The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutPublic Comment #054 (Butler)RAY BUTLER P. O. Box 2507 Truckee, California 96160 rwbutler338@att.net November 20, 2014 Ms. Denyelle Nishimori Town of Truckee Community Development Department 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee, CA 96161 RE: Comments on Canyon Springs Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) Sent via electronic mail this date to dnishimori@townoftruckee.com Dear Ms. Nishimori: Thank you for the opportunity to comment and also for your prompt responses to questions and requests for documents relating to the RDEIR the past few weeks. I commented on the biological resources section of the DEIR in a letter on March 6, 2013. The letter is in the record and posted on the Town’s website. After reviewing the RDEIR I see no evidence that my comments were considered by the Town’s EIR consultant in developing the new document. To illustrate this point, my comment #1 on the DEIR stated that the Biological Resources chapter does not meet the state standards adopted by the State of California on September 2010, as required by State Senate Bill 85. On page 4.4-7 of the RDEIR under Methods, LSA Associates (a sub-consultant under DCE/Placeworks) clearly are continuing to use unacceptable standards and outdated references. My comment #2 for the DEIR provided the correct references. To reiterate, it’s apparent to me, based on the factual record, that my DEIR comment letter was not considered before RDEIR preparation. I.REQUEST THAT PREVIOUS COMMENTS MADE MARCH 6, 2013 BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE I formally request that my letter of March 6, 2013 (Attachment 1) be fully and completely incorporated by reference into the record for comments on the RDEIR. The comments that are in this document are in addition to those of March 6, 2013. III. REVIEW OF DEIR and APPENDIX A A.Biological Resources - Compliance with the Town’s General Plan and Mitigation Conﬂicts with the Town of Truckee’s General Plan. Impacts identiﬁed for BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-4 share sufﬁciently similar characteristics that they can be grouped together for assessing impacts. They all entail the removal or modiﬁcation of habitat components such as sagebrush and Jeffrey pine (BIO-1 and BIO-2) and snag trees (BIO-4). This removal and/or modiﬁcation is identiﬁed as signiﬁcant unless mitigated. All share the same mitigation strategy of protecting the identiﬁed habitat component (dens, nests/cavities/ roosts, native vegetation, etc.) while occupied by the associated, sensitive animal species. After the animals leave, developers can remove the habitat. A conservation strategy based on saving an individual or a few individuals for the short term will not sustain populations. This is in direct conﬂict with the vision, various policies and goals of the Town’s General Plan wherein biological assets are meant to be available for the future generations of residents to enjoy. Speciﬁcally: COS-P1.5 (Provide maximum beneﬁt in terms of habitat preservation), Goal COS-4 (Protect areas of signiﬁcant wildlife habitat and sensitive biological resources), COS-P4.1 (Provide for the integrity and continuity of biological resources, open space, and wildlife movement corridors and support the permanent protection and restoration of these areas, particularly those identiﬁed as sensitive resources) and Goal COS-5 (Maintain biodiversity among plant and animal species in the Town of Truckee and the surrounding area, with special consideration of species identiﬁed as sensitive, rare, declining, unique, or representing valuable biological resources). These policies and goals have no qualifying statements, such as “to the greatest extent possible” or “where appropriate” as is found with other policies and goals. The italicized text cited above are deﬁnitive statements and unquestionably represent what Truckee citizens wanted in the Town’s General Plan. B. Biological Methods (RDEIR 4.4-7 - 4.4-9) Do not meet Professional Standards •The Literature Search fails to follow the State-mandated protocol adopted in September 2010. Subsequently, basic references used in the 2012 DEIR were incorrect then and are still being used in the RDEIR (see p. 4.4-19). This is a clear CEQA non-compliance issue. •RDEIR claims of “peer”, “third party” and project proponent’s “independent biologist” reviews does not meet recognized and professional standards for peer review. I have examined the 25+ year history of biological resource reports in the record for the Canyon Springs site. I listed every consultant company and biologist involved for each report. After charting the data to ﬁgure out complex and intertwined relationships, it is apparent that some of the reviews represented in the RDEIR as peer, third party or independent, were actually reviewed by the person or ﬁrm that did the original report. Since no disclosures were made of these relationships, the question arises if this was just poor editing by the prime consultant or a misrepresentation that could lull reviewers. I have no opinion nor intend to make any. Regardless, it is another indicator of the poor quality and lack of professionalism in the biological resources section of the RDEIR and DEIR. C. Mitigations in the RDEIR will not ensure that Impacts are Less Than Signiﬁcant. Canyon Springs Homeowners’ Association (CSHOA) •BIOs-5a, 5d, 5e and 5g, 5h and 5i assign the yet-to-be created Canyon Springs Homeowners’ Association (CSHOA) with some intensive and expensive duties which if implemented, are claimed to reduce project impacts to “less than signiﬁcant”. The viability of the proposed mitigations will depend on a fully-funded, functioning CSHOA. Because so much is at stake the RDEIR needs to propose details such as estimated budgets (funding and expenses), legally enforceable bylaws, etc. for the CSHOA. It would be irresponsible for the lead agency to certify the RDEIR without these disclosures. To put off the details until the development agreement stage is an unacceptable risk for the Town, it’s citizens, and especially Glenshire residents. •Mitigation measures relying on posted signs are proven to have limited or no success. The RDEIR’s supposition that signs will reduce impacts to less than signiﬁcant is speculation not based on fact. A recently published paper (Hughson and Darby, 2013) describes the results of a carefully designed scientiﬁc study to determine the efﬁcacy of signs in the Mojave National Preserve, a unit of the National Park Service. Results showed that warning signs with ﬂashing yellow lights, posted speed limits and increased law enforcement was not effective in reducing impacts to a listed species. Failure to obey signs is an issue in Truckee. For example, a signed Truckee River Watershed Council restoration area, downstream from the river’s convergence at Donner Creek, was trampled by foot trafﬁc and dogs. Another example are the incidences of uncontrolled dog/people conﬂicts on the Town’s trail systems. The best example that combines strategies of public education, focused education on users, signs, and enforcement - all strategies included in Canyon Springs mitigation proposals - can be found with Truckee/Little Truckee River angling regulations. First exposure to regulations is at the point of sale for ﬁshing licenses and tackle, both in Truckee and the Reno area vendors. California regulations are distributed and or available with each license, posters notifying anglers of special regulations are posted in plain view, and clerks habitually ask where the angler intends to ﬁsh - not only to make sure the tackle is appropriate - but to again notify the angler that special regulations exist. I have personally witnessed clerks explaining the regulations in detail. The second exposure consists of signs posted at virtually every vehicle parking location where anglers can access the River. In certain locations where signs have been stolen or defaced, the information has been stencil-spray painted on permanent parking barricades. Regardless, records from Truckee Superior Court have shown between 50-70 citations are handled annually for Truckee/Little Truckee ﬁshing violations. This number does not include citations adjudicated in Sierra and Placer county courts. Based on the facts presented in this paragraph, RDEIR mitigation proposals are wishful conjecture. Unless additional mitigations are offered to supplement the sign proposals, and the public is offered a chance to review them, the RDEIR mitigations are inadequate. •The REDIR represents that deaths of a few deer from from vehicle collisions are not important enough to be analyzed. I strongly disagree. In 2008 the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, funded a study and issued a Report to Congress titled, “Wildlife-Vehicle Collision Reduction Study” (FHWA-HRT-08-034). This report is available electronically. The information in the report has direct implications for properly assessing project impacts on wildlife, safety, economics, and trafﬁc for Canyon Springs The evidence makes clear that impact analyses for these issues in the DEIR and RDEIR are clearly inadequate. Maintaining Defensible Space for Wildland Fire Will Likely Have Signiﬁcant Impacts on Biological Resources - Further Analyses Required The Canyon Springs project is in the State of California’s highest risk category for wildland ﬁres, classiﬁed as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CalFire Map). Sole authority to issue clearance orders to property owners resides with CalFire and the Truckee Fire Protection District. The authorities are found in California Resources Code Section 4291 (Resources Code 4291). In 2005 Section 4291 was updated and increased minimum defensible space requirements from 30’ to 100’. However, Section 4291 gives broad discretion for authorities to order whatever is warranted to protect property. The land use maps and descriptive text for each project Alternative quantiﬁes amounts of land for building envelopes, lot lines, open space, etc. It is not clear if the maps and descriptions correctly identify what each Alternative would look like using the 100’ minimum standard. If changes are necessary to maps and/or descriptions, there could be impact to biological resources from the additional disturbance. This needs to be reviewed and clariﬁed before certiﬁcation of the RDEIR and DEIR. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE QUALITY OF THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SECTION “Signiﬁcant new information” was the reason given by the Town to undertake the RDEIR process. The new information includes a trafﬁc study and information on biological resources. A new project Alternative is also proffered in the RDEIR. The biological information consisted of a November 2013 visit to the project site to check the current vegetation conditions compared to previous surveys were conducted. This resulted in a change on the vegetation map in the RDEIR. Speciﬁcally, the descriptive word “Big” was removed from the legend leaving “Sagebrush”. The other biological information relates to the Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd. I have examined the deer information in detail as well as the remarks made by the project proponent’s “independent” biologist. These remarks can be found Appendix A if the various folders and ﬁles are opened with “Stoel-Rives” in the title. From document distribution notes, it is evident that DCE/Placeworks used the information in Appendix A to develop the RDEIR document. It is apparent to me that DCE/PlaceWorks either didn’t read or ignored my DEIR comment letter as they failed to use the State’s vegetation protocol and required reference updates. The new deer herd information comes from the project proponent ﬁling a California and Nevada Public Records Act request from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). Each of these agencies are Trustee Agencies with authorities and responsibilities embodied in each state’s constitution. Simpliﬁed, a Trustee Agency is one that manages assets owned and shared by all citizens, not just one individual. In North America (Canada and the US), wildlife is a trust asset with roots in English Common Law. In California, this common law principal was adopted by the Territorial Legislature a few years before California was admitted to the Union. Wildlife has been a trust asset for all Californians for over 165 years. The trustee agencies have been collecting data about wildlife as the basis to develop scientiﬁcally-based regulations, for a long time. All these tasks are based on legislative mandates. The data collected from the Public Records Act requests consists of email, letters and preliminary mapping data. PRELIMINARY is the facultative word. From this preliminary data, the proponents attorney and “independent” biologist have constructed a complete, biological impact analysis for the wildlife trust assets that are on their property. As expected, they found that there was no signiﬁcant impacts to the wildlife trust assets that couldn’t be mitigated. In one letter the “independent” biologist states that “25 years of studying deer at this site is enough”. It would be expected that the burden of proof is on the party claiming that wildlife occupying or using their property has no nexus to the public trust. In such cases where there is disagreement among experts, some further checks would be a prudent course. In biology, there are some standard approaches used to determine analytical competency including: Any peer reviewed publications in scientiﬁc journals?, Any memberships in wildlife or ecological societies or recognitions/awards from those groups?, Any college degrees and in what major and at what school? Based on my opinion of the unprofessional quality displayed in both the DEIS and RDEIS, I have undertaken that investigation. The results makes the decision an easy one for me, the Trustee Agencies are the ones I want to represent my trust interests in wildlife. As a last note, the Hughson and Darby study cited herein to support my comments on the efﬁcacy of signs, was published in California Fish and Game, CDFW’s fully refereed and peer reviewed journal focused on California’s wildlife trust assets. This year is the 100th year this journal has been published. It is recognized by biologists worldwide as one of the oldest, if not the oldest, journal of this type still active. I’m still searching the index for California Fish and Game and have yet to ﬁnd anything published by any biologist associated with the Canyon Springs project. I still have a few years of indexes to search so maybe something will turn up. SUMMARY FINDINGS 1. The RDEIR’s proposed mitigations for biological resources will not reduce impacts to less than signiﬁcant levels, they will remain signiﬁcant. 2. The RDEIR’s assessments of biological resources with regard to signiﬁcance, especially those relating to deer and their habitat, does not meet acceptable standards of a professionally prepared document. 3. The RDEIR document does not comply with state protocols, refuses to use required references, and clearly shows that absolutely no scientiﬁcally meaningful up-to-date biological research was investigated or considered. 4. The RDEIR’s representations that the biological sections were peer reviewed is a misrepresentation. 5. Many of the biological resource sections do not comport to the policies and goals of the Town’s General Plan. 6. Certiﬁcation of the DEIR and RDEIR is not justiﬁed at this time. Respectively submitted, s/ Ray Butler Truckee, California REFERENCES Listed in Order as Cited All references are available online. Go to agency website and follow the menu. If you have trouble downloading contact the author of these comments at rwbutler338@att.net. Attachment 1, By reference to the Town of Truckee website for comments to Canyon Springs DEIR, March 6, 2013. Hughson, D. L. and Darby, N., Desert tortoise road mortality in Mojave National Preserve, California. California Fish and Game 99 (4): 222-232; 2013 U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Report to Congress, Wildlife-vehicle collision reduction study (FHWA-HRT-08-034), Washington, D. C. 2013 CalFIre Fire Hazard Map for Truckee California Resources Code Section 4291