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.