project site (DEIR, Appendix E [RMT, Inc. 2009, HEC 2011a], CDFW 2014). The RDEIR does not mention that fawns have been observed onsite on several occasions (DEIR, Appendix E), and considers the potential for onsite fawning habitat to be low based on distance to designated critical fawning habitat. The RDEIR should assess whether the presence of fawns onsite is due to suitable fawning habitat onsite or in proximity to the site, or a function of migration from critical fawning habitat. Special Status Plants, p. 4.4-32 and Table 4.4-2. The CDFW rare plant survey protocols (CDFG 2009) indicate that rare plant surveys should be floristic in nature, i.e., every ‘plant taxon onsite should be identified to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity and listing status.’ The RDEIR should include a list of plant species detected onsite during the most recent rare plant surveys to document that these survey objectives were met. The CDFW protocols specifically state that floristic inventories are necessary when prior inventories or special status plant surveys have been conducted but are not current. The RDEIR should indicate the suitability of the survey year(s) for detection of sensitive plant species. Climatic conditions (e.g., low rainfall) affect flowering for many plant species and thus, the ability to detect those species where flowers or seed are diagnostic characteristics. The RDEIR does not describe the climatic conditions during the survey period. Therefore, it is not possible to evaluate whether conditions were suitable for detecting the presence or flowering of sensitive plant species (particularly, herbaceous perennial species). If adverse conditions are present during the survey period (e.g., drought), negative survey results may not provide reliable evidence that the target species does not occur onsite (CDFG 2009). Jurisdictional Waters, p. 4.4-33, 4.4-35. The RDEIR indicates that wetlands and non-wetland waters would be subject to regulation by the Army Corp of Engineers and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the Clean Water Act (sections 404 and 401, respectively) and that these areas and associated riparian areas may be subject to regulation by the CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600-1616 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). The RDEIR should include discussion of a Minor Use Permit (Truckee Municipal Code Chapter 18.30, General Property Development Standards, Section 18.30.050.F.3), which would be required for ‘projects resulting in the disturbance of land or located within 200 feet of any wetland area, unless the Director finds that the topographic conditions of the surrounding area will clearly preclude any disturbance of wetland areas and will ensure that any runoff from the project will not result in any water quality impacts to a wetland area.’ Conservation Biology Institute 7 November 18, 2014 The RDEIR’s Impact Analysis Underestimates Significant Impacts to Biological Resources Impacts to Sensitive Plant Communities and Federally Protected Wetlands, p. 4.4-38 – 4.4-42. The RDEIR states that 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 (RDEIR, p. 4.4-38) and that ‘the project includes a 100-foot setback from private housing lots to the main drainage…with the exception of ten housing lots (122 to 131), which woul d have a minimum 50- foot setback from the building envelopes to Buck Spring’ (RDEIR, p. 4-4-38 and p. 4.4-41). The RDEIR concludes that the proposed setbacks and project design features would result in less than significant impacts to sensitive habitats from direct and indirect impacts and thus, no mitigation measures are required. It is important to note that the reduced setback (ten housing lots, 122- 131) is adjacent to the most extensive wet meadow habitat onsite. Further, a review of edge effect literature indicated that buffer widths of 80-100 feet were only moderately likely to be effective at reducing impacts from invasive plants, vegetation clearing, trampling, and increased water supply, whereas buffer widths of 200 feet or greater were highly likely to be effective at reducing these same impacts (CBI 2000). Thus, buffer widths of 50 feet adjacent to sensitive habitat are not likely to reduce indirect impacts to a level of less than significant. Indirect impacts are discussed in additional detail below. The RDEIR (p. 4.4-42) indicates that the proposed project could indirectly impact sensitive plant communities (wet meadow, pebble meadow) and federally protected wetlands through modification of the hydrology that supports these areas. The RDEIR further concludes that project design features that will limit runoff from impervious surfaces will result in less than significant impacts to these habitats and, thus, no mitigation will be required. However, there is no quantification of expected runoff or runoff capture to support this statement. The RDEIR does not consider indirect impacts to habitat areas resulting from the project such as proliferation of invasive species, trampling (the larger pebble meadow is located 50 feet from a building envelope, road, and trail), or loss or reduction of pollinators within the larger pebble meadow due to fragmentation, which may affect long-term function and viability of this habitat. The RDEIR states that project design features would minimize edge effects such as habitat fragmentation (p. 4.4-47), but it is not clear how these design features offset invasive species or fragmentation-related impacts. As discussed above, the 50-foot setback from the pebble meadow is not sufficient to reduce indirect impacts to this habitat to a level of less than significant. The RDEIR analysis ignores the importance of the project site in the context of the hydrologica l sub-basin. For example, meadows reduce peak water flow after storms and during runoff, recharge groundwater supplies, provide wildlife habitat, filter sediments, and help provide clean water (Weixelman et al. 2011). The RDEIR (p. 4.4-35) indicates that non-wetland waters ‘convey mostly surface runoff and snow melt, but also include some groundwater recharge.’ The impact analysis must consider the effects of the proposed project on the filtering and Conservation Biology Institute 8 November 18, 2014 groundwater recharge functions of wetlands onsite, as well as impacts to the long-term viability of wetlands onsite from groundwater drawdown associated with project implementation. Impacts to Potentially Occurring Sensitive Wildlife Species. The impact analysis does not consider loss of snag or forest habitat for the black-backed woodpecker, which is a potentially occurring species onsite and under review by the USFWS for federal listing. In addition, black- backed woodpecker is considered a management indicator species for snags within burned forests by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS 2008). Direct Loss of Habitat for Movement, Foraging, and Migration. Loss of snags and Jeffrey pine and sagebrush scrub onsite are considered significant impacts (RDEIR, p. 4.4-43); however, no mitigation is provided for loss of these habitats. Some restoration is proposed to replace native perennial grasses and bitterbrush; however, the extent of this effort (acres) is not specified. Open Space Configuration. The RDEIR indicates that 176.17 acres of habitat would be preserved as public open space and would serve as a wildlife habitat and movement corridor. While the open space configuration captures the majority of the wetlands and ‘other waters of the U.S.,’ it is distributed throughout the development and is bisected by roads in several locations; thus, it is inconsistent with the Truckee General Plan Policy (COS-P1.1) and with general conservation principles of preserving open space that is in large blocks, contiguous, and connected (RDEIR, Table 4.4-1, p. 4.4-6). Nor will the open space serve as an effective movement corridor for some species, including mule deer. The RDEIR (p. 4.4-44) acknowledges the project will result in potentially significant impacts to the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd, but considers public open space and project design features sufficient to mitigate impacts to less than significant (p. 4.4.-45, 4.4-47). However, the open space design is not conducive to continued mule deer use, as discussed below, and proposed mitigation measures will not sufficiently offset habitat losses for this species. Mule deer movement and migration have been documented through the northern and southeastern portions of the project site (CDFW 2014); however, building envelopes extend into both areas. In the southeast corner of the project site, individual lot lines occur within 400 feet of the property boundary. The CDFW (Bentrup 2008 in CDFW 2013a) noted that edge effects may influence mammal behavior and reproductive success an average of 300 feet from altered habitat; thus, the proposed project would severely restrict mule deer migration through the project site. In addition, mule deer migration through the project site generally occurs in a northeast to southwest direction, while much of the designated open space is oriented in the opposite direction, situated between clustered housing, and bisected by roads, trails, and bridges. These open space features will inhibit use of the open space by mule deer. Because mule deer show high site fidelity (CDFW 2013a), project development that impacts known mule deer migration and foraging habitat will result in significant impacts. Conservation Biology Institute 9 November 18, 2014 As mentioned above, the presence of roads within open space diminishes the value of that open space as wildlife habitat. In addition to fragmenting habitat and increasing wildlife mortality (Beier et al. 2008), roads increase the spread of invasive plants, while roadway chemicals contribute to wetland pollution (Forman et al. 2003). The RDEIR should include an assessment of all indirect impacts and provide mitigation for significant impacts. It is unclear whether roads within the open space (including rights-of-way and additional easements) or fuel management zones are included in the total open space acreage. The RDEIR should clarify permitted activities within open space and adjust open space acreage (if necessary) to reflect the area that will remain undisturbed and/or restored to a natural state. It is also unclear whether other infrastructure (sewer main, drainage ditch) will occur within the open space (DEIR, Figure 3-11A) versus existing roadway rights-of-way and public utilities easements (DEIR, p. 3-29), and whether infrastructure footprints (e.g., retention ponds) within open space are counted in the total open space acreage. The RDEIR should clarify direct and indirect impacts within open space from infrastructure installation, and indicate whether impacts will be temporary (e.g., installation only) or long-term (clearing, utility maintenance). In addition, the RDEIR should indicate how direct and indirect impacts will be mitigated. Loss of Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Habitat for Movement, Foraging, and Migration. The RDEIR indicates that project design features (including open space, see above) would result in less than significant impacts from both direct and indirect impacts to wildlife species, including mule deer, and concludes that no mitigation is required for habitat losses. Contrary to the RDEIR’s conclusion, the CDFW indicates that development in both Nevada and the Truckee, California area is a concern for the Loyalton-Truckee deer herd (Sommer 2010). Mule deer use of much of the Canyon Springs site has been documented by the CDFW and others (CDFW 2014; CDFW 2013a; DEIR, Appendix E), and loss of this site for individuals that show high site fidelity will result in impacts to a deer herd that is already a source of concern due to habitat loss in the region. In addition, the project may further impact mule deer or mule deer habitat through increased mortality along roads and project-associated increases in noise, lighting, dust, water pollution, invasive species, fire frequency, and recreational activities. While some of these impacts are addressed in project design features (p. 4.4-46), others have not been considered sufficiently or at all; thus, the impact analysis is incomplete and mitigation is inadequate. Relationship to Other Conserved Lands. The RDEIR does not consider the value of the project site in a regional context, particularly its role in connecting conserved lands to the northeast and the southwest in support of the overall conservation vision for the region. The property is located between the state-owned Truckee River Wildlife Area, which lies 0.6 mile to the northeast, and the Martis Valley Conservation Area, which lies 0.5-0.75 mile to the southwest. Two units of the Truckee River Wildlife Area, including the unit closest to the project site (Union Ice Unit), are important for deer. Recent collaring data show the Union Ice Unit to be a summer concentration and fawning area for the Verdi sub-herd of the Loyalton-Truckee deer Conservation Biology Institute 10 November 18, 2014 herd (Sommer 2010), and fawning grounds also occur in the Martis Valley. A map depicting the project site in relation to the Martis Valley Priority Conservation Area and other conserved lands in the region is included with this letter. This map supplements Figure 4.3-2 (Public and Permanently Protected Open Space) of the Town of Truckee’s 2025 General Plan EIR , which also depicts conserved lands in the region. The impact analysis should assess the effects of the proposed project on landscape-level conservation values and connectivity. Development that impedes or blocks deer movement along migration corridors linking winter range and fawning habitats would affect the long-term viability of the herd and constitute a significant impact. The project site is included in or adjacent to high priority lands targeted for acquisition in the Sierra Valley Conceptual Area Protection Plan (CAPP) Amendment (CDFW 2012). This amendment, referred to as the Sierra Valley-Truckee Basin CAPP, would expand the original Sierra Valley CAPP. The purpose of land acquisition in the amended CAPP is to consolidate conservation efforts within the Sierra-Cascade region and expand protection for the Loyalton- Truckee deer herd (CDFW 2012). While the objectives of the original Sierra Valley CAPP were to protect wetland, wet meadow, riparian, bitterbrush and sagebrush habitats for the Loyalton- Truckee deer herd and other wildlife species, the amended CAPP would additionally include important migratory corridors, critical fawning habitat and winter range (CDFW 2012). Land ownership within the amended CAPP is variable, but much of the landscape is owned by the U.S. Forest Service or private timberlands. Portions of the project site (Assessor Parcel Numbers 49-020-17, 49-020-18, and 49-020-19) have been designated high priorities for acquisition under the Sierra Valley-Truckee Basin CAPP, along with adjacent lands to the east (CDFW 2012). These designations reinforce the value of these areas to the Loyalton-Truckee deer herd. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project will result in loss of mule deer habitat and impacts to a deer migration corridor. The CDFW indicates that ‘the quality of much of the mule deer habitat (in the region) is degraded to the point where all summer range is important and can be considered essential to this deer herd’ (Sommer 2010). The loss of habitat on the project site constitutes a significant, cumulative impact that requires mitigation to offset these losses. The proposed project may result in significant, cumulative impacts to other wildlife species, such as black-backed woodpecker or Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. However, the RDEIR does not assess potential impacts for these species. The RDEIR does not consider the effects of climate change on deer migration, migration routes, or deer habitat. Deer migration is influenced by climate and plant phenology (Monteith et al. 2011), and predicted warmer temperatures and reduced snow depth (Kershner 2014) may result in deer staying on summer grounds longer. While mule deer may adjust to these changes, shifts in migration patterns will increase pressure on summer ranges. Thus, summer range habitat may take on additional importance to support viable deer populations. The RDEIR should address the cumulative impact of the loss of foraging and migration habitat on future deer population viability under changing conditions, and provide mitigation to offset significant impacts. Conservation Biology Institute 11 November 18, 2014 Climate change scenarios also predict that fire seasons will be increasingly longer and hotter, and characterized by larger and more frequent fires than in the past (Westerling 2006). Altered fire regimes may be further exacerbated by invasive species and an increase in anthropogenic fire ignitions due to increasing human populations near wildland areas (Pauseas and Keeley 2014). Altered fire regimes may result in habitat type conversions, with shrub habitats replaced by invasive species such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Cheatgrass has been documented on the Canyon Springs site. (DEIR, Appendix D). As discussed earlier, development of roadways and other project elements will increase the spread of invasive plants, including cheatgrass. Cheatgrass contributes to increased fire frequency in sagebrush communities (Baker 2006), and already has altered the fire season in some areas of the eastern Sierra Nevada (Slaton and Stone 2013). Conversion of scrub habitats to cheatgrass-dominated grasslands would reduce cover and browse opportunities for mule deer. The RDEIR fails to assess the potential for the project site to contribute cumulatively to impacts to deer habitat in the region from increased fire ignitions and invasive species. Alternatives Analysis. The analysis of alternatives is based on findings from the impact analyses, which are incomplete. Nonetheless, alternatives (including the no project alternative) that reduce the development footprint, increase setbacks to sensitive habitat (wetlands, meadows, deer migration routes), increase open space in the southeast portion of the site, and decrease direct and indirect impacts in open space areas are preferable to the current project design. Conclusion The description of biological resources onsite is outdated, while methods and survey results are not sufficiently detailed to determine the adequacy of biological surveys. Further, the RDEIR does not consider or adequately address all direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to biological resources that may occur from project implementation. As a result, proposed mitigation measures are incomplete and inadequate to compensate for project impacts. It is CBI’s recommendation that these deficiencies are addressed prior to certifying the document. Sincerely, Patricia Gordon-Reedy Vegetation Ecologist/Conservation Biologist Map: Conserved Lands in the Vicinity of the Canyon Springs Project Site, including the Martis Valley Priority Conservation Area (Priority Conservation Area) Conservation Biology Institute 12 November 18, 2014 Conserved Lands in the Vicinity of the Canyon Springs Project Site, including the Martis Valley Priority Conservation Area (Priority Conservation Area) Conservation Biology Institute 13 November 18, 2014 References Baker, W.L. 2006. Fire and restoration of sagebrush ecosystems. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(1):177-185. Beier, P., D. Majka, S. Newell, and E. Garding. 2008. Best management practices for wildlife corridors. Northern Arizona University. 14 pp. Bentrup, G. 2008. Conservation buffers: design guidelines for buffers, corridors, and greenways. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-109. Asheville, NC: USDA, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. http://nac.unl.edu/bufferguidelines/guidelines/2_bodiversity/10.html . In California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2013a. Comment letter, DEIR for the Canyon Springs subdivision (SCH# 2004052060), County of Nevada, CA. March 1. Brown, C., M.P. Hayes, G.A. Green, and D.C. Macfarlane, technical coordinators. 2014. Mountain yellow-legged frog conservation assessment for the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, USA. A collaborative inter-Agency project by USDA Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. R5-TP-038. July. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and natural communities. State of California, Natural Resources Agency. November 24. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline=1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012. Land acquisition proposal: Sierra Valley-Truckee Basin Conceptual Area Protection Plan (CAPP) expansion. August 24. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2013a. Comment letter, DEIR for the Canyon Springs subdivision (SCH# 2004052060), County of Nevada, CA. March 1. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2013b. Memorandum: black-backed woodpecker; proposed California Fish and Game Commission findings of fact (Fish and Game Code, 2075.5(1).). October 17. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. GIS mule deer shapefile data in relation to Canyon Springs development (combined shapefile). California Regulatory Notice Register. 2013. Fish and Game Commission, notice of findings, black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus). 47-Z:1837-1846. http://www.oal.ca.gov/res/docs/pdf/notice/47z-2013.pdf#page=45 Conservation Biology Institute (CBI). 2000. Review of potential edge effects on the San Fernando Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina). Prepared for Ahmanson Land Company and Beveridge and Diamond, LLP. March 21. Conservation Biology Institute 14 November 18, 2014 Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 2008. National vegetation classification standard, version 2. FGDC-STD-005-2008. Federal Geographic Data Committee, FGDC Secretariat, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Foothill Associates. 2004. Biological resource analysis for the Tahoe Boca Estates project site. Prepared for Quad Knopf. August 6. Forman, R.T.T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bissonette, A.P. Clevenger, C.D. Cutshall, V.H. Hale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C.R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A. Jones, F.J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T.C. Winter. 2003. Road ecology: science and solutions. Island Press, Washington, DC. Heal Environmental Consulting (HEC). 2011a. CEQA significance of mule deer at the Canyon springs site, Truckee, California. Prepared for Canyon Springs Joint Venture. July 28. Heal Environmental Consulting (HEC). 2011b. Final delineation of waters of the U.S. Canyon Springs, Town of Truckee, #200300655. Prepared for Canyon Springs Joint Venture. October 17. Kahre, K.S., and G.S. Fowler. 1982. Loyalton-Truckee deer herd management plan. California Department of Fish and Game in cooperation with the Tahoe National Forest, Plumas National Forest, Toiyabe National Forest, U.S. Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Nevada Department of Wildlife, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Carson City District. 83 pp. Kershner, J.M., editor. 2014. A climate change vulnerability assessment for focal resources of the Sierra Nevada. Version1.0. EcoAdapt, Bainbridge Island,WA. Monteith, K.L., V.C. Bleich, T.R. Stephenson, B.M. Pierce, M.M. Conner, R.W. Klaver, and R.T. Bowyer. 2011. Timing of seasonal migration in mule deer: effects of climate, plant phenology, and life-history characteristics. Ecosphere 2(4):1-34. Article 47. Pausas, J.G., and J.E. Keeley. 2014. Abrupt climate-independent fire regime changes. Ecosystems DOI: 10.1007/s10021-014-9773-5. Placeworks. 2004. Canyon Springs revised draft EIR. Prepared for Town of Truckee. September 29. RMT, Inc. 2009. Movement and migration of mule deer at the Canyon Springs site, Truckee, California. October 20. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation, second edition. California Native Plant Society in collaboration with California Department of Fish and Game. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, CA. 1300 pp. Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger LLP. 2013. Comment letter: Canyon Springs project draft environmental impact report. Prepared by Ellison Folk and Carmen Borg on behalf of Mountain Area Preservation Foundation ("MAPF") and Saving Open Space around Glenshire ("SOSG"). March 5. Conservation Biology Institute 15 November 18, 2014 Slaton, M.R., and H.E. Stone. 2013. Natural range of variation (NRV) for pinyon-juniper in the bioregional assessment area, including the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascades, and Modoc and Inyo National Forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest region, Vallejo, CA. Sommer, M. 2010. Interstate deer project. Loyalton-Truckee deer herd report and management plan update. Habitat sections only. In partial fulfillment of PR Grant W-83-R-1. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding on a petition to list two populations of black-backed woodpecker as endangered or threatened. Federal Register 78(68):21086-21097. U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2006. Sierra Nevada riparian conservation areas. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Remote Sensing Lab. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/projects/frdb/layers/rcas.html U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2008. Sierra Nevada Forests bioregional management indicator species (MIS) report: life history and analysis of management indicator species of the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. January. Weixelman, D.A., B. Hill, D.J. Cooper, E.L. Berlow, J.H. Viers, S.E. Purdy, A.G. Merrill, and S.E. Gross. 2011. A field key to meadow hydrogeomorphic types for the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Ranges in California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. General technical report R5-TP-034. 34 pp. Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Increases in western U.S. forest wildfire associated with warming and advances in the timing of spring. Science 313:940–943.