HomeMy Public PortalAboutPublic Comment #066 (Juncosa)16173 Lancaster Place
Truckee, CA 96161
November 19, 2014
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
Town of Truckee
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 96161
Subject: Canyon Springs Revised Draft EIR September 29, 2014
Dear Ms. Nishimori,
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the document referenced above, referred to below as the
RDEIR. There is very little evidence in RDEIR that comments submitted to the Town in 2013 were
addressed: there are no responses, almost no text addressing the issues raised, and the revisions from
the DEIR of March 2013 are so minor that nearly all of the comments I made before are still applicable.
Some of the few changes are highly commendable and correct, but the both the sections recirculated in
the RDEIR and the ones that I commented upon in March 2013 but were not recirculated remain
inadequate under CEQA and need further improvement before the EIR can be certified.
General
Comments
On
CEQA
Compliance
of
RDEIR
The Canyon Spring RDEIR provides some inadequate and/or inaccurate baseline information that is
sometimes, does not fully analyze and describe the environmental impacts that would result from
project construction and long-term occupation, and recommends many mitigation measures that are
either insufficiently specified, not adequate to reduce the project impacts to less-than-significant levels,
or are infeasible, or not effective, or combinations of those characteristics. As a consequence, if the
project were to be approved, constructed, and occupied as proposed, there will be potentially
significant residual environmental impacts which have not been accurately and fully described in the
RDEIR, so it does not presently meet the requirements of CEQA. Since some of the same flaws in
cumulative analysis in the DEIR persist in the RDEIR, these comments remain relevant to the RDEIR.
Some of the statements regarding cumulative impact analysis seem to me to be incorrect. My
understanding is that, if a project effect is less-than-significant on a project-specific basis, but, in
combination with other less-than-significant project-specific effects, results in an impact which is
collectively significant, then a contribution to a significant cumulative impact must be identified in the
EIR. Instead, many of the EIR sections find that project-specific effects are less-than-significant and draw
the conclusion from that that the cumulative impact is therefore also less-than-significant. That doesn’t
necessary follow, and doesn’t seem to be in accordance with the text on page 4-3. Please clarify, and
correct cumulative impact findings, if any, that are not in accordance with CEQA guidelines.
Page 4-4 of the DEIR states that the subdivisions to the west of Canyon Springs are regarded as built
out, and are not considered in cumulative analysis. This is factually incorrect; the Elkhorn subdivision is
only about 10 percent built; I believe that’s the case for the Bluffs too. Therefore, the traffic and water
quality impacts of these two areas need to be included in cumulative analysis. I believe the unbuilt
portions of these two subdivisions together total about half the number of units that are proposed for
Canyon Springs. That’s not insignificant, and probably would alter the cumulative traffic analysis.
Reasonable recommendations to achieve CEQA adequacy were made to the Town in response to the
Notices of Preparation (NOPs), not many of which were followed. At least one comment letter sent to
the Town by a responsible or trustee agency (Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board) is
omitted from the DEIR Appendix B, which purports to include “comments received on the EIR process
from 2003 to 2011…” It is my understanding that compliance with CEQA requires that the lead agency
either follow the direction of trustee agencies as provided in NOP letters, or explain in writing why that
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 2
direction was not followed. Neither occurred in the case of this letter. Additional details are provided
below under Biological Resources – Wetlands. The EIR preparers should check the withdrawn 2007 DEIR
to ensure that there aren’t other agency scoping letters which were not considered by the DEIR or
RDEIR. This comment on the DEIR remains applicable to the wetland discussion in the RDEIR.
Comments below identify substantive shortcomings in the presentation of existing conditions in both
the traffic and biological resources sections of the RDEIR, which materially affect the impact analyses.
These alone are significant new information that provide cause for recirculation of a revised revised
DEIR. Also, if the revised DEIR either identifies any new and potentially significant impacts, or revises the
wording of any that already appear (that is, makes them into new and different mitigation statements),
or recommends any new and speculative mitigation measures, it should be recirculated so that the
public has an opportunity to evaluate the adequacy, feasibility, and effectiveness of the new proposals.
Given that so many mitigation measures in both the DEIR and the present RDEIR do not stand the test of
critical scrutiny, I think it is necessary for the revised revised DEIR or FEIR to include much stronger
factual basis for the opinions about impacts and mitigation effectiveness that it expresses, and for the
process to allow for public comment on new or revised mitigation measures prior to the Planning
Commission hearing at which voting on the certification of the FEIR will take place.
Several critical documents that are referenced in the RDEIR and/or DEIR appendices are “gray literature”
documents that are not available to the general public, whether at a public or university library or on
the internet. I specifically requested in writing in March 2013 that two of these be provided for public
review, more than 18 months prior to the publication of the RDEIR, but they were not. Therefore the
recirculation remains inadequate to address all of the inadequacies of the DEIR.
One of these mystery documents is the oft-cited report by Beck (1990). My comments of March 4, 2013,
include the following: “Since Beck (1990) seems to be an important element in the conclusions reached
by HEC (2011), please provide this reference in the revised DEIR and/or FEIR so that the public can
review and comment on its scientific adequacy and CEQA relevance.Since this is not a published source,
and many of the conclusions of the applicant’s consultant and attorneys, and of the EIR itself, can be
traced all the way back to this one source, it must be included in the EIR for the latter to be adequate.
The RDEIR neglected to address this request, therefore it failed to provide the public an opportunity to
review all of the information sources upon which its conclusions are based, therefore does not
adequate satisfy CEQA’s public information requirement.” The Town and RDEIR ignored this comment.
The Town finally provided this reference to Mr. Ray Butler, long after the circulation of the RDEIR.
Although this does not constitute adequate public circulation of the document, it bears mentioning
that Beck provides NO systematic methodology and NO substantial facts and evidence to support his
opinions, and indeed makes many statements that any qualified biologist who is knowledgeable about
the regional wildlife ecology would find to be highly inaccurate or misleading. Given that this source is
the basis for statements by a whole series of consultants right up through the applicant’s attorney,
failure of the RDEIR to reveal the total lack of foundation for these conclusions in a timely manner,
pursuant to a written request, is a serious inadequacy to respond to CEQA requirements.
Another example is a report mentioned as “Geocon 2007” (not 2006). What is this and what are its
contents? The DEIR seems to say that this Geocon 2007 identifies deficiencies in the drainage plan and
analysis, so it is certainly highly relevant to Section 4.9 and should have been included somewhere. It is
at least responsible, if not actually required by CEQA, for the DEIR to provide full citations for any
references cited, and to include any important documents that aren’t in the public domain in the
appendices.
There are many of the individual technical sections (specifically including Section 4.4 in the RDEIR)
which include descriptions of methodology of some specific study or field action, but then the rest of
the section doesn’t provide the results. Without the results, the statements of methodology are not
relevant, not verifiable, and do not provide support for the RDEIR’s presentation of existing conditions
and analysis of impacts. For every place in the RDEIR where there is a statement of methodology of
studies, actions, or observations, the results need to be provided (either the full data or at least a
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 3
summary; not just the conclusions). This is one of very few ways in which the public has an opportunity
to assess the adequacy of the studies performed. If the results are not provided, the statements of
methodology must also be deleted, and any conclusions based on the unknown type of studies must
also be deleted.
The RDEIR provides data and documentation pertaining to mule deer and obtained from the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in Appendix A. This material is germane to the RDEIR analysis,
although it is difficult to use in the form that it is provided. However, much of the other
communications included in the appendix are not referenced anywhere else and provide no content
that illuminates the subject matter of the RDEIR. Indeed, one of these files in particular is, in its
substance, not a technical report or data as might be justifiable in an EIR technical appendix, but instead
merely a comment letter on the DEIR from the applicant’s attorney, which was received over a year after
the close of the public comment period. That this comment letter would be accepted at all is
questionable given the Town’s minimalist approach to CEQA process in other respects. For it to be
included in the appendix accords a special position to the applicant’s representations that is neither
justified nor appropriate, and makes the reader wonder whether this letter and the responses to DEIR
comments from the applicant’s consultant that are included in one of its exhibits are meant to
represent the RDEIR’s responses or not. Since the RDEIR text does not clarify this or explain the inclusion
of the letter, it is appropriate to provide comment on it as well as the main RDEIR text.
RDEIR
Report
Summary
(Section
2 )
That is very much lower than the actual area that is disturbed (at least, with vegetation altered) in
typical Glenshire lots. This figure is 0.057 acre, about 16 % of a quarter-acre lot. It is unrealistic to
imagine that the average disturbance of lots this small would be only 16 % of the lot area. In particular,
defensible space requirements may allow the retention of some trees, but the vegetation community as
a whole, which even includes the duff and organic layer in areas where there isn’t even understory
vegetation, is “removed” when all of the dead and understory fuel is removed. The EIR must either
determine a realistic disturbance area from the existing Glenshire development, and present the
subsantiation of this figure for public review, or must assume complete removal of the vegetation as a
functioning community that supports the present complement of native species.
There is no discussion of vegetation alteration outside parcels for fire protection. The Glenshire
Devonshire Residents Association is considering the potential need for such vegetation alteration in
open space areas. It is unrealistic to expect that such alteration will never occur at any time in the future
during the project lifetime. Therefore, this impact must be considered in the EIR. Specifically, this
analysis must realistically evaluate its potential maximum effect on the use of open space by such
species as mule deer, which specifically depend upon the very resource – dense bitterbrush and/or
sagebrush scrub for browse and cover – that is most likely to be affected for fire protection purposes.
Fuel management in some other areas in Truckee (parts of Tahoe Donner) has entailed removing the
shrub vegetation 100 percent, so that seems to be a reasonable starting point for analyzing the Canyon
Springs impacts.
The RDEIR quotes an estimated average housing footprint of 2,500, which is unrealistically low even for
lots averaging only about 0.35 acre; this is immediately apparent from examination of aerial or satellite
imagery such as that obtainable at no charge from Google Earth or NAIP. A methodology for
determination and a quantitative reference for this figure should be provided; one that is relevant to
current and reasonably anticipated future trends in residential building (most recently built houses in
the Glenshire region are much larger than they used to be in the 1970s and 1980s). Also, merely
identifying the footprint of the house itself does not fully disclose the impacts of construction on each
parcel; in reality, the impervious or infiltration-impaired footprint within each parcel will be much larger
than 2,500 square feet, and will often exceed the entire area of the building envelopes shown on the
tentative map. For a project with much larger parcel sizes, this may not matter so much, but when
parcel sizes are small, the proportional impact is much greater. The RDEIR remains just as inadequate as
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 4
the DEIR in failing to acknowledge the full magnitude of habitat impact that can reasonably be
expected to result within the project footprint.
This incorrect figure for habitat removal within parcels is relied upon again in the RDEIR Section 4.4,
resulting in statements of habitat impacts that are very much lower than what would actually result
from the project. The 2,500 figure must be revised upward, and the acreage figures on pages 4.4-36
and/or -37 must be corrected as well.
Biological
Resources
The RDEIR section does not in fact substantively address the comments on the DEIR made in writing by
the public or by agencies. It does not identify all of the significant impacts that would result if the
project were approved and relies upon ineffective and/or infeasible mitigation measures in order to
arrive at determinations that impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
The changes between the DEIR and analogous parts of the RDEIR are generally so slight that, with few
exceptions, it would be a really substantial task for the public to figure out exactly what is changed and
what remains the same. Since the preparation of the RDEIR ignored the comments on the analogous
sections of the DEIR almost entirely, and the Town has indicated that there will be no response to
comments submitted during the DEIR comment period, the only way to be sure everything is addressed
is for commenters to submit their previous comments along with any new ones. If any of them are
already addressed, the Final EIR can say so.
The RDEIR notes that a Draft EIR was prepared in 2007 and that comments were provided by the public.
This is misleading, because the EIR was withdrawn early in the published comment period and very few
comments were actually submitted. Nearly everyone, myself included, did not take the time to write
complete comment letters once the 2007 Draft EIR was withdrawn.
The Methods should have also included comprehensive review of comments submitted in 2013 on the
DEIR, but this is not mentioned and evidently did not occur, because the substance of many of those
comments is not reflected in improvements in the accuracy and adequacy of the RDEIR.
Vegetation: The labeling, characterization, and mapping of plant communities remains incorrect in the
RDEIR. I believe some of the inaccuracy of this and other parts of Section 4.4 result from merely referring
to studies dating back to 2004 without anyone ever having verified their accuracy at all. Mapping and
description in the RDEIR is 1) based on an obsolete system of description and classification; 2) not finely
enough resolved to address the project impacts; and 3) supported by no verifiable objective data.
Deficiency #3 might not be a serious flaw if the description and mapping were correct, but when they
are incorrect, the public and resource agencies need to be able to review the data.
Specifically, my subjective observation is that the majority of the shrubland vegetative cover, and
especially the shrub stratum in the pine savanna, is dominated by bitterbrush, not sagebrush (as
originally mischaracterized in 2004). Other shortcomings result from the RDEIR continuing to rely upon
an obsolete source (1995 version of Manual of California Vegetation and other even older sources
instead of the 2009 Second Edition, which is much more complete and detailed and is the standard
source and classification system for California vegetation).
At a bare minimum, the different shrubland alliances should have been delineated and mapped
according to the methods and definitions provided by Sawyer et al. (2009). The RDEIR states that a
reevaluation of shrublands was carried out in November 2013 (not the best time of year, when the Town
already knew in March that this was a potentially significant issue for the RDEIR to address), but neither
methods nor results were provided. With all of the many different companies that have supposedly
studied the vegetation of the site over the last 10 years (Foothill, Quad Knopf, Heal Environmental,
Foothill again, LSA, Placeworks), it is inexcusable that this fundamental subject is still incorrectly and
inadequately addressed in the RDEIR. For the Final EIR or RRDEIR, please carry out field study according
to some standard methodology and provide data sheets and/or quantitative summaries. At a minimum,
there should have been accurate mapping of alliances that I have personally observed in those areas:
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 5
bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) scrub, mountain sagebrush scrub (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana; it is
not big sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata, which makes a difference for suitability for some
wildlife species of concern), and little sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula) scrub (identified by the English
short-hand names provided in Sawyer et al., 2009). Better still, there should have been delineation of
stands on a high-resolution aerial photograph accompanied by CDFW/CNPS Vegetation Rapid
Assessment Method data sheets for each type of stand, prepared by a biologist with training and
experience in this methodology. And best of all, given that relative dominance of sagebrush and
bitterbrush is important for impact analysis (foraging and fawning habitat for deer), there could have
been a sufficient number of quantitative transects using line point- or at least line-intercept methods to
satisfactorily characterize and delineate the various shrub communities. I recommend the CDFW-CNPS
vegetation rapid assessment method, Jornada methods (Herrick et al., 2009), or other widely recognized
quantitative methods, and that they be applied by individuals with training and experience in them
with adequate description of methods used and results obtained.
The RDEIR states that, since bitterbrush does not dominant “everywhere,” the vegetation can still be
correctly mapped as sagebrush. This is not correct. If 90 percent of the shrub vegetation were
dominated by bitterbrush, and only 10 percent by sagebrush, the correct thing to do is to map these as
separate habitat types. But if the shrublands were to be (inaccurately) regarded as all being one
community, the correct identification would be as bitterbrush, which dominates the stand as
delineated. Since the RDEIR made no attempt to discriminate the differences or assess the vegetation
quantitatively, the vegetation description is inadequate and probably largely incorrect. Based on
observation of the site and my training and experience with the methods mentioned above, I am
certain that there a proportion of the on-site shrublands that is significant from the perspective of mule
deer usage (at least) that is bitterbrush scrub (Purshia tridentata Shrubland Alliance) as defined by
Sawyer et al. (2009). The RDEIR is inadequate in failing to acknowledge this fact, and as a consequence
of that and other shortcomings, fails to fully describe existing conditions (namely, existence of suitable,
even preferred, fawning habitat) and project impacts on mule deer. Additional details are provided
below.
If the shrublands had been adequately and accurately delineated, and if basic systematic study of the
distribution of mule deer usage of the site had been carried out, it might have been clear whether heavy
use during migration season is correlated with shrubland vegetation type or not, and this in turn would
have illuminated the selection and impact-reduction value of open space areas.
This subject is not merely pedantic but is substantively important because bitterbrush is an important
mule deer browse species (in fact, the most preferred species in this region during the seasons that deer
occupy the site) and sagebrush is not nearly as preferred (DFG et al., 1998; Innis, 2013). Step-point
methods show that many areas within the Canyon Springs site support 80+ percent of relative cover by
bitterbrush, although there are a few areas that support a dominance (50-60 percent relative cover), or
even 100 percent relative cover by mountain sagebrush, sometimes mixed with low sagebrush. In the
vicinity of the occurrence of an unaccompanied mule deer fawn by Mr. John Heal (HEC, 2011), the
relative cover of bitterbrush in the shrub canopy is 89.7 percent.
Low sagebrush is often associated with Plumas ivesia, where the latter species occurs. Thus, accurate
shrubland delineation is important for special status species surveys, but there is no evidence that this
was taken into account in the DEIR and RDEIR studies.
Within the site, the mountain sagebrush scrub appears to occur on shallower, rockier soils than the
bitterbrush scrub. For this reason, accurate and adequate vegetation mapping would have also have
been valuable in showing at a glance a useful preliminary view of what areas are suitable or unsuitable
for the construction and operation of stormwater management facilities. This in turn would have helped
the EIR fulfill its public information role. Without even this basic site mapping, the public has no
alternative than to conclude that, given the mapped soils types on site, the stormwater management
approaches described in the DEIR will be ineffective in mitigating project impacts.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 6
There is much more habitat diversity than the RDEIR describes, and this habitat diversity is of
significance to biological resources and other project impacts and mitigation. The RDEIR’s description of
existing conditions remains inadequate.
Nearly all of the places where “big sagebrush” (which is incorrect anyway; it is mountain sagebrush) or
“sagebrush” are mentioned in the RDEIR probably should be corrected to bitterbrush shrubland.
However, despite public comments on the incorrectness of the DEIR’s determination of the nature of
the shrublands on site, the RDEIR doggedly persists in identifying them as sagebrush. On page 4.4-23,
the RDEIR identifies a number of species for which this community provides habitat, including greater
sage-grouse, which is unequivocally a species of very high regulatory concern. The range map for this
species in Sibley (2000) includes the project site. Therefore, based upon the RDEIR’s determination of
the plant communities that are present, it is inadequate in not providing background information on
greater sage-grouse and any other sensitive sagebrush-associated species, of which there is an
extensive list.
The mapping (Figure 4.4-1) is wrong in other respects as well, and greatly under-represents the extent
and continuity of the shrubland. This is not just my interpretation: it is visible in the RDEIR’s own figure.
According to the reference cited by the RDEIR (Manual of California Vegetation), areas dominated by
bitterbrush with <10 percent tree cover should have been mapped as bitterbrush shrubland, not forest.
Given that Figure 4.4-1 shows several very narrow strips of shrubland adjacent to the wet meadow in
the southwestern corner, this same approximate minimum polygon size should have been followed
throughout the site, to show the many larger patches of bitterbrush that occur throughout the area
incorrectly mapped as unbroken Jeffrey pine. Following this approach, there may be some 50-100
percent more shrubland within the site than the RDEIR acknowledges. Once the base mapping is
corrected, the statements of areas of impact on different cover types then need to be revised.
Accurate vegetation mapping is important in providing adequate background for the evaluation of the
site’s suitability for mule deer which need a variety of different habitats but, in the project vicinity, seem
generally to prefer open shrublands over coniferous forest that has minimal or no shrub stratum. That
they do also move through the Jeffrey pine woodland does not diminish the validity of this statement.
The descriptions and mapping of wet meadows and riverine wetlands are a bit hazy. Why aren’t the
riverine wetlands shown on Figure 4.4-1? Also, the mapping in Figure 4.4-2 doesn’t seem to correspond
to the mapping in the wetland delineation appendix, but one can’t be certain because the latter figure
is so fuzzy. The maps need to be made all consistent, and sharp or large enough that we can see what
they are meant to show. Unequivocal descriptions of what is meant by the different types of wetlands
and other waters need to be provided. As explained below, the project’s delineation of jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. does not provide all the information needed for the EIR’s analysis.
It seems that the wet meadow mapping is limited to areas of dense Baltic rush turf (with other species),
but the text description would be applicable more broadly (in fact, would probably include also the
riverine wetlands). But there is no unequivocal description, and no clear characterization of what exactly
is meant by riverine wetlands. Contrary to written direction from Lahontan Regional Water Quality
Control Board, study of the riverine wetlands occurred at a time of year when much of this seasonal
vegetation has disappeared or is difficult to recognize, so it may under-represent the actual extent of
this community type. (Baltic rush meadows are easily recognizable at all times when not covered by
snow, but this is not so for all other kinds of seasonal wetlands that occur within the site.) The
vegetative cover threshold for wetland vegetation (vs. non-wetland waters) is 10 percent, and must be
evaluated at the peak of growth (spring or early summer). Since this did not happen, there may be
significant areas that should be characterized as some form of wetland which are instead mapped as
non-wetland waters. The sensitivity of wetlands to degradation by nutrient and sediment inflows is
higher than that of completely non-wetland waters, so accurate mapping of these features is relevant to
the analysis of indirect impacts.
There are some nuances about portions of the vegetation that bear comment not from a perspective of
biological resource impacts, but hydrology and water quality. In many of the flat to gently sloping areas
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 7
(where development is preferentially located to reduce the necessity for cut and fill), patches of wetland
indicator (FAC/FACW) species such as Deschampsia danthoniodes, Danthonia californica, and others
occur in isolated areas scattered around in otherwise upland areas. For one thing, these should have
been evaluated as possible isolated wetlands, which fall under State jurisdiction though they would not
be waters of the U.S. (see below). For another, they are clearly indicative of a high soil moisture regime,
or even full saturation, in the near-surface soils in the spring time. This is exactly the time when it is
necessary for detention basins to be able to lose their water contents via percolation, and when this
putative function is not going to be successful. The FAC/FACW plants are presumably only found where
the saturation is nearer to the surface than 12 inches, but seasonal saturation to 14 or 16 inches is likely
to be very widespread throughout the uplands.
Botany: The RDEIR provides no description of plant survey methodology except to describe it as a
“focused” survey, which means that it was limited in some unspecified fashion. We do not know
whether it was limited in terms of which areas of the site were and were not surveyed (and if so, on
what basis the determination was made), or whether it was limited in that the investigators merely
looked for specific target plants only. Thus, the RDEIR fails to provide documentation that a floristic rare
plant survey has been conducted and documentation prepared according to the California Department
of Fish and Game/Wildlife Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant
Populations and Natural Communities dated November 24, 2009. The information presented in the DEIR
fails to document that the following requirements of the DFW Protocols were followed:
• Conduct surveys using systematic field techniques in all habitats of the site to ensure thorough
coverage of potential impact areas. Surveys should be comprehensive over the entire site,
including areas that will be directly or indirectly impacted by the project. (Indirect impacts might
include construction-phase impacts which almost always occur outside the parcels mapped in the
project’s proposed tentative map, and long-term impacts including but not limited to vegetation
modification to limit flammable fuels in this wildland-urban interface situation.)
• The Protocols provide guidelines about the amount of time that is normally required in certain
habitat settings. The information in the DEIR does not provide a basis for assessment of how likely it
is that the level of survey effort was appropriate. It may well have been very adequate; we just have
no way of knowing from the DEIR.
• Include reports of botanical field surveys containing the following information with project
environmental documents (some items are included in the DEIR, but these two are not):
total person-hours spent on field surveys;
a list of all taxa occurring on the project site.
This last requirement is important, because the floristic plant list not only provides confirmation of
survey findings regarding presence/absence of special-status species, but, since knowledgeable
individuals may be familiar with the approximate number of plant species present on site or in similar
habitat (>110 species for Canyon Springs), it also provides an opportunity for the public and agency
reviewers to evaluate how thorough the survey work was.
There are areas where low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula) is present or even dominant. This plant is a
common associate of Plumas ivesia, where the latter occurs. If there were adequate documentation of
the methods and results, the public would be able to confirm that all areas of suitable habitat for this
species were in fact surveyed. Since the survey and (absence of a) report fail to satisfy the CDFG/W
Protocols, the RDEIR does not have sufficient basis upon which to make a determination of no
significant impact on special status plant species and is therefore inadequate because it does not
identify a potentially significant impact on this category of biological resource.
The RDEIR provides insufficient basis for the conclusion that the project will not have a significant
impact on any special-status plant species. In order to achieve CEQA adequacy, it must identify a
potentially significant impact upon rare plant species.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 8
The DEIR notes that Eriogonum ovalifolium was sought and not found within the site. This is in
accordance with my cursory observations as well, but the plant in question is found immediately
adjacent to the proposed access road and would potentially be affected during construction. Staging
and stockpiling often occurs outside project limits that are shown in CEQA documents. This is a
potentially significant impact that is not identified in the RDEIR.
That said, it is much appreciated and highly commendable that the RDEIR notes that this plant is one
that is worthy of attention and potentially of conservation concern. Just to ensure the published public
record is complete, I include below some facts pertaining to the plant.
Subsequent research reveals that the plant in question keys to E. strictum var. proliferum, but in every
respect including habit (local plant forms dense cushions vs. loose mats of var. proliferum), size of plants
(local plant 5-25 cm vs. var. proliferum 20-40 cm), size of leaves (local plant 5-9 mm vs. var. proliferum 10-
30 mm), and size of involucres (local plant 3.5-4 mm vs. var. proliferum 4-6 mm), the plant’s
characteristics lie outside the limits of the ranges for E. strictum var. proliferum stated in the authoritative
treatment in Flora North America (FNAEC, 2005), and certainly great enough to justify separation as a
distinct variety in the context of other Eriogonum taxa that have recently been published. (In habit, the
plant resembles several varieties of E. ovalifolium and does not resemble any variety of E. strictum.
FNAEC (2005) recognizes the very close affinities among E. strictum and E. ovalifolium varieties.) Also, the
degree of inflorescence branching (usually having only two to four branches) is strikingly different from
specimens of E. strictum var. proliferum that I have examined at the UC Davis herbarium (which have
many branches in several orders of branching). I know of only one other locality where this taxon is
reported (Martis Valley), so it is one of the rarest plants in the entire region; much rarer than Ivesia
sericoleuca, which is found in many localities in the area.
The occurrence of a distinct and extremely rare plant taxon, albeit as-yet not published, in a location
immediately adjacent to the project, and potentially subject to construction-phase or other impacts
related to the project, should be thoroughly addressed in the DEIR and appropriate mitigation
measures included. It’s such a rare plant, and it would be such an easy and inexpensive matter to avoid
extirpating it, that the project should do so. For example, by expanding the access easement a small
amount and signing or preferably fencing this small patch of habitat (for which outside support would
almost certainly be available), the potential risk to the species would be eliminated. Easy!
Wetlands: In a letter dated April 25, 2006, with the subject heading “COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF
PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE PROPOSED CANYON SPRINGS
SUBDIVISION, NEVADA COUNTY,” the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board stated “The draft
EIR shall include a complete wetland and flood plain delineation during the spring snowmelt and
summer growing seasons.” Inexplicably, this important NOP comment letter, and perhaps others, is not
included in the present DEIR. The first page of Appendix B states that section C includes “Letters
Received In Response To The Notice Of Preparation Of The Canyon Springs EIR Dated March 18, 2006.”
This is not true: the letter referenced above does not appear, in that or any other section that I could
find in the present 2012 DEIR. It does appear in the appendices to the withdrawn 2007 DEIR.
The Lahontan direction, quoted above, states “…snowmelt and summer…” [emphasis added] which
means small drainage features and highly ephemeral candidate wetlands must be evaluated during the
snowmelt season, and other features (e.g. other wetlands) are to be studied in June or July. Examples of
surface waters that are obvious at the time of snowmelt, and may be considered to be waters of the
State, are shown in Figures 3 and 4 (Appendix A at end of letter). The Lahontan direction was not
followed: the work was done at the end of August. Without doubt, the 2012 DEIR should have
addressed all issues raised in all NOP comments going back at least as far as the 2006 Canyon Springs
project. In fact, given that the 2004 Tahoe Boca EIR is included, in part, in the 2012 DEIR, by logical
extension all of the NOP comments for that project should be addressed as well. As a consequence of
ignoring the Board’s comment, it’s possible that the wetland delineator, who did not study the site at an
appropriate time of year, might not have noticed some waters of the State that occur within the site.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 9
The delineator opines, in a comment memo to the RDEIR consultant, that the 2006 NOP comment is
superseded by the Board’s 2010 NOP comment. I disagree, but in any case the technical basis for the
2006 comments, a portion of which is summarized above, has not gone away: short-seasonal wetland
vegetation is still apparent in springtime and early summer, and difficult to see and identify in late
August. It’s not necessary for a State agency to require spring or early summer field work for an
experienced and qualified wetland delineator to know that some ephemeral wetland vegetation that is
relevant to delineation and habitat values might not be apparent in late August. This concern is
reflected in the technical memoranda from the ongoing effort to standardize the definition of wetland
in California.
It’s my belief that there are some minor wetlands found within one or more of the small tributaries on
site that are mapped only as non-wetland waters. These are wetlands that may not have been mapped
because they’re not very prominent between August 30 and September 2. These particular areas are
not located where they would be subject to parcel impacts, but there may be others that are not yet
recognized by any of us because the site was not studied comprehensively at the time of snowmelt and
in late spring/early summer. There are some small spots of hydrophytic vegetation that do not appear
to have been evaluated for other criteria. If any of these are wetlands, they would be isolated waters of
the State but not a water of the U.S. (therefore, the verified delineation is of no value to the DEIR’s
analysis and conclusions). There are some wetland indicator species (FACW and OBL) that are locally
common on site but highly ephemeral and require some spots to be delineated very early. So far as I
currently know, the State does not propose to discontinue consideration of isolated wetlands or other
waters in its application of the Porter-Cologne Act and in the evaluation of impacts under CEQA. If this is
something that is now official policy (isolated, non-tributary features no longer considered to be waters
of the State), the RDEIR should clarify and provide a citation.
The report’s explanation of how the hydric soils determinations were made is not in conformance with
the applicable Regional Supplement, contradicting the claim elsewhere that the Regional Supplement
was followed. However, since no sites were determined to be non-wetland solely by virtue of not
meeting this criterion, so far as I know, this appears not to have affected the determinations of any of
the sites documented in data sheets in the report. But it might have: areas that might have exhibited a
prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation when studied at the correct time of year might have been
determined, without full three-parameter study, as non-wetland at the end of August, just because the
vegetation looked non-hydrophytic. Had they been seen in spring time, the plant dominance might
have been different and soils investigation done actually in accordance with the Regional Supplement
might also have identified hydric soils. Consequently, it is possible that failing to follow direction from
the Board resulted in failure to identify subtle wetlands that are not particularly evident at the end of
August but are nevertheless wetlands under no matter what definition. This is not merely a matter of
changing regulatory language and legal decisions; it’s a matter of basic wetland hydrology and biology.
The RDEIR fails to adequately analyze and document the indirect impacts that can reasonably be
expected to result from the fact that many of the parcels extend fully across the 50 foot setback from
the 100-year floodplain, and apparently right up to the very edge of the mapped jurisdictional
wetlands. These issues are discussed in detail under Hydrology.
Special Status Species and General Wildlife: Yellow warbler nests about three miles due north of the
Canyon Springs site (record not yet in CNDDB but might be by completion of the EIR). As the RDEIR
notes, suitable nesting habitat occurs near the Glenshire Pond and especially in the tributary from it to
the Truckee River (and also other tributaries). I agree with the RDEIR that the potential for yellow
warblers to nest at nearby springs is high, but low within the site itself.
It is useful that the RDEIR includes discussion of Lewis’s woodpecker, but there are still special status
species that remain unaddressed. I have observed (visually or, in the case of flammulated owl, by call),
or there are other written records of, the following species in the project vicinity, utilizing habitat similar
to that which occurs on site. All of these are CDFW species of special concern and/or USFWS Birds of
Conservation Concern but are not addressed in the RDEIR:
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 10
flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus; heard in GDRA open space between Lancaster and Edinburgh)
rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus; (same area; and visits feeders)
white-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus; commonly seen in Glenshire and Canyon Springs;
observed at Old Greenwood)
olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi; seen in pine woodland in the region; observed at Old
Greenwood)
The 2004 Tahoe Boca DEIR stated that suitable nesting habitat for Lewis’s woodpecker, white-headed
woodpecker, and flammulated owl occurs on site. Additional documentation certainly exists.
The present RDEIR should have provided a full, adequate, and accurate description of what the
preparers found to be the biological resources on site. Observations made by the biologists who
prepared the RDEIR should be presented as such, and facts that are being stated based upon reference
to some previous study should be clearly identified and the references provided. Blanket statements of
confirmation are legally very confusing when there are facts presented in previous reports that differ
from those presented in the RDEIR. The FEIR needs to clarify.
The nesting bird surveys and subsequent years’ observation showed that the EIR mitigation measure
was ineffective in preventing a significant CEQA impact on Lewis’s woodpecker. To the best of my
knowledge (based on multiple revisits to the site during the nesting season, and discussions with East-
West staff) the species never returned to nest on site despite thje project’s avoidance of the nest trees
during the nesting season, so the geographic range of the species was definitely reduced. I do not know
for sure whether there are other nest territories in the region, but the Canyon Springs site includes some
perfect habitat (snags within flat, open shrubland), which is not noted in the RDEIR. A public
presentation about the DEIR on December 18, 2012, included a photograph of Lewis’s woodpecker. If
the photo was taken on site, this should have been mentioned in the RDEIR and the location mapped.
Since the data from Old Greenwood showed that the only effective mitigation for impacts on nest sites
of Lewis’s woodpeckers is avoidance, the site where that photograph was taken, if on Canyon Springs,
would need to be avoided by development. Survey for the species in suitable habitat throughout the
site, and avoidance of any nesting territories, would also be needed to prevent significant impact. The
mitigation measure proposed in the RDEIR is not adequate to reduce the project’s impact on Lewis’s
woodpecker, and probably not adequate to reduce the potential impact on other cavity-nesters, if they
occur on site.
MULE DEER
The RDEIR’s analysis suffers from overly vague and conditional language in its presentation of the
relevant facts of the biology of Rocky Mountain mule deer (the subspecies which occurs at the site) and
makes contradictory statements. In some cases, the data in the applicant’s deer report supports the
conclusion that is the opposite of the one reached by its author. Considering the amount of academic
and agency literature on mule deer, the background literature review in the primary reference (HEC,
2011) is remarkably scanty, and the description of existing conditions is inadequate because of it. Mule
deer have a complex natural history and require a patchwork of different habitat elements. The DEIR
treatment does not recognize this complexity or its significance in evaluating the project’s impacts.
The RDEIR contains the same inadequate information on mule deer biology and use of the Canyon
Springs site that appears in the DEIR, supplemented by a data dump of information obtained from
CDFW, without any real discussion weighing the entire body of facts in order to determine what
conclusions are best supported. The applicant’s reports show an inadequate effort to review applicable
scientific literature and poor overall understanding of deer biology; but in contrast, the RDEIR itself
shows virtually no effort to evaluate the science and, so far as is documented in the RDEIR, no effort to
ascertain what the facts are on the ground within the site. In my experience, where there are applicant’s
reports and public comments (including some from responsible or trustee agencies) that arrive at
different conclusions, the proper course of action is for the EIR to provide genuinely independent and
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 11
objective technical review based upon the substantial facts and evidence that are presented, not based
upon applicants’ opinions that are either completely unsubstantiated or substantiated only by the
absence of facts. The RDEIR does not do this and is therefore inadequate.
For background, a few well known and documented facts about mule deer behavior and biology
generally, and about the Loyalton Truckee (LT) herd in particular, should be summarized. Mule deer that
utilize the montane (vs. foothill) zone of the Sierra Nevada mostly migrate between low elevation winter
range, where snow accumulates only to shallow depths, and higher elevation summer range, which is
only seasonally suitable for feeding due to the deep snow pack. Low elevation herds are non-migratory;
this is apparently true even for some individuals in the LT herd. However, there is no such thing as a
“resident” deer at high elevations where forage is buried in deep snow: so far as I know, all Truckee deer
are migratory.
Mule deer move as individuals or in small groups, almost always fewer than five or six (Kucera, 1978;
Mackie et al., 2003). Thus, the fact that this is what is observed at Canyon Springs is normal, and cannot
be cited as implying that use of the site is light. They almost always move in small numbers. In summer,
females associate in small matrilineal groups which occupy rather small summer home ranges and
generally exclude other does. They exhibit high fidelity to the same fawning areas, and this is reflected
in their movement (Garrot et al., 1987) and genetics (Scribner, 1993). This genetic differentiation on fine
scales also occurs on wider geographic and macroecological scales (Pease et al., 2009). This is why Mr.
Butler raised the issue of genetics: it demonstrates that it is not just one giant panmictic herd, but
instead is structured with considerable fine-scale genetic and habitat-use granularity. For this reason,
relying upon the small acreage of the site relative to the entire LT herd summer range is completely
biologically invalid.
Thus, in a functional sense, it is somewhat of a misnomer to refer to the LT “herd” when in reality it is
only a single herd on winter range (and even then, incompletely so). During migration and on summer
range, the female mule deer of our area are more like a large number of small groups, each occupying
small portions of an enormous summer range (Mackie et al., 2003; Scribner, 1998), with limited overlap
except during migration, when preferred corridors are used for travel and in-transit foraging. This has
major implications for the implementation and interpretation of GPS tracking studies, as discussed
below. Bucks have a different land use ecology, utilizing much larger and overlapping summer home
ranges. However, they are relatively insignificant compared with does because they constitute only a
minority of the population and are of minimal importance in the maintenance of populations, because
a single buck can impregnate multiple does. It is fecundity of does (which in turn is related to
vegetation quality and minimization of energy loss due to disturbance) and survivorship of fawns that
are much more important than the ecology of bucks in mule deer conservation. Hence the emphasis on
fawning areas and migration corridors, which are so vitally important to herd survival and rebound from
population stresses.
Mule deer do not migrate by starting on a given date and moving steadily and unidirectionally to their
destination. Instead, they move via an alternating series of relatively rapid movement paths and
stopover areas where they spend much more time, foraging and assimilating body mass for winter
survival (Sawyer et al., 2009; Sawyer and Kaufman, 2011). This is probably a universal pattern in ungulate
migration (Johnson et al., 2002). In eastern Truckee, the season of migration extends over a period of
about four to six weeks; CDFW deer tracking spreadsheets included in RDEIR Appendix A confirm this. In
some situations (e.g., Mammoth Lakes region, for one example I have personally witnessed), herds may
associate in holding areas where they remain in one general area until moving en masse to winter range
when a major early winter storm occurs. This may also occur to some extent in one or more areas
around Truckee, such as Old Airport flats near Old Greenwood and the agricultural inspection station
(Butler, personal communication), though it is apparently not the normal pattern for the LT herd as a
whole.
The reality of use of stopover areas by mule deer has implications for the interpretation of observations
of deer sign and movement during the migration season, because Canyon Springs may very well be one
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 12
such stopover area. It is relatively open, facilitating predator detection, and supports a lot of preferred
browse vegetation (bitterbrush scrub), which is a key factor in stopover ecology (Sawyer and Kaufman,
2011). Observations of deer moving in directions that seem not likely to head to winter range (HEC,
2011) and of autumn deer paths oriented in various directions (personal observation) are indicative of
deer using the Canyon Springs area as a stopover. It is notable that the overall orientation of some of
the rapid movement paths during the first significant snowfall in November 2008 is generally parallel to
the alignment of the dense pattern of points in a file provided in RDEIR Appendix A called
COMBINED…pdf (see below for complete name and discussion).
Stopover areas are very important for conservation of functional deer migration corridors, in part
because they function as important areas of assimilation of nutrients before the animals arrive on winter
range. For this reason, the loss of winter range makes the migratory pathway even more important than
it already was, rather than less, because loss of winter range increases the competition for food during
that physiologically stressful season, and does’ survivorship and reproduction the following year are
therefore more dependent on habitat characteristics of stopover areas along the migratory route.
The RDEIR provides none of this important background information on mule deer biology and
considers none of the implications for determination and mitigation of the Canyon Springs project’s
impacts on the species and is therefore inadequate in its public information and impact identification
responsibilities under CEQA.
Specific shortcomings in the DEIR’s description of deer biology include the following:
• It fails to note that, as is widely recognized in the literature, there is a lot more regional deer use in
open shrublands and savanna than there is in conifer woodlands with more closed canopy (Collins
and Urness, 1981; DFG et al., 1998; Innis, 2013; and many other references). Generally, albeit not
exclusively, our migrating deer seem to preferentially use shrublands occurring on gentler
topographic slopes, and generally avoid both high-canopy-coverage conifer forest and steep rocky
hillsides. This interpretation is supported by my empirical observation within Canyon Springs and
elsewhere in the region. The project avoids some open shrublands as open space, but locates
development squarely in other parts of it, unfortunately right where heavy deer use and migration
movement occurs. The RDEIR’s deer analysis seems to have taken as an axiom that all of the
undeveloped land within and adjoining the Canyon Springs is actually equally used, or could be
equally used, for deer migration. This is incorrect, and neither the RDEIR nor any appendix provides
any supporting factual evidence. Moreover, the private land adjoining the site on the east is just as
susceptible to being turned into blocks of dense residential development as the site itself, so it
cannot be assumed that migration, even if it occurs there today, will be possible in the future.
• The RDEIR and applicant’s deer reports mention “dense cover” several times, seeming to state or
imply that the project site is less suitable for deer use than it might be due to a (total? relative?) lack
of “dense cover.” What is meant by this? Deer use two main categories of cover, which are
fundamentally different both in their structural characteristics and function in deer biology: thermal
cover, and hiding (concealment) cover. Good thermal cover includes areas with sufficient tree
density or topographic roughness to attenuate winds; this is provided in many patches of
moderately dense conifer forest within the site. Hiding cover has very different characteristics: it
must be visually dense (which does not matter for thermal cover), but need be only a few feet tall,
especially in the case of suitable hiding cover for fawns, which is very important in avoiding
predation. Optimal hiding cover includes dense shrubland, such as bitterbrush, 60 cm (about two
feet) tall or taller (Leckenby et al., 1982; conventional definition of shrub height is the highest point
of live vegetative canopy). Such vegetation certainly occurs in places, and probably extensively,
throughout the project site. The RDEIR should be corrected to acknowledge that both thermal and
hiding cover are probably present throughout the site, or should provide quantitative vegetation
sampling data from many randomly situated plots to evaluate the structural characteristics of the
vegetation with respect to canopy parameters.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 13
• The proposal to plant additional trees in the 7-acre patch of early-successional (post-fire) habitat is
inadvisable. Landscape level biodiversity is best served by having a variety of different types of
patches of vegetation and successional stages; this is specifically beneficial for deer habitat values
(Leckenby et al., 1982, and many other sources). In particular, mule deer are known to find early and
mid-seral stage vegetation, and specifically post-fire secondary successional vegetation, to be
desirable (Innis, 2013; and the RDEIR itself states this principle with respect to the Martis Fire site).
Many birds and other wildlife species require openings and woodland edges. Many California plant
species are characteristic of post-fire successional vegetation. The proposed conifer tree planting,
which is mistakenly recommended as a mitigation measure for the project’s adverse impacts on
deer, would instead have a negative impact on deer and should be eliminated from the project
proposal. According to DFG et al. (1998; executive summary), in forest-dominated areas, deer thrive
on early successional habitats that are a product of disturbances that open up the forest and shrub
canopy to allow grass/forb/shrub growth to occur. And, “as the [coniferous] stand continues to
mature and the canopy further closes, habitat quality disappears for early successional favored
species like deer” (caption to Photo 1a). In combination with ongoing natural tree regrowth, the
proposed planting will have a negative impact on deer habitat. Also, aren’t we spending millions of
dollars to thin small trees in the wildland-urban interface? There is already an ecologically adequate
amount of tree regrowth occurring naturally in the area in question without any planting. The
proposed planting of pine trees should be eliminated from the project. It is not a beneficial project
element or mitigation measure. The proportion of conifer forest on site, some of which provides
thermal cover, is already plenty high enough to satisfy the habitat requirements of mule deer.
• There is a lot of successional and mature native vegetation on the site, of all growth forms (forbs,
grasses, shrubs, and trees). The RDEIR provides no indication, references, or factual support for a
contention that the supply of food plants is limiting the deer population and extent of use of the
site. The most recent population figures I could find (for 1996, found in DFG et al., 1998) showed
that there were only about one-quarter as many deer in the Northeastern Sierra Nevada assessment
unit as there were at the most recently known population maximum (and about one-third as many
as the consistent levels that prevailed for several years in the early 1990s). How could a population
whose numbers have declined by so much now be limited by the overall availability of food plants?
All the references and explanations provided would support a conclusion that almost everything
other than supply of edible vegetation is what adversely affects the deer on the site, especially,
residential development exactly like that which is being proposed. Discussing the NE Sierra Nevada
deer assessment unit (DAU), DFG et al. (1998) states that "The habitat issues identified in this DAU
are declining winter range conditions as affected by summer fires and grazing; development on
winter ranges from the Carson City area to Susanville, especially around Reno and on summer
ranges around Lake Tahoe/Truckee. The only one of these issues that is ongoing within California is
developments exactly like Canyon Springs. That being the case, I cannot imagine what the line of
reasoning is that somehow planting some additional vegetation is going to reduce the project’s
impacts on deer. Also, although it is true that there are some disturbed areas that should be
decompacted and revegetated for reasons unrelated to providing food for deer, virtually the
entirety of the remaining shrubland vegetation on site is mid to late seral stage, which already
supports essentially the maximum biomass of plants in the deer browse categories that the soil and
climatic conditions permit. More seeding is not going to change anything for the better, and would
not do anything at all to actually mitigate the project’s habitat-conversion impact.
• The interpretations about ongoing disturbance by dogs and vehicles are inadequate and incorrect
because empirical evidence from many observers shows there is substantial deer use (including
migration) overlapping exactly the same areas that the RDEIR interprets as being of reduced value
due to these disturbances. The cited disturbances are daytime ones, and the deer are most active in
evening (HEC, 2011, states that 60 percent of the deer observations made by the automatic
cameras were at night), so there isn’t as much of a conflict as is implied. One frequently observes
abundant deer tracks and scat right on exactly the same roads with dog and motorcycle tracks. The
preference of deer for crepuscular and night time activity rather than diurnal activity has nothing to
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 14
do with human and associated disturbance. Anyone who spends enough time in remote montane
Sierra habitat knows that deer are much more active at night than in the day, even in the absence
of dogs and presence of very few people.
• On the other hand, dogs in back yards adjacent to open space areas are unequivocally a
disturbance that greatly reduces (although doesn’t completely eliminate) deer usage within a few
hundred feet of the limit of parcels, because these dogs are present all the time, are generally not
accompanied and controlled by owners, and are much more territorial than are dogs being walked
in open spaces, so they are often highly vocal and active in the evening; and they often stray
outside parcels. It’s true that presence of houses and associated disturbances do not absolutely
exclude deer excursions to such area, but the vicinity of the developed areas experiences much
lower deer use, and my observation as well as all available factual data suggests that they definitely
do not migrate across areas of solid development of ½-acre or smaller parcels. So, the project would
definitely reduce or eliminate the currently used major migration corridor across the site.
• It is implausible that a nominal prohibition on dog use on trails would ever be implemented
consistently (nor would it matter: daytime dog walking use isn’t nearly as big a problem as a solid
block of houses with dogs present day and night). The only effective mitigation measure would be
to determine the deer migration and heavy use areas empirically, and to design the project with
sufficient setbacks that that use would not be affected by development and associated resident
dogs. A setback of some hundreds of feet between the outer edge of the areas used by deer and
the nearest parcel boundaries is probably the minimum that would be effective. DFW biologists
might have a more conservative opinion. It is possible to configure and condition a project that
includes very large parcel sizes, no fences, and native vegetation conservation easements, so as to
minimize impacts on deer migration, but neither the present proposed Canyon Springs project nor
any of the alternatives other than the No Project alternative achieves this.
• Deer usage of habitat in the greater project region is far from uniform, but instead tends to be
concentrated in specific areas (HEC, 2011). Past agency analysis and recent field data, including the
data provided in HEC (2011), suggest that the project site is one of the most important migratory
and other use areas for deer in the immediate vicinity. Unlike many other land uses, residential
development permanently converts habitat to a condition that is minimally or not usable by deer
again, and establishes a permanent regime of disturbance. As is recognized by many agency
references, on an areal basis, this is a much greater impact than are other temporary habitat effects
such as extractive activities or reversible natural events such as fires and ecological succession.
Since the report “CEQA Significance of Mule Deer at the Canyon Springs Site, Truckee, California” (Heal
Environmental Consulting [HEC], 2011) is still cited as a source in the RDEIR, some additional specific
comments are appropriate pertaining to this report. Some of these comments duplicate those made
later about portions of the RDEIR Section 4.4, but this is unavoidable since there is internal repetition
within each document and much duplication between the two, and it is not entirely clear what is being
presented as the existing conditions and impact analysis regarding mule deer. Also, although the
comments about the applicant’s report are appropriate, the same substance needs to be repeated with
reference to the RDEIR text itself, to ensure that response is required under CEQA.
Quantitative and regional approach: The report is deficient in not clearly explaining what geographic
context and proportion of the herd was used to evaluate the results. It is a basic principle of any kind of
population-related biology that you first establish what the parameters of the study are, on a basis of
absolute numbers, relative numbers, density per unit area, or multi-year time span; and you define what
your terms mean. None of the reports about mule deer at Canyon Springs did this. HEC (2011) states
“there is no direct evidence that deer use the site for … migration in substantial numbers. Then it states
that deer “in small numbers” often browse and return to the same locations repeatedly during fall and
spring migration (which sounds undeniably like migratory use). What is small? And does this mean the
small group numbers, which is a normal and well documented aspect of mule deer biology wherever
they occur, or small in terms of numbers of those groups, and if the latter how was that determined?
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 15
What is substantial? Without definitions that are either numbers, proportions, or some objective
functional biological thresholds that can be evaluated independently, these are meaningless words. If I
were a member of a deer herd or cohesive unit within a herd, I’d hate to have my survival extinguished
on the basis of no objective analysis at all. The term “substantial” is used to refer variously to numbers or
intensity of deer use (not exactly sure which) and to potential degree of impairment of migratory
corridors. Since the RDEIR’s entire foundation of impact determination rests on the exact meaning of
this word in the different contexts, precise definition is mandatory. If such definition is not possible,
then the correct CEQA procedure would be to assume the maximum plausible degree of use and
impairment.
HEC (2011) and the DEIR need to be much more specific about what they are representing to be the
correct scientific approach to addressing the Canyon Springs deer use in the context of the whole
Truckee-Loyalton herd, or subunits thereof. With respect to the herd as a whole, one might theoretically
advance the argument (which the public and CDFW could then comment on) that the herd and its
geographic range are hypothetically so large that no matter how much of a hypothetical impact occurs
within 284 acres of it might be theoretically less than significant on a project-specific basis. I would not
agree with that position a priori, but let’s take it as an axiom for this paragraph only. The recent history
of decline in the herd’s population indisputably shows that a significant cumulative impact is occurring.
If the Canyon Springs project could contribute at all to this, then the Final EIR must identify a significant
cumulative impact and provide feasible and effective mitigation measures to reduce the cumulative
impact as a whole to a less-than-significant level; or alternatively provide measures that would reduce
the project’s impact to zero. If there is any residual contribution, then there’s still a significant
unmitigated cumulative impact to which the project is contributing. The DEIR does none of these
things, therefore it is inadequate in addressing the impact on the herd as a whole.
Another level at which the analysis should have been carried out is the X7b zone, which includes
Canyon Springs. This zone is about 330 square miles and supports approximately 640 to 900 deer (HEC,
2011). This is still a huge region compared with the site, but provides useful context. The fact that at
least 10 percent of the X7b deer (and probably many more, as explained below) use the site during
migration shows clearly that the site is of unusually high importance for migration within the region.
In my opinion, a more biologically justifiable approach which the RDEIR needed to take in addition to
the general approaches above for the herd as a whole and the X7b subunit, is to consider the portion of
the herd that may migrate via Section 3 to or from fawning areas at Dry Lake or Lookout Mountain, a
number of animals that is likely only a fraction of the X7b subunit. The reason this approach makes
biological sense is that, if the migration corridor that such animals use is partially or completely blocked,
those fawning areas might theoretically be abandoned entirely. If that were to occur, a migration
corridor would have been eliminated or significantly affected, critical fawning areas would have been
converted to an unused condition, and the geographic range of the Truckee-Loyalton herd would have
been reduced, consequently there would be multiple significant project-specific impacts under
applicable CEQA guidelines as quoted in HEC (2011) and the DEIR.
There is empirical local precedent for this interpretation. Excellent long-seasonal wetland habitats, and
some riparian thickets, occur at the Glenshire Pond and nearby tributaries, and certainly occurred there
even prior to the construction of the weir. Such habitat would likely have been used by deer, and due to
the presence of soft-leaved herbaceous vegetation, would have been suitable for use for fawning
and/or early rearing of fawns. Now, with construction of the Glenshire subdivisions, migratory access to
this habitat from some directions is inhibited, and it can no longer be used for these purposes.
Based upon the large size of the X7b zone and the tiny fraction of its available fawning habitat that
occurs at those two area, one might guess that only 5 or 10 percent of the subunit’s deer go to those
sites (say, a maximum of 90 deer). Table 2 of HEC (2011) shows that 90 deer were detected within
Canyon Springs during the spring migration period in 2011. Based upon that plausible percentage
estimate, it would appear that virtually all of the Dry Lake and Lookout Mountain deer migrate through
Canyon Springs. These are reasonable assumptions and data from the report itself that strongly indicate
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 16
that the project’s direct adverse impact on deer migration is substantial and therefore significant under
CEQA, and its potential indirect impact on two areas of critical fawning habitat (by blocking the only, or
primary, migration corridor to it) needs to be recognized by the DEIR.
Site-specific facts: The camera study described in HEC (2011) suffered from serious flaws in design and
documentation, as discussed in greater detail below with comments on that document as a whole. The
report lacks location information for the stations and lacks adequate description of methods (e.g., how
the determination of sites “subject to frequent use” was made; whether all of the “fawns” were in fact
fawns or if some were instead yearlings; and so on). Furthermore, published literature indicates that
camera surveys of mule deer use are subject to skewing of the observations resulting from human scent
and the activity of monitoring the stations regularly (Muñoz et al., 2014). There is no evidence provided
that these sources of error were considered in the conduct and analysis of the camera observations;
unquestionably, there is more deer use than revealed in HEC 2011.
Nevertheless, HEC (2011) provides ample documentation of substantial use of the Canyon Springs site
by migrating mule deer and by does nursing newborn fawns. As for elucidating usage patterns within
the site, the HEC camera study is virtually useless. In March 2013, I commented that whatever value the
camera study might have is considerably diminished by the lack of explanation of methodology (see
above) and by the absence of a map showing the locations of the camera stations. If the stations were
located away from areas of heavy use as revealed by pellet groups deposited in the migration season,
and/or if the stations were not located within areas of development, then the entire study is essentially
useless for drawing the conclusions that are stated in HEC (2011). Regarding a map of the station
locations, the author states that “I believe this was found in the original camera study reports.” If this
means HEC (2011), there is no such map in the version of this document that was included in the DEIR
Appendix E on the discs distributed by the Town, so this remains an inadequacy.
The only substantial facts and evidence bearing upon the question of which areas of the site are
preferentially used by migrating mule deer are provided by the following three sources:
1) An image file included in the RDEIR appendix named “CS use by collared deer2012.” This was
seemingly downloaded from Google Earth, having been created by displaying an unknown radio-collar
data set or sets (as .kmz?) over an outline of the project site and Google Earth satellite image base. It
shows abundant deer use nearly throughout the site, as well as off site. There may be some explanatory
information about this file somewhere in the Appendix, but I didn’t see it.
2) A figure provided in HEC (2011) showing a scattering of deer and deer sign observations. While these
drastically under-represent the actual amount of sign that is out there, they still demonstrate deer use
throughout the site.
3) Photographs included in HEC (2011) which, despite the flaws of the study, demonstrate migratory
use in the vicinity of the camera stations, wherever they were located.
4) Locations of deer sign shown in Figure 1 (Appendix to this comment letter). It shows that there is very
abundant mule deer use of the site, which I can subjectively confirm (based on the freshness of pellets)
occurs most especially during the migration seasons. Deer trails occur in many parts of the site. The
applicant’s consultant states that “I have never seen that many.” The most logical explanation of this
disconnect is that perhaps he did not do sufficiently systematic examination of the site at the time that
the deer sign mostly appears: the migration season. Had he done systematic transects in November or
December, if snowfall did not impede ground observation, he would have seen that many. In any case,
the amount of fresh deer sign deposited during one or both migration seasons in 2008, 2012, and 2013
is at least equal to the number of points shown in Figure 1.
As a side note, the applicant’s consultant comments disparagingly about the significance of the
photograph of fresh deer sign included in my March 4, 2013, comment letter, but the pellets lie partly
on top of the current seasons fallen pine needles, which have a pinkish or orangish hue when freshly
fallen, and other (fewer) similarly colored needles lie on top of some pellets. The color of the pellets
alone (exterior and interior; I have broken many apart over the years in trying to understand the pellet
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 17
aging process) is sufficient to identify these as pellets that were deposited during the (then-) current
migration season. But anyone who is adequately familiar with the phenology of pine needle fall in
Truckee knows that the most abundant period of needle fall is in autumn and continues into November
at least. The fact that the pellets in the photograph were dropped during the same time period as pine
needles fall is pretty solid evidence that they appeared there during October, which is precisely the
mule deer migration season. Many other similar photographs, associated with geographic coordinates,
could be provided of deer pellet groups that were deposited during the migration season. The RDEIR
should have acknowledged, and the Final EIR must acknowledge, that there are substantial facts and
evidence demonstrating significant migratory use of the Canyon Springs site, or the EIR will remain
inadequate and certification cannot be legally justified.
Given that the applicant’s consultant’s opinions are so starkly at variance with factual statements
provided in public comments, the proper procedure would have been for the RDEIR consultant to do a
sufficiently systematic site reconnaissance to facilitate a judgment of which representation is most
scientifically accurate; if not to actually fully substantiate the quantitative and locational information
supplied in public comment. On the one hand, the applicant has supplied unsubstantiated opinions
about the amounts of deer sign that appears during the migration season(s); on the other, the Town has
received substantial facts and evidence showing abundant migratory use of the site. Either the EIR
should go with those facts, or the EIR consultant should have carried out and documented a thorough
enough field study to provide an equivalently dependable body of facts and evidence. Absent such
study, the proper procedure under CEQA would be to go with the substantial facts and evidence and
conclude that there is substantial migratory use of the site.
HEC Executive Summary: The statement that fawning is not known to occur within the Canyon
Springs site is incorrect, because the report itself provides strong biological evidence of fawning within
the site (see explanation under “HEC impact analysis,” below). The correct statement is that, according
to Table 2, fawns only a few days or weeks old have repeatedly been observed within the site, during
May (when they are born), and that these fawns are unlikely to have been born in the known fawning
areas 1.5 and 7 miles away, and to have then been brought by their mothers from those areas to the
site. Therefore, facts presented in the report suggest that it is likely that there is fawning habitat within
the Canyon Springs site, and possibly also very nearby but outside it.
The conclusion that "very few" of the regional deer use the site during migration is incorrect. The
camera observations were of about 60 deer in fall and 90 in spring migration (and there were probably
more, as explained below). This is approximately 10 percent of the population of the X7b zone (stated in
the report to have recently been 640 to 900 animals). The Canyon Springs site is about 0.444 square
mile, which is about 0.13 percent of the area of the X7b zone (about 333 square miles). So, at least 10
percent of the animals of the X7b zone are passing through 0.13 percent of the area during migration. It
is much more reasonable to interpret this as an unusually high density of migratory use of the site by
the regional deer, than to conclude that "very few" of the X7b deer use the site. The report has both of
these conclusions exactly backward from the most scientifically sound interpretation.
HEC Introduction: HEC provides no definition of what is meant by "substantial adverse effect" on
migratory routes or fawning habitat [there is no qualifier "critical" fawning habitat]. Without a stated
threshold, or at a minimum some subjective explanation, this cannot be evaluated and is meaningless. If
this use of "substantial" has no specific meaning, the word should be deleted and the standards should
merely read "adverse effect" on migratory routes or fawning habitat.
I dispute the conclusions stated in HEC Section 1.1, but some of them merit comment. First, what is the
definition of "substantial numbers of deer" with regard to migratory use within a site of only 284 acres?
Without a number, or a proportion, or density per unit area that makes sense in the context of the X7b
zone, or some other quantitative measure, this usage of "substantial numbers" also has no meaning,
and the words should be deleted from all of these sentences too. Thus, the sentence would become
"there is no known direct evidence that mule deer use the site for migration." This is incorrect.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 18
Mule deer "consistently" crossing the northern panhandle of the site sounds exactly like migratory use
to me. The report should have explained how “consistent” is discriminated from “substantial.”
The statement about the value of the site being "severely limited" is 100 percent hypothetical; zero
evidence is provided anywhere to support it. The fact that dogs and motor vehicles are present during
the day is indisputable, but the inference that this severely limits the value of the site for migration (or
even for fawning) has no foundation at all. What does “severely” mean in this context?
It is inappropriate in a putatively scientific report to state the key conclusions in the Introduction, before
any actual data have been presented. The normal procedure for a technical report is to present the
background science, then methods, then your data, and finally the conclusions that were drawn. This
report goes exactly backwards, creating the strong impression that the conclusions had been arrived at
before any data were gathered, as indeed a reading of the author’s prior reports show they were.
HEC Methodology: The report states that the author studied the site on many dates in 2004, 2008, and
2009, and in all of that time apparently found only 53 points of deer sign. The report does not explain
what methodology was being employed to search for deer sign that the survey work was that
ineffective. These results are discussed below in comparison with other examinations of the site.
HEC camera methods: The report describes the deployment of automatically triggered cameras in sets
of three at each of four locations. Such cameras are a useful tool for certain wildlife studies, but have
serious limitations as the sole means of assessing the amount and distribution of mule deer use within
the Canyon Springs project site. In particular, they’re nearly useless for assessing comparative use areas
or the locations of migration corridors (although they’re excellent for doing year-to-year population
comparisons once the corridor has been delineated – a question that is irrelevant to the CEQA analysis).
The report states that the camera stations locations were at sites “known to be frequented by mule
deer,” but does not explain how this was known. Were the sites selected to be where sign was recorded
in 2009 and shown in HEC page 2-8? If so, that’s a pretty weak basis for determining the sites were
“frequented;” the correct wording would have been “visited at least once.” If there was some additional
data for determining one site was “frequented” and others were not, please provide this additional data.
The locations of the camera stations must be provided. Ideally, the exact GPS coordinates should have
been supplied, or at least an accurate, large-scale map, so that the public could examine the exact spots
and evaluate their biological suitability for the intended purposes. Notwithstanding the limitations of
this study approach, it provided some data that contradicts the report’s conclusions. Comment on the
camera station results is provided below.
A far superior study method would have been pellet-group surveys, which were recommended to the
project owners both by Jones & Stokes Associates and by me. This subject is discussed below.
HEC Results: Chapter 3 provides mostly background on regulatory setting and mule deer biology that
belonged in the Introduction. The only actual results are the camera station data; curiously, the 2009
figure of deer sign is included within Methodology. The first “Results” that are provided are statements
about deer biology, so I comment on those first before discussing the camera station results.
To begin with, there is a significant omission in the report. HEC (2011) cites the 1988 DFG management
plan in the references, but doesn’t even mention that DFG determined that there was a major migration
corridor through most of the Canyon Springs site. Foothill [2004] – a piece of “previous analysis” which
the DEIR states it confirms? – states that it was the migration corridor at that time; my empirical data,
provided in Figure 5 of this letter, show that the corridor is still heavily used. All the report does is to
repeat the unsubstantiated opinion that such a corridor does not exist within the site. If so, is the
interpretation that the DFG map was correct at that time, but that the deer abandoned the Canyon
Springs migration corridor sometime between 2004 (when it was pronounced still to be present by
Foothill) and 2009 or 2011? I don’t think DFW believes that’s the case, and that’s a very short timeline for
such a major biological change. If all that has happened is that the population of the whole herd or the
portion of it that uses the eastern Truckee area (Dry Lake/Lookout Mtn./Canyon Springs migration
corridor) has been reduced in number, the significance of any additional impacts such as the Canyon
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 19
Springs project is even greater, not smaller, as it jeopardizes the very survival of this portion of the herd
or its use of the geographic area entirely, which would be a significant impact under CEQA.
HEC page 3-2 states that “wildlife movement corridors also function as migration corridors for wildlife
that migrate between their summer and winter ranges.” This statement is not accurate, as is explained
on page 4.4-27 of the DEIR. Some movement corridors may also function as migration corridors, but
most of them do not. Also, it is biologically incorrect to infer that a movement corridor or migration
corridor for one species must also have similar values for other species. Animal species differ in degree
of tolerance of disturbance, and in the characteristics of vegetation which they require. Analysis of
corridors (both kinds) and buffer zones must be undertaken on a species-specific biological basis.
HEC pages 3-2 to 3-3 state that “adverse weather conditions can affect the herd more dramatically since
their movement patterns are becoming increasingly limited as residential development, recreation, and
other land uses decrease the value of the habitat (Quad Knopf 2004). Does it not therefore make sense
that the proposed project would contribute to this cumulative impact?
HEC page 3-3 then states that “to be effective, wildlife corridors must be managed to meet specific
goals and the sensitivity of the species to disturbance must be considered.” I did not find anywhere in
HEC (2011) or the DEIR where these specific goals were identified, or where the sensitivity of mule deer
to disturbance was considered, or where the nexus of the unidentified specific goals to preserving the
function of the existing deer migration corridor is explained. I also did not find anywhere that the
sensitivity of migrating mule deer to disturbance was adequately considered. If “wildlife corridors for
mule deer can be more effective when combined with buffer zones,” where is the discussion of this
point? What are the buffer zones for Canyon Springs? The 50-foot setback from wetlands and 100-year
floodplains which in many cases is included entirely within a developed lot of less than 0.4 acre? What
are the references upon which HEC (2011) and the DEIR rely for the determination of how wide of a
buffer zone between development disturbances (not just the buildings) and the spots where the
migrating deer pass has been shown to be effective in preserving migration corridor function? There is
applicable scientific literature on the principles of determining buffer zone requirements; HEC (2011)
and/or the DEIR should have reviewed and discussed these references.
Here again, as in many other places, the fallacy that daytime human disturbances make the migration
corridor unsuitable is repeated, notwithstanding the report’s own findings that most of the deer activity
occurs at night, when these disturbances are not occurring. Besides, if this incorrect contention which is
made over and over again were in fact true, if Canyon Springs were built, wouldn’t this body of
disturbances just shift eastward into exactly the area where, by implication (but probably not
realistically in any case, for ecological reasons), the deer will in future have to migrate? It’s an empirical
fact that the recently erected no trespassing signs near the eastern side of Canyon Springs do not
prevent people, dogs, and so on, from going into this habitat area. For this reason, the DEIR must delete
all of the statements or hints that maybe a substitute migration corridor might be available in the
eastern half of Section 3, because the logical extension of the report’s statements is also that Canyon
Springs would result in impairment of migration in that area just as the report contends that the
Glenshire development has the effect of impairing the utility of the existing migration corridor in
Canyon Springs. You can’t have it both ways.
I disagree that “to be effective, wildlife corridors must be managed…” because four lines later, we are
told that “The Canyon Springs site is currently unmanaged as a wildlife corridor.” But deer migrate
through it anyway, and always have! The DEIR and supporting documentation should be revised to
remove these sorts of confusing and contradictory statements.
HEC camera results: The interpretation of results (pages 3-5 to -8) is an inadequate basis for impact
analysis. It is telling that HEC (2011) itemizes many observations of deer at the camera stations, but only
the cover photograph shows a deer. The three photographs included in Appendix A are of dogs and
people. Why were those included at all? Why weren’t all of the photos provided instead of many pages
of old reports? The full set of photos is necessary for the public to make its own guesses as to whether
the photos all represent different animals, or some of them are the same deer re-photographed, and
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 20
whether the whole groups of deer appear in the photos (or whether there might be additional
individuals not listed in Tables 1 and 2). The report should provide all the relevant data.
The report states that the cameras used were Bushnell Trophy Cam model, which I understand has
about a 50 foot range of motion detection. Even though three of these cameras don’t cover a full 360
degree range, for practical purposes, any deer that passed within a 50-foot radius of any of the four
three-camera stations would have triggered one of the cameras and would have been photographed.
The coverage area of each station under this assumption is about 7,854 square feet, or 0.18 acre. Since
the DEIR states that the site is about 284 acres, the camera study therefore covered only about 0.063
percent of the site. Calculating from the coverage of this proportion of the site and the note of 38
observations of a total of 61 deer observations in the fall survey period, and assuming that the stations
were placed in locations that had an amount of deer use and migratory movement that was typical
(average) for the entire site, one finds that total coverage of the site by camera stations would have
resulted in about 60,000 detections of a total of over 96,000 deer. The spring survey period resulted in
observation of 90 deer, so that would be 90,000 detections of 144,000 deer within the site in spring.
Surely, with that many cameras, most of these would have been re-detections of the same individuals,
but, relying only on the information provided in the DEIR, it is clear that the deer use of the site is much
more considerable than the evaluation of biological impacts suggests subjectively.
The report states that “it is highly likely that many of these deer observations were of the same animals
multiple times. What is the support for this statement? On the contrary, the most reasonable conclusion
is that, since the coverage area of each station is such a microscopic proportion of the site, that the
likelihood of re-detections is very low. The report also states “It is also highly likely that other deer were
on the site and were not observed.” This is far more likely than re-detections, so the numbers of deer
reported in Tables 1 and 2 are almost certainly much lower than the actual numbers present on the site
during the migratory seasons. Twice as many? Ten times? Without some kind of estimates of the
proportion of repeat detections and non-detections, I do not understand what utility the camera
surveys have either for the determination of whether “substantial numbers” of deer use the site for
migration, or for impact analysis.
The only information they provide is that the deer that were detected throughout the site, in groups of
six or fewer (larger groups have been seen by others), and that fawns are present on site during the
month in which they are born. As explained before, without quantitative, biologically reasonable
definitions of “few” or “substantial” or other such terms, the camera station observations contribute
almost nothing to objective evaluation of existing conditions or to impact analysis. Any discussion of
numbers of deer and amount of deer use should also have taken into account that, based upon the
most recent figures I could find, the regional deer population is currently only one-third or one-quarter
of what it was only a few years previous (DFG et al., 1998). Deer populations have the capacity to
rebound quickly, so, from a long-term future biological perspective, the DEIR analysis should multiply
any numerical data about deer on site by three or four.
HEC impact analysis: HEC (2011) cites Beck (1990; a reference which was not provided for public
review and comment) as concluding that “there is no evidence the site is part of a major migration mule
deer corridor [sic].” Without providing the sampling methodologies and data upon which this
conclusion is based, it is of no value at all. The text further states that “migration occurs in a diffuse
pattern because the topography does not restrict mule deer movement.” This statement is false. Deer
migratory movements generally, and specifically in the project vicinity (as shown by actual field data),
are not diffuse, but instead follow relatively specific paths.
Given the major shortcomings in HEC (2011), the DEIR is not adequate unless it either 1) provides us
information on the number of deer that use the Dry Lake/Lookout fawning areas or any others accessed
via Section 3, and a quantitative, or at least objective, means by which the meaning of “substantial” is
determined; or 2) relies on a default position that site use by a single deer is “substantial;” or 3) provides
objective numerical justification for some intermediate position. If 70 deer go to Dry Lake and Lookout
(which would be a huge proportion – 10 percent - of the whole X7b population), and only seven of
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 21
them ever migrate through Canyon Springs, would the DEIR find that proportion (10 percent) to be
“substantial,” or not? If about 700 million people died from something (10 percent of the present
human population), I believe that this would universally be judged to have been a “substantial” loss of
life. The point is that even numbers of individuals of several, ten, a few score, can very well be
biologically substantial. For the DEIR to dismiss the current deer use as not “major” or not significant on
some numerical basis, it must have provided a very strong analytical basis for this opinion, and it does
not. Absent this kind of rigorous and objective analysis, the DEIR must default to the position that one
deer is significant, and that anything that doesn’t even sever the migration corridor but only makes it
more stressful to use has a significant project-specific impact. That’s an extreme position, but it is the
job of the DEIR to provide a strong scientific basis for picking some other position along the continuum.
Both RMT (2009) and HEC (2011) note the detection of fawns within the site in May and June, one of
them being mapped within a few hundred feet or less of one of the proposed blocks of development
(HEC, 2011, page 2-8). The camera detections of fawns might be located within proposed development
areas, but we do not know because no map was provided. Fawn photographs were obtained from three
of the four camera stations on May 15, May 17, May 26, and June 1 (and on later dates). These
observations are biologically significant. Fawns present in May and June would have been born very
recently (days or weeks), and fawns that young do not travel far, so they must have been born within or
very close to the site. The text on page 4-10 notes the presence of a fawn not accompanied by its
mother. Does habitually avoid the fawn except while nursing so as not to attract predators, so that was
a fawn that could not have been older than 2-3 weeks (as the text itself states), because after that time
the fawn begins to eat vegetation and stays with the doe (NRCS et al., 2005). Fawns in their first weeks
of life do not travel far (if at all). Therefore, the best interpretation is that the fawn in question was born
within the site or very nearby; so this constitutes evidence that fawning habitat is present within or
immediately adjacent to the site and, based solely upon facts from the report and relevant literature,
falsifies the statement in the Executive Summary that no such evidence is known.
The presence of fawning habitat on site or very nearby may have been noted by DFG in 1988 but was
not of sufficient areal extent to be recognized as “critical” fawning habitat. The DEIR provides no basis to
consider that only “critical” fawning habitat is of CEQA significance, and indeed the standards of
significance that are quoted in HEC (2011) omit the word critical. Other (probable) fawning habitat
(whether marginal, fair, good, very good, or optimal), which the report’s results indicate is present
within the site, should also be addressed in the existing conditions and impact analysis. The best
fawning habitat might be dense riparian and wetland habitat with abundant moist vegetation, but
shrublands providing hiding cover are also very suitable – exactly the sort of habitat that occurs widely
within the bitterbrush at Canyon Springs.
This subject illuminates a fundamental inadequacy and inconsistency in the assessment of deer habitat
use in HEC (2011) and the DEIR. On the one hand, without any recent data gathering, the documents
rely upon the 1988 DFG determination that critical fawning habitat is found only in locations 1.5 miles
and further from the project site, and nowhere closer, to arrive at the finding that the project will not
have any impact on such resources. Neither document provides any actual data that there isn’t fawning
habitat on site or within a few hundred feet of it. On the other hand, based upon inadequate data, they
disregard the 1988 DFG determination that a major migration corridor runs right through most of the
site. You can’t have it both ways. Either you accept the 1988 baseline in all relevant areas, or you re-
evaluate the biology thoroughly in all respects and provide a full data set for public review.
The DEIR deer discussion is also deficient in not recognizing the importance of fawn rearing habitat
(that is, not merely the exact microsites where the fawns are born, but also nearby habitat where they
spend their initial weeks or months). The standards of significance provided by the DEIR on page 4.4-38
recognize that to "impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites" is one kind of significant impact. Does
with fawns only a few days or weeks old, right within the proposed development area, would certainly
seem to be "using a native wildlife nursery site," which use would be "impeded" by building houses
right there. This is a subject that must be expanded upon in the revised DEIR and/or FEIR, by providing
some actual substantive content, not merely by dismissing it as unimportant without substantiation.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 22
Pellet Group Surveys Would Have Been Preferable for CEQA Purposes
In a letter to Mr. Brian Olson and Mr. Gavin Ball dated October 28, 2003, Steve Henderson (Wildlife
Ecologist/Project Manager, Jones & Stokes Associates) identified significant shortcomings in both the
data and the analysis of deer impacts in the 1990 EIR for a previous project, virtually none of which have
been remedied in the nine years since the project owners received the JSA letter. Mr. Henderson states
“The lack of quantitative data on deer use of the site during the migratory periods is the primary data
gap that should be addressed before formally evaluating impacts…and developing reasonable
mitigation measures commensurate with those impacts.” As explained above, the camera study does
not remedy this data inadequacy at all. He specifically recommends that the project:
“Conduct a technical study to quantify deer use within and adjacent to the project area. Studying mule
deer use and movement…based on pellet and track count techniques…would provide a basis for
addressing direct and indirect impacts and developing mitigation or compensation strategies.
“Develop impact evaluation criteria and thresholds for determining the significance of impacts on
migratory deer.”
These were excellent recommendations, which were similar to ones made in comment letters
responding to NOPs in 2004 and subsequently (including having been incorporated by reference in
2011). Unfortunately, the owners and DEIR having ignored these recommendations, the evaluation of
impacts on deer is not adequate under applicable CEQA guidelines.
Systematic deer pellet group surveys (also referred to as pellet counts) are an extensively used
traditional technique (Neff, 1968), which are now made much more biologically powerful with the
advent of GPS units with which a waypoint may be recorded at each pellet group or track. These are a
much better means of assessing deer use for the purposes of the DEIR than are four widely spaced
camera stations. Specifically, the DEIR needed to address the levels of use and the migration corridor(s?)
in different locations within the site, so that the impacts of the project design and alternatives could be
evaluated. Mule deer are highly faithful to the same migration corridors, sometimes (often?) to exactly
the same footpaths, so the exact portions of the site which they use most heavily must be known, at
least generally, in order for the DEIR to adequately evaluate impacts on mule deer.
The locations of sign also provide general indications of what habitat types deer use most (several such
studies are reviewed briefly by Dealy et al., 1986). The arithmetic precision of the correlation between
time spent in a habitat subtype and the number of pellet groups deposited there is reasonably good for
some habitat types, but poor for other types (e.g., stagnated forest, which does not occur at Canyon
Springs; Collins and Urness, 1981). But it is almost always qualitatively useful. In particular, Collins and
Urness found that the percentage of pellet groups deposited when deer were on the move is much
higher than the percentage of time that the animals are moving; thus, pellet groups are likely to be a
particularly good indicator of areas of migratory use. The habitat use information also is important
information for project design and impact evaluation. Since information on locations of deer use is
fundamental to the DEIR’s impact assessment (how can one determine whether a migration corridor
will be substantially affected if its location is unknown?), thorough GPS pellet group surveys are a far
superior method of gathering data than are a small number of widely spaced camera stations.
RMT (2009) states that the biologist spent two days (June 16 and 17, 2009, or is it June 18 and 19 as
stated in HEC, 2011?) surveying for deer and sign and found only 33 sites of deer scat and 20
observations of tracks. In a similar amount of time walking some transects across the site at 100 meter
intervals, with the intent of demonstrating the utility of this approach to the applicants and planners, I
personally mapped about 600 points of deer sign within the site, nearly all of them discrete different
piles of scat (pellets) but including a few tracks. Neither HEC (2011) nor the DEIR provides any
explanation of how the methodology used in the survey for deer sign upon which it depends failed to
locate the many thousands of points of deer sign within the site. I tentatively estimate 35,700 points
based on extrapolation from the limited sampling area that I observed, namely, estimated 6 foot
coverage width (just rechecked in the field) times 6.5 miles of transects for a coverage area of 4.7 acres
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 23
or 1.65 percent of the site. Given the importance of the site to deer as recognized by DFG (1988), and
the project proposal which is a permanent impact right in the migration corridor, a rigorous systematic
study would have been appropriate, based upon which the data could be refined or corroborated.
Nevertheless, these empirical facts cast doubt upon the adequacy of the project’s studies and indicate
that the DEIR and supporting reports greatly underrepresent the amount of deer use on the site.
Based upon site examinations carried out with a comparable methodology for similar time periods, the
applicant’s previous surveys of deer sign had a detection efficiency of somewhere around 6-9 percent
on the basis of points of sign found per unit time, which I think is not good enough for CEQA purposes.
In the event that new studies are performed by the same individual as before, the reporting should
include an objective explanation of how the field methodology of any new studies differed from the
previous ones, in a manner that can reasonably be expected to improve the very low previous detection
efficiency of 6-9 percent at least up to somewhere above 90 or 95 percent.
The GPS locations of deer sign show that some of the areas of higher density deer use within the site fall
within the development areas. The GPS data shown in Figure 5 also include lines of deer tracks
observed in late afternoon during the first big snowstorm of November 2008 (which are the weather
and calendar circumstances under which some deer migrate), demonstrating conclusively that there is
migratory use within the site. I found several groups of migrating deer tracks (one or two were
individuals; others groups of three or more), not very closely geographically aligned, in a matter of a few
hours. These are most reasonably interpreted as representing multiple groups of migrating deer, on just
that one afternoon. A similar and more comprehensive study through the season might have found
numerous. This is factual information that indicates that there is a migratory corridor within the site,
which will be impaired or eliminated by the project’s habitat conversion, and this impact is not reduced
from “potentially significant” to less-than-significant by project design elements.
I could not find a clear and unequivocal statement in HEC (2011) regarding the author’s conclusions
about deer migration through the site. Page 4-10 states “Small number of mule deer were observed
foraging and moving back in their home [summer] ranges” and elsewhere that the herd “uses the
general vicinity of the Canyon Springs site and other areas in the vicinity during migrations.” And
elsewhere, we have repeated statements that it is “not a major migration corridor” (without any
definition of “major” ever having been provided). HEC (2011) seems to be implying that perhaps there is
no migratory use whatsoever; is that the way the public is meant to interpret the report’s text?
The report needs to provide an unequivocal statement of the findings. Either there is zero migratory use
at all, or there is some but it is not “major” or “substantial” in which case a definition and basis for the
definition must be provided, or there is quite a bit of migratory use. Please be specific. The DEIR states
that there is migratory use, but only by a “few” individuals. Given the inadequacy of the data collection,
this conclusion is not well supported.
Accordingly, since the DEIR is not specific, it falls to the public comment process to provide definite
evidence. Along with Figure 5 showing the overall deer sign data, I include in Figures 6 through 9
showing evidence that deer do migrate through the site both in spring and in fall.
The following conclusions are suggested by the data provided here and shown in Figures 5 through 9 of
my March 4, 2013, comment letter:
• The graphic shows substantial facts and evidence that contradict the statement in the DEIR that
"there is no evidence the site is still used as a migration corridor." All of the points shown in Figure 5
(updated as Figure 1 in the present letter) are discrete different points of deer sign (nearly all pellet
groups), and Figures 6-9 from March 4, 2013 which are incorporated herein by reference provide
factual evidence of migratory use. Scores of additional similar photographs exist. The Final EIR must
acknowledge these substantial facts and evidence. If the EIR consultants wish to review them
before completing their responses to comments and EIR revisions for the Final, I encourage them to
contact me for files or additional information. If the Final EIR does not acknowledge these
observations as substantial facts and evidence and incorporate them into its analysis, it would
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 24
become necessary, for CEQA adequacy, for them to be supplied as comment on the Final EIR and/or
during the Planning Commission hearing, which would be rather late to make any substantial
improvement of the EIR so that certification could be justified.
• Figure 1 of the present letter confirms the existence of the major migration corridor mapped by
DFG for the 1988 management plan, although the data from this preliminary examination of the
site indicate that its outline may be slightly different than that mapped in 1988, and that actual
migratory movements as inferred from pellet group locations are concentrated in specific portions
of the site.
• Deer use all of the blocks of proposed development.
• Some of the areas of heaviest deer use occur within proposed development areas.
• Consequently the only reasonable conclusion is that the project would substantially interfere with a
migration corridor, which is a significant impact not identified in the DEIR. [As an aside, there is no
feasible and effective mitigation with the proposed project design, as is explained below.]
• Surprisingly, deer use of the western half of area that is proposed as the main open space patch,
including the main tributary and wetlands, is relatively light: they may cross this area, but it is not
their migration corridor. Heavier use occurs in the eastern part of this open space area. So, the value
of the project's open space layout to protect the migration corridor is limited, and if the
continuation of a migratory pathway is completely blocked by houses, the fragment that is
preserved within the open space is of dubious value. There are other reasons that retaining this
particular open space area is environmentally valuable, but the actual data suggest it is not very
valuable for deer migration in the context of overall project layout.
On page 4.4-31, the RDEIR states, “However, there is no data showing the project site to be a major or
important migratory corridor for mule deer.” This is factually incorrect; data showing hundreds of points
where deer sign is found, appearing most abundantly during the spring and autumn, was provided on
March 4, 2013, and more is provided with this comment letter in Figure 1. These are substantial facts
and evidence showing abundant migratory use of the site. If the RDEIR takes the position that the site in
not important for migration, then how can it find, in the impact analysis, that there is a significant
disturbance impact on mule deer movement, foraging and/or migration the would result from the
project? The impact statement is correct, therefore the Final EIR must correct the misstatement on the
present page 4.4-31. This subject is discussed in more detail below, in comments on the impact
statements.
Page 4.4-32 ignores evidence provided in HEC 2011 of probable (nearly certain) fawning on site in 2009,
and the fact that vegetation having the characteristics of preferred fawning habitat occurs on site (see
above). See my “Comments and Responses in RDEIR Appendix A” for further detail.
Applicability of CDFW Deer Tracking Data
For many reasons, the applicant’s consultant and law firm and the RDEIR are in error in relying upon the
preliminary GPS data obtained from CDFW to constitute sufficient basis for arriving at a conclusion that
deer do not use the site, or that migration use is not substantial.
One of the files included in the Appendix depicts radio tracking data shows abundant use of the Canyon
Springs site by a radio-collared deer (“CS use by collared deer2012”). Unfortunately, there is no legend
or documentation on this figure of where the data came from. Curiously, this data is absent from the file
called COMBINED SHAPE FILE-PublicRecordsRequest—1-22-13.pdf (referred to below as
COMBINED.pdf) Nevertheless, it shows that the GPS tracks do not adequately reflect all deer use in the
area; we already knew this from facts submitted in public comments on the DEIR, but this file included
in the RDEIR falsifies the allegations of the applicant’s contractors and shows that the RDEIR
determinations are incorrect.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 25
Abundant observations of deer individuals and small groups, and of abundant deer sign including sign
freshly deposited during the migration season, are documented in comments on the DEIR and by the
applicant’s consultant himself. These facts and evidence show that the GPS tracks do not adequately
reflect all deer use in the area; therefore reliance upon them to draw conclusions that migrating deer do
not use the site is illogical. In truth, the specific GPS tracked deer did not; but other deer do, as shown by
other facts and evidence. Therefore all of the negative inferences must be rejected as incorrect.
The COMBINED.pdf file shows many individual points from two deer that used portions of eastern
Truckee, an unknown number of deer represented by green points, and some lines that seem to be the
GPS tracks of migrating deer. There is clearly some shortcoming in this file, because the spreadsheets
with deer GPS locations in the folder 130827_MuleDeerData show that the recording interval is one
hour, and it seems impossible that a deer could have traveled the distance of many of the straight line
segments in COMBINED.pdf in just one hour.
There is a misleading label on this graphic stating “concentration of deer collar points within portion of
Glenshire” when what these points really constitute are peripheral points at the very edge of Glenshire,
recorded from deer that almost exclusively utilize areas outside the developed lots. The graphic as a
whole shows how profound an effect a subdivision like Glenshire or Canyon Springs has on mule deer
use.
Wildlife biologists have known for years that merely looking a a bunch of points on a map, or
connecting them with straight line segments, is an inadequate way to use this kind of data for analysis
of wildlife habitat use (Millspaugh and Marzluff, 2001) and have developed and tested various methods
for extracting a better understanding of the animal’s actual biology (Johnson et al., 2002; Morales et al.,
2004; Horne et al., 2007) for application to land management for conservation or mitigation purposes
(Sawyer et al., 2009). The COMBINED.pdf graphic demonstrates an inadequate grasp of wildlife biology
and the state of radio tracking science in making a particular point about the occurrence of only two
points within the corner of the Canyon Springs site, and the locations of those two points. Even though
the data set of radio points that we have is hopelessly inadequate for analysis of potential use of the
Canyon Springs site and potential project impacts upon that use, even this small data set would have
been better represented by, for one possible example, applying the methods of Horne et al. (2007) to
the points of the one single tracked deer that moved around the vicinity of Canyon Springs and Juniper
Hills.
In another direction, the RDEIR Appendix A includes a shapefile set named CombinedMCPs.xxx in a
folder labeled “Fawning Areas.” There is no explanation of the source of this data or of how the
determination was made that those were the fawning areas, or, if these are tracking data, where the
deer were captured that yielded the data. All of these things need to be clearly explained for this file set
to be meaningful. See the following paragraphs for one reason.
Neither the applicant’s consultant nor the RDEIR preparers seem to have critically reviewed the
(admittedly rather disorganized) information in the RDEIR Appendix A in the context of the known and
extensively documented facts of mule deer biology. Consequently, these parties arrived at a conclusion
(that mule deer do not migrate through or fawn on the site) that is not actually supported by the data
sources that they cite. For example, the file “Verdi subherd deer capture_collars
status_MS_22Feb2013.xlsx” provides what seems to be a complete list of the GPS-tracked deer and
their capture locations. The majority of these deer were captured in the Truckee River Wildlife Area, and
exactly three of them were captured in “Glenshire/Truckee.” When one examines where the capture
coordinates for those three deer are located, one sees that all of them were obtained in the bitterbrush
flats west of and outside the Glenshire subdivision, and near or just south of the Truckee River.
Abundant scientific literature, and even the applicant’s consultant’s reports, document that mule deer
display very high site fidelity to summer use areas. Sure enough, the deer that were tracked used, as one
would logically expect, exactly those same areas (see Summer_Map.jpg). This is precisely what should
be expected for GPS tracking of deer captured in those areas. It would be very surprising, and at
variance with known mule deer behavior, for those deer to show up at Canyon Springs. The fact that the
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 26
GPS tracks don’t reflect use of the Canyon Springs site does not show that the site is not used; all it
shows is that there were not enough deer from the relevant portions of summer range being tracked. It
cannot be repeated enough times that there are a lot of other data showing substantial migratory and
other use (at least some fawning and rearing use) of the Canyon Springs site. If the GPS data don’t show
this, that proves that the GPS data set isn’t complete enough to draw the kinds of conclusions that the
RDEIR and applicant’s consultant and attorney state.
Regardless of the reason why, the list of tracked deer in Verdi…xlsx does not include ones that would
have been expected to migrate through eastern Truckee and adjacent lands, so the data set is
insufficient to be relied upon for impact analysis for the Canyon Springs project.
One of the most basic principles of biological surveys is that absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence. Just because the limited GPS study data – which the applicant’s own reports show does not
reflect the entirety of deer use on site – did not detect this use does not mean that the other substantial
facts and evidence can be ignored in arriving at a no-substantial-use conclusion.
I emphasize as strongly as possible that the foregoing remarks are not criticism of the conduct or data
of the CDFW mule deer tracking studies, but are meant solely to illuminate why it is a misuse of the
resultant data to redirect it the purposes for which the applicant’s consultant and RDEIR seem to want
to use it. The CDFW data is very useful, but simply does not provide a sufficient data set for those
purposes.
DEIR Impact Analysis
Text on page 4.4-47 conflicts with many other statements by RDEIR and applicant’s consultant and
attorney that are provided in the DEIR and RDEIR Appendices. The Final EIR must clarify unequivocally
that the EIR finds that the migratory and fawning use of the site is sufficiently substantial that a
potentially significant impact could result from adverse effects on such use (otherwise, how can the
impact statement under (iii.) possibly be correct?).
Is the finding that all three (movement, migration, foraging) are significant affected? Or only migration?
Some combination of two choices? The Final EIR must clarify. In my observation, migratory use of the
site is quite substantial, and facts and evidence have been provided as part of the public comments, so
this determination is well supported. Migratory corridors are certainly the most limiting of the three
factors mentioned.
I agree that this finding of significant impact is correct, but the RDEIR is clearly incorrect in finding that
the direct impact, from conversion of migratory habitat (stopover and/or through-movement habitat)
into roads and fenced lots with dogs, houses, lawns, etc. is less than significant. Just the project
footprint alone is 108 acres, and there is certain to be some degree of edge effects on deer from lighting,
noise, a dog right behind a fence barking at them. Also, portions of the open spaces are virtually certain
to experience vegetation removal for fire protection. So the affected footprint is definitely more than
108 acres, and it is distributed almost all across the site in terms of its overlap with areas of particularly
heavy deer use during the migration season, and it should be presumed to be a nearly 100 percent
impact on migratory use (if not of all migratory use, then certainly of potential use as a stopover sensu
Sawyer).
The disturbance related impact, which the RDEIR finds to be significant, affects a greater acreage
(though less than the 176 nominal acres of open space, because some of that is likely to have a lot of
shrubby cover removed for fire protection). Could the reasoning have been that an impact on 108 acres
was less than significant, but impact on 176 acres is significant, and if so, where is the dividing line: 110
acres? 150? 175? If it was a strictly quantitative significance threshold, the RDEIR should have, and the
Final EIR must, provide substantial facts and evidence or some reference for that number.
In any case, the disturbance impact is much less intensive than the development footprint itself. For one
thing, recreational activities by people, some of them accompanied by dogs whether leashed or not,
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 27
occur almost entirely during the daytime, and deer are less active during that time than they are at
night. There is a lot of overlapping use during the late afternoon. Nevertheless, even with the current
level of human and domestic pet use of the site, it experiences substantial migratory use (which the
RDEIR tacitly acknowledges in finding any significant impact in the first place). So, empirically, the
disturbance effect is perhaps not zero, but is relatively minor based upon observed facts. If this relatively
minor effect results in a significant impact, as stated by the RDEIR, then surely the relatively much more
intensive effects of the project footprint itself, which greatly overlaps areas of substantial deer use
during the migratory season, also result in a significant adverse impact on mule deer. If the RDEIR had
provided a more thorough description of existing conditions and identified thresholds of significance, it
might have been clearer that both impacts are undeniably significant, as was found in the DEIR.
This is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the aggregate of statements found within the
RDEIR itself, without even relying upon other substantial facts and evidence that are provided in the
public comments. Accordingly, the Final EIR must include revisions to identify a significant and
unavoidable project-specific (as well as cumulative) impact from the direct effects of the development
itself. Though I am not entirely certain of the nuances of CEQA, I believe that this finding should
probably mandate yet another recirculation of the biological resources section, because the current
Draft does not identify any significant unavoidable (unmitigated) impact.
Pages 4.4-45ff seems to determine that design features that would effectively minimize impacts to the
wildlife corridors are part of the project. While these design features are part of the project and are
desirable, the reasoning and justification behind the claim that they reduce the project’s direct impact
to a less-than-significant level is not sound. In the text below, I examine each point raised in support of
the contention that the project’s design elements would reduce the potentially significant impact to a
less-than-significant level and show that none of the hypotheses are plausible. Consequently, the DEIR
is inadequate in not finding that there will be a significant project-specific impact on deer migration.
It is not clear to me how the identified design features minimize impact on a piece of migration route
that has been turned into a group of houses. For deer, their migration routes and seasonal use areas are
not conceptual or vague, they are fairly specific areas on the ground, which deer prefer strongly not to
alter from year to year. HEC (2011) states that the biologist made empirical observations of this
faithfulness of deer to the same specific areas. Based upon available evidence, including that gathered
by the project owner’s biologist, the DEIR must rely primarily on the default position that our mule deer
use specific migratory routes and, if these are blocked by development, they would no longer migrate
through the site (which is a significant project-specific impact).
The project’s reports and the DEIR do not recognize that the reduction of adverse development impacts
on wildlife generally that may result from the preservation of strips of open space that are kept as native
habitat cannot be relied upon at all to reduce impacts on any one or another individual species, namely
mule deer. These sections of text should be revised in accordance with the explanation earlier in the
RDEIR of the fundamental difference between a within-home-range movement corridor for general
wildlife species and a migration corridor used by mule deer to move from summer to winter ranges. I
have seen over 50 vertebrate species in or from my yard and in the open space immediately adjacent to
it. Yet, to my knowledge, not one mule deer individual has ever migrated between summer and winter
range via that strip of open space; I have never seen one moving through the parcels and roads
between that open space and the general direction of their winter range. Wildlife of diverse species is
nice, but the DEIR does not identify any significant or even potentially significant impact on general
wildlife. The issue is mule deer, not all those other non-special-status species; so whatever values for
those other species that may be retained in the project’s open spaces are completely irrelevant and
should not be mentioned at all in connection with analysis of mule deer impacts and mitigation.
The DEIR hypothesizes that the dubiously named “wildlife corridor” provided by the project’s open
space would notably reduce the impact on migrating deer. There is no objective support provided for
this hypothesis, and ample reason to believe it is not so. A wildlife migration corridor that functions as
such must extend from one seasonal use area to an area used in a different season; it doesn’t extend
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 28
from undisturbed habitat right into the middle of a pervasively developed community. But that’s what
the main Canyon Springs open space area does: it extends from undisturbed areas that are located to
the southeast, in a northwesterly direction right to the Glenshire development. My observation is that
the narrow strip of habitat that might temporarily remain undeveloped to the west of the northern end
of Canyon Springs is not where the deer go; the pattern of heaviest use curves in an easterly direction,
right through the northern blocks of development of Canyon Springs. As noted above, one somewhat
unexpected conclusion that is demonstrated by the deer sign map provided in this letter is that the
heaviest deer migratory use does not occur in most of the largest piece of proposed open space within
the project’s proposed layout.
The DEIR does not explain why it is plausible that deer migrating from Dry Lake northward, and
encountering the new Canyon Springs development, will head eastward, then northwestward into
Glenshire, then somehow northward again with houses not far away on both sides, to ultimately get to
the winter range. It is all rather biologically implausible and inconsistent with the behavior shown by
the scanty-but-all-we-have GPS data from CDFW.
It does not matter at all that there may (or may not be? we are not really sure) other migration
opportunities on private land further to the east, which is itself subject to future development and the
establishment of homes with unrestrained resident dogs disturbing the migrating deer at all times of
day and night. Examination of the aerial photograph (see Figure 4.4-1) shows a big block of moderately
high canopy cover conifer forest there, which, based on pellet group frequency, the deer seem not to
use in migration, so it is not clear if they really do use much of the eastern part of Section 3 after all. And
we don’t know whether it’s plausible that deer would use routes that are located that much further east
to continue to access Dry Lake, Lookout Mountain, and/or other as yet unrecognized fawning locations
(possibly including the project site itself, as hinted by the fawn observation provided by RMT, 2009, and
HEC, 2011).
The point is that there is a migration corridor through Canyon Springs now, which has been known to
DFW since the 1980s, and the continued existence of which has been confirmed by ample empirical
data. The construction of the development would eliminate or substantially interfere with it, which is a
significant impact according to the thresholds stated on page 4.4-38. Note also that the impact
wordings provided by the DEIR state only “migration corridor” so the term “major” serves only to
emphasize DFG’s subjective impression of its importance and does not really matter for determination
of impact significance. According to the language provided in the DEIR, effects on any and all kinds of
migration corridors (major, minor, occasional, rarely used, unspecified) would be significant under
CEQA. As was explained above, depending upon the biology of the portion of the herd in question,
interference with through-migration of just a few deer might very well be “substantial.”
The paragraph in the middle of page 4.4-48 claims that the project provides minimum 50-foot setbacks
from the 100-foot floodplains. From a perspective of effects on deer migration, which is the topic at
hand at this point in the DEIR (not other unspecified general wildlife), this is simply a false statement.
Some of those 50-foot setbacks lie entirely within parcel boundaries, which may be fenced and have a
lawn, dog run, patio, outdoor grill installation. That’s not a situation that is suitable for deer migration.
My empirical observations, accumulated over the past 17+ years, are that deer do sometimes venture
partway down into the narrower strips of open space the migratory season, but that they do not use
them as migratory corridors. That is, I have seen deer and deer sign in the open space behind my house,
a few hundred feet from undeveloped land, but I have never seen a deer further west, migrating toward
winter range through the lower part of the open space, where most or all of the houses have resident
dogs that are often in the back yards, and then continuing on through the roads and yards of Regency,
Courtenay, and Glenshire Drive. Whether these open spaces are unsuitable because of the houses and
dogs, or because they do not lead anywhere that is useful to the deer, I cannot be sure; but they are not
migratory corridors for deer. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that the open space areas in the
present Canyon Springs design that are narrower than, say, 200 feet from parcel boundary to parcel
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 29
boundary, are almost certainly not going to be functional as migratory corridors. Movement and habitat
areas for other wildlife species, yes, but migratory corridors for deer, no.
The DEIR and HEC (2011) mention that deer are occasionally seen within the residential neighborhoods,
but not how often or where (relative to undisturbed habitat). This is true, but it is relatively very rare;
certainly nowhere near the frequency or number of individuals (or their sign) that are seen in an actual
migration corridor. I have driven through eastern Glenshire neighborhoods hundreds of times (maybe
1,000) in the evening, and in all that time I have seen relatively few deer in the solid areas of
development. Interestingly, appearance of occasional deer within the dense development area during
both the spring and fall migration seasons of 2014 has been limited, but more than in previous years, for
unknown (possibly climatic?) reasons. But I have seen deer on the eastern segment of Glenshire Drive
(Hirschdale Hill) in groups of one to five, probably on at least 30-50 percent of the occasions when I
have passed through that area at the right time of day or evening during migration seasons.
The RDEIR needs to make concrete statements of facts and its interpretation. We are told that
“substantial numbers” of deer do not migrate through Canyon Springs. Are the scattered observations
in residential development “substantial numbers”? Are these deer supposed to be the migrating deer
which are not migrating through Canyon Springs? Does the DEIR represent that, once Canyon Springs is
built out, that the deer will in future migrate through the present Glenshire neighborhoods? Or
continue to migrate through Canyon Springs unimpeded?
In order to have adequately informed the public, provided an opportunity for meaningful public
comment on its information and interpretations, provided Planning Commissioners a full description of
the project and its consequences for an informed decision, and achieved CEQA adequacy, the DEIR
needs to be clearer and more specific about the technical issues. At present, it is not adequate at all.
The main Canyon Springs open space is only about 400 feet wide between houses at the narrowest
point, which might render it too narrow for deer to safely and relatively stresslessly use it for migration.
Some dogs resident on back decks and in back yards commonly bark at people well over 200 feet away
in open space (personal empirical observation), so they should reasonably be expected to bark at deer
at that distance, or more, and might plausibly run after them. That’s not suitable for a migration
corridor. The same thing applies to remnants of habitat west of the site which might be hypothesized to
be present or future migration corridors (data is needed); these remnants are simply not wide enough.
In summary, the claims that deer migration will continue unimpaired through the project’s open space
areas after the development areas are built out do not have sufficient logical or factual basis and should
be deleted from the RDEIR.
Next, the text claims that planting on the 7-acre fire site and revegetation of a few other acres of
disturbed soils (restoration of the power line road and substation is not feasible) would improve the
open space habitat for mule deer. As explained above, food is not limiting, and even if it were,
increasing the deer food supply would do nothing at all to reduce the impact of building a 185-lot
development in the migratory corridor.
Residential speed limits are 25 mph in the Glenshire neighborhoods, but this has not created or
maintained any function of the neighborhood as a deer migration area. Numerous groups of deer don’t
migrate through the middle of the pervasive development area even with these low vehicle speeds, so
road design provides no reduction of the significant migratory impact that will occur at Canyon Springs.
I agree that it is desirable to reduce wildlife mortality from vehicle strikes, but the speed limit on the
“Hirschdale Hill” portion of Glenshire Drive just east of the Town line is higher than 25 mph, and deer
still migrate across those pieces of pavement; speed limit on I-80 is 65 mph and actual vehicle speeds
are even higher, and deer still try to migrate across the interstate. The point here is that the deer do not
seem to differentiate between road speed limits in deciding where to migrate. They migrate through
the same places regardless of what speed the vehicles are traveling. The idea that a solid block of
houses with a 25-mph road is OK for migration whereas deer would avoid that same block of houses if
the road were a 30- or even 45-mph road is specious and not justified by facts provided in the RDEIR.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 30
Accordingly, the 25-mph design speeds do not remedy the impairment of migratory use posed by the
presence of solid blocks of houses. It would reduce a separate impact (vehicle strike mortality) that is
additive to the impact of building houses in the migration path, but does not materially reduce the
primary impact. The biological impact of the uncommon vehicle collision mortality by itself is
lamentable but almost certainly less than significant under applicable standards of significance; but the
primary migration corridor impact of the permanent presence of the residential development is
significant. Virtually all of the agency literature about mule deer, and even the applicant’s own reports,
supports this. (This has nothing to do with the considerable issue of higher speed highways in open
country, which is a totally separate issue that is irrelevant to Canyon Springs.)
Signage and education are laudable, but the DEIR does not explain how the signs would help the
migrating deer. I have never once seen people walking in open spaces or undeveloped land disturb the
deer. Maybe dogs sometimes chase them, but dogs that are inclined to do this are probably not going
to be under effective leash or voice control anyway, so that idea is ineffective. And besides, as we have
already seen and as indicated by the project’s own contractor’s information (HEC, 2011), the deer are
active primarily at night, and dog walking in open spaces occurs during the day.
The lighting provision is irrelevant to suitability of densely developed areas for deer migration. Doesn’t
the DEIR represent that they would be using the open spaces, where there wouldn’t be any lighting at
all? The lighting provision does nothing to preserve migration potential within the dense blocks of
parcels; all it does is reduce the degree of degradation of the suitability of the narrow open spaces.
So we have now arrived at the end of the whole DEIR discussion of how the project design elements will
somehow result in the potentially significant impact from habitat conversion (stated on page 4.4-47)
being reduced to a less-than-significant level, and we find that none of the explanations make any
scientific sense, or, at a minimum, are insufficiently supported by the material provided in the DEIR and
appendices. Therefore, based upon the information provided to the public, the DEIR must conclude that
the project will have a significant impact on deer migration.
The DEIR does not provide support for the implication that the deer will continue to migrate
unimpeded and in essentially the same numbers as presently after the designated blocks of their
habitat are converted to dense development. Please provide concrete factual evidence that Truckee-
Loyalton herd deer migrate through a distance of some 3,000 or more feet, with solid blocks of year-
round occupied houses all the way along, not more than a few hundred feet away on both sides. Absent
strong objective basis such as this, the DEIR has no justification for concluding that the present
migratory corridor will not be substantially impeded or eliminated.
Accordingly, the DEIR should delete all text that states or implies that the open space design or any
other elements will reduce the project’s impact on migrating deer, and all impact analysis, statements,
and summaries should be revised accordingly. Significant impacts on deer migration, both project-
specific and cumulative, must be identified, and feasible, effective mitigation measures that are
susceptible to objective (preferably quantitative) monitoring should be specified for both impacts, or
significant unavoidable impacts must be identified. In addition, given that there isn’t much precedent
for such mitigation measures having been shown to be effective, the CEQA documentation as a whole
must identify plausible contingent remedies if monitoring should indicate that the required standards
are not being met.
Another approach would be to carry out comprehensive, preferably multi-year studies of which parts of
the site constitute the present deer migration corridor, and to design the project to avoid these. There
has been plenty of time to do this kind of straightforward, affordable study in all these years of project
redesign since 2004. This still doesn’t solve the problem of what the scientific basis is for determining
how far to set back the development areas from the deer migration paths, but it is a necessary start.
It is appropriate to reiterate here, in comments about the impact analysis, that the standards of
significance quoted on page 4.4-42 identify “impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites” as a
significant impact. Certainly, does with fawns in May and June (thus, fawns that are only a few weeks
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 31
old) within development portions of the site cannot be characterized as anything but “using a native
wildlife nursery site.” And certainly, building a block of houses there would impede this use. Therefore,
the RDEIR must identify a separate and specific significant impact in this regard. There are no qualifying
words here such as critical or important or substantially. HEC (2011) and the RDEIR state that there is
use, and it will be impeded; that’s a significant impact.
R DEIR
Mitigation
Measures
BIO-1. This mitigation measure statement should acknowledge the difficulty of surveying for Sierra
Nevada red fox, because it is not visually distinguishable from the introduced red fox; biological
samples of hair or scat must be obtained and analyzed for DNA in order to confirm which subspecies is
present.
BIO-2. There are other special-status birds (USFWS birds of conservation concern but not DFW species of
special concern) that would potentially be affected. As the discussion above about Lewis’s woodpecker
explains, mere avoidance of active nest sites during the nesting season is not adequate mitigation for
that species; even removal of nest trees during the winter could potentially result in a significant impact
on that species.
Are we to understand that this is a survey for all nesting birds of all species, as the text states? If so, the
feasibility and effectiveness of this measure is highly questionable. It is very difficult or impossible to
survey for small birds nesting high in large coniferous trees. Also, it is impossible to find every single
nest of great horned and other owls by standard daytime visual survey. You might find some, but could
not possibly be certain to have found all of them, and, for this mitigation measure as presented to be
effective, the surveyor must find every nest; not just one or another somewhere. Surveys for nest sites of
great horned and other owls are often, perhaps almost always, done by auditory means, so this measure
will not be effective for them. In the immediate Canyon Springs vicinity, great horned owls begin to
occupy their nests in February. Yet the young owlets are not fully independent of the nest site until
sometime around July or perhaps later, so it is a long nest occupation season. Very difficult nest to find.
Requirement for selection of the bird surveyor by the Town is unprecedented in my decades of
consulting experience, is technically unjustified, is a prescription for favoritism, and should be
eliminated. (If this makes sense, why not require every parcel owner to use architects, builders,
engineers, landscapers, erosion control companies, and so on, selected by the Town too, to ensure that
guidelines are followed?) If this requirement is to be retained by the EIR, then the revised DEIR or FEIR
must provide justification in the form of documentation that biologists selected by individual project or
property owners are not qualified, but biologists selected by the Town are qualified to perform the
surveys. If anything, factual evidence in Town files and other sources probably indicates that, at best,
there is no difference in qualifications, or that owner-selected surveyors are better.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 should not risk institutionalizing the Town’s preference based upon
perception and not scientific qualifications, and imposing it on unknowing property owners for decades
into the future.
If the Town wishes to establish a pre-qualified list for biological studies general or for specific ones in
particular (bird surveys, botanical surveys, wetlands, etc., require different qualifications and/or
experience), that would be a standard way for a jurisdiction to address this subject. In that case, there
should be specification of qualifications which at a minimum must include extensive experience in the
local area with the species group in question, with appropriate survey methodologies for all species and
in relevant habitats; a straightforward and impartial process for pre-qualification, and sufficient
outreach that qualified individuals could reasonably be expected to have been apprised of the process.
All this seems like a lot of unnecessary work for Town staff, which has plenty to do already. It is much
simpler to allow owners to select qualified individuals themselves, based upon a rigorous specification
of qualifications and experience.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 32
Back to the actual survey actions: the mitigation measure as stated will not result in effective location of
every nest. If it is represented as doing so, many specifications need to be added. To start with,
qualifications: surveyors to have experience in the local habitats and with the local bird species and
appropriate survey methodologies. The mitigation measure should also specify that the methodology
be appropriate to surveying for nesting birds (for one thing, morning survey work should begin no later
than 30-60 minutes after dawn; procedures for survey for nocturnal species; procedures for tall trees,
and so on), and that detailed and complete reporting of the survey methodology and findings to be
submitted prior to initiation of construction. This would include of times of day of survey work (some
species are active for relatively short periods in the morning and/or evening), methodology, dates, total
hours of survey time on those dates, species observed and if applicable whether pairs of both sexes or
just individuals, behavior and vocalization, how evening-active species were sought (if applicable), and
so on. Reports submitted in compliance with project conditions imposed based upon CEQA mitigation
measures should be readily and freely publicly available.
Nesting bird surveys are difficult and often are not done thoroughly and effectively. If a mitigation
measure is going to be established that is truly represented as ensuring that no active nests are
disturbed or destroyed, the details need to be rigorous and scientifically justified.
Regardless of mitigation options for the small amount of wetland fill, under current Corps of Engineers
regulatory procedure, the granting of any Section 404 permit typically requires the recordation of a
conservation easement over all avoided waters and provision of a substantial endowment to fund
monitoring and maintenance costs in perpetuity. Since the DEIR seems to indicate that the project is
going to need a Section 404 permit, the actual requirements and practical consequences of getting this
permit should have been fully explained in the regulatory background. It would seem reasonable to me
for exceptions to be made for very small areas of fill, but the regulatory process does not always operate
reasonably. My understanding of the project description from Section 3 suggests that the conservation
easement requirement would be incompatible with the present project description, which includes
open space ownership and management by a homeowners’ association. The project also specifies a
degree of public use, including trails nearly right on top of existing jurisdictional waters, that is
questionably compatible with such an easement. It may be less costly for the project to install spans for
the trails than to deal with the conservation easement, if one were to be required as it normally is.
BIO-5. Moreover, the mitigation measures identified under BIO-5 cannot be logically and objectively
linked to reduction of the disturbance impact to a less-than-significant level. The concept of measure 5b
would be valid if the description of existing condition were sufficiently complete and detailed to
demonstrate that only the the fenced-off southeast area experiences substantial migratory use, and
that there isn’t substantial use elsewhere within the site. The RDEIR does not provide such
completeness or detail; on the contrary, substantial facts and evidenced provided by public comments
show that substantial migratory use occurs throughout many (nearly all?) parts of the site. Regardless of
the concept, it is not clear that a split rail fence will actually mitigate impact in this area. People would
likely just step over or walk around it if they wanted to walk in that area, and certainly dogs have no
trouble going right through a split rail fence if there’s something to chase on the other side.
Distributing leaflets is not effective mitigation. How credible is this going to be when people can see the
frustrated deer trying to utilize the centuries-old migratory route through their house, but the leaflet is
telling them everything will be fine if you leash your dog? This is ineffective and should be deleted.
Measures 5e and 5f sound completely inconsistent to me, and having a fenced yard does nothing at all
to mitigate a disturbance impact that occurs when you take the dog for a run in the open space. The
feasibility of requiring every dog owner to have a fenced yard is highly questionable. Is this even legal?
Would owners still need to fence their yards if they want to get a Chihuahua? If there would be a
provision for exemptions, where do you draw the line? If it’s a service dog, would this provision be in
conflict with the ADA? This is an infeasible and ineffective mitigation measure, so it is not in compliance
with CEQA, and it should be deleted.
Measure 5h is infeasible and unenforceable and would not provide any meaningful mitigation.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 33
Having arrived at the end of the proposed mitigation measures BIO-5 and having found that they will
not feasibly and effectively reduce the significant impact on deer that the RDEIR has identified, it
therefore follows that the RDEIR’s finding that the impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant
level is incorrect, and this should be corrected to read that it is a significant unavoidable impact. This is
in addition to the significant unavoidable impact from the habitat conversion resulting from the
footprint of the development itself.
Comments
and
Responses
in
RDEIR
Appendix
A
Since the RDEIR consultant saw fit to include in the Appendix a document including responses from the
applicant’s attorney and consultant regarding certain public comments on the DEIR, it is also fitting to
complete the public record by clarifying the erroneous nature of some of these responses. Was the
inclusion of these responses meant to suggest that they are the RDEIR responses? Or, since the
applicant’s consultant’s remarks really just constitute yet more public comments on the project and EIR,
will the FEIR include the EIR consultant’s responses to the applicant’s responses? It is all unnecessarily
confusing when in fact the letter from the applicant’s attorney should not have been included in the
RDEIR at all. On the contrary, it should have been ignored entirely, because it is merely a comment letter
received outside any open public comment period.
In any case, I note the following falsehoods, inaccuracies, and other misleading statements in the Stoel
Rives letter and its appendices:
Page 2. “In fact, the data shows no incidents of collared deer using the Canyon Springs site.” Not true:
the file named CSuse by collared deer 2012, included in RDEIR appendix folder 140903_MuleDeerData
shows abundant use by at least one deer.
Page 2. The letter purports to explain the alleged low use of the site (which is inaccurate, as
demonstrated by substantial facts and evidence in the public record and in the RDEIR Appendix A) by
citing the occurrence of recreational uses. Deer are active and migrate largely at night, when these
recreational uses are not occurring, so this is illogical. This incorrect allegation and explanation has been
repeated again and again by different parties starting with Beck (1990), always without any substantial
evidence in support. It’s well past time to stop repeating this unsupported theory.
Exhibit 2 (no page numbers). All of the statements in quotations are from the memorandum dated
August 19, 2013, from John Heal to Denyelle Nishimori. Text following the quoted remarks clarifies the
actual reality.
“Simply put, the substantial evidence to support CDFW’s conclusion regarding a potentially significant
impact to mule deer under CEQA does not exist.” This statement is not true. The memorandum fails to
mention that substantial evidence in support of this conclusion was submitted to the Town during the
DEIR public comment period and was available to the public, including the memo author, on August 19,
2013.
“…the vast majority of this summer range is managed by public agencies (i.e., Tahoe National
Forest)…” This statement is true, but it is misleading. It is not clear how much of that area provides as
suitable fawning and foraging habitat as does Canyon Springs and other adjoining private lands. Much
of the land in question is conifer forest with minimal or no understory food sources for deer. Moreover,
and critically important, the vast majority of the land through which the migration corridors connecting
the Martis/Northstar/SE Truckee area with the winter range is privately owned. If these corridors, such as
those that pass through Canyon Springs, are affected, that summer range probably becomes
unavailable. The issue here is the effect of the project on migration corridors, not merely upon summer
range. In any case, the oversimplistic viewpoint that Canyon Springs does not matter much because it is
only a few hundred acres does not diminish the significance of its contribution to cumulative impacts.
“… the Canyon Springs site is used very little by mule deer, they do not fawn on the site…” Both parts
of this statement are incorrect. There is substantial use of the site by deer, as shown by the substantial
facts and evidence provided with my March 6, 2013, comment letter and again in the present letter in
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 34
Figure 1, and by the camera observations in HEC (2011). Moreover, HEC (2011) documents the presence
of a 2-3 week old fawn, unaccompanied by its mother, within the site at exactly the time when fawns
are born. A fawn that is this young does not move very far but instead remains where the doe left it
while the doe forages, later returning to nurse the fawn. Once the fawn is of an age of 1-2 months and is
able to eat vegetation, then it moves with the mother (Bauer, 1995; Heffelfinger, 2006; Nowak, 1991).
The observation documented in HEC (2011) is nearly as solid proof of fawning on site as if there were a
photograph of the birth actually happening. In addition, the characteristics of the shrublands in many
parts of the site are highly suitable for fawning. Sheehy (1978, cited in Verts and Carraway, 1998) states
that the best fawning habitat on Steens Mtn., a location in southeastern Oregon with generally similar
ecology to eastern Truckee from the perspective of mule deer use, occurs where the shrub canopy has a
total cover of >23 % and height of >67 cm or total cover of >40 % and height of >50 cm. Similar general
statements about fawning habitat in other locations are provided by Smith (1983; Sheldon National
Wildlife Refuge) and Loft et al. (1987; central Sierra Nevada). In the vicinity of the “single fawn” location
shown in HEC (2011), the vegetation is Purshia tridentata Shrubland Alliance and/or Pinus jeffreyi/Purshia
tridentata savanna. The shrub canopy has a total cover of 35 percent, with 89.7 percent relative cover of
bitterbrush and an average canopy height of 81 cm. These characteristics are well above the thresholds
for “best” fawning habitat as described above.
This, coupled with the observation of a recently born fawn by the applicant’s consultant, shows that the
RDEIR is inadequate in not addressing the occurrence of fawning habitat and “nursery use” on site both
in the existing conditions and in the impact findings. This exact comment was made in March 2013, yet
there is no acknowledgement of it or of the relevant facts as stated by HEC (2011), and there is neither a
substantive response nor revision in the RDEIR.
Perhaps the 1988 identification of critical fawning habitat at Dry Lake was incomplete, and similarly
critical fawning habitat may occur within and adjoining the Canyon Springs site.
Hazards
and
Biological
Resource
Impacts
The RDEIR’s evaluation of biological resource impacts continues to be inadequate in not fully
addressing the potential impacts of vegetation alteration for fire protection. Since it is directly relevant
to the shortcomings of the RDEIR, I repeat here my comments from March 2013, with a few additions.
Pages 4.8-2 and -3 of the DEIR are deficient in not mentioning the state law pertaining to defensible
space (I believe it is PRC 4291; maybe other sections?) and describing its provisions. This is an important
omission from the regulatory background of the whole DEIR and in turn the RDEIR biology section,
because the things that PRC 4291 requires owners of inhabited property in California to do have
potentially significant impacts on soils, hydrology, water quality, wildlife, and so on.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a provides that “fuel modification shall include (1) underbrush, dead and
dying branches from trees shall be removed up to a minimum of 100 feet from all structures…” Those
words mean that, if any trees are present, the entirety of the bitterbrush vegetation stratum must be
removed. The wording of the mitigation measure does not limit this vegetation removal to the parcel
boundaries, but extends for 100 feet from the structure, thus into the open space parcels. My cursory
inspection of the tentative map shows that in many places, the combined 100 foot shrub stratum
elimination for structures on either side of the open space would result in removal of the native
vegetation from a lot of the open space.
This is not just hypothetical. Fuel management in open spaces near residential areas is ongoing in many
places in the Truckee – North Tahoe area, and is currently under consideration by the Glenshire
Devonshire Residents Association. Sometimes, it is done in an ecologically protective, even beneficial,
manner. However, in other locations in Truckee, treatments have been more like total mowing of the
whole woody stratum. The RDEIR should have considered that the Canyon Springs Homeowners’
Association may well elect simply to do the latter – nothing in the project description prevents it from
doing so, and indeed Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a may well be taken to mean that it is required to do so.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 35
This has significant potential impacts on biological resources, habitat value of open spaces, water
quality, and possibly other issues. If the wording of the mitigation measure is weakened in some
fashion, then the revised DEIR needs to provide adequate justification that the weakened provisions
meet the requirements of PRC 4291 and other applicable regulations and plans. The DEIR must also
note that fuel management actions tend to get more stringent over time, whether due to governmental
action or merely compelled by individuals’ insurance companies. Given that there are empirical
examples in Truckee of total vegetation removal for fire safety, the RDEIR should have analyzed the
greatest degree of vegetation removal that might be interpreted as being required by PRC 4291; since it
did not do so, it remains inadequate in its assessment of biological resource impacts, specifically on
mule deer.
Water
Quality
and
Biological
Resource
Impacts
Since the DEIR was not revised to enhance the mitigation measures for water quality, residual
significant impacts will occur. These have a biological resource component as well, namely, on aquatic
and waterfowl use of the Glenshire Pond. The RDEIR is inadequate in not discussing this subject.
Traffic
As a mitigation measure for significant project effects on the intersection of Glenshire Drive and Donner
Pass Road (DPR), the RDEIR proposes a refuge/acceleration lane for vehicles turning left from Glenshire
Drive. This lane now exists following the recent repaving work on this segment of DPR. The lane is very
short and, in my subjective observation, appears to be virtually useless in mitigating left turn safety and
delay issues at the intersection, with traffic coming downhill at 45 mph per signage. It seems impossible
to believe that it satisfies the distance and/or width standards for such a lane, and, if it were to be made
longer, the risk of head-on collisions with cars using the lane while turning from Keiser Road onto DPR is
substantial. Whether this is encouraged or “discouraged” it will certainly happen, and must be
considered. Therefore, absent substantial facts and evidence to the contrary, this mitigation measure
must be judged to be ineffective at mitigating this project impact, and the impact must be identified as
significant and unavoidable.
Fiscal
Impacts
By my estimate, informed in part by the Town Council agenda item specifying the cost of the EIR
contract amendment (which is new public information that was not available at the closure of the DEIR
comment period), the aggregate direct and opportunity costs of the Canyon Springs project land,
design, approval, and construction roughly equal or exceed the “retail” sales income of 185 improved
lots at a plausible price for the lot sizes and location of the project. Given the known information about
the project applicant’s project development history or relative lack thereof, the most reasonable
expectation – upon which the EIR should rely - is that the project, if approved, would be sold to some
other entity for construction. The latter entity must necessarily endeavor to reduce the costs of the only
item where they have not already been fully incurred (construction), so it is inevitable that substandard
construction or ineffective implementation of temporary and permanent water quality mitigation
measures will result.
This being the case, the responsibility for substandard construction and/or water quality mitigation will
very likely default to the Town and its taxpayers. Observation of the ditches in the Elkhorn Ridge project,
which flow into waters of the U.S. that are tributary to the Truckee River, shows elevated turbidity in
these water courses, and the bankruptcy of the project means that the responsible party that might
have been required to implement a cleanup and abatement order, if one were justified, disappered. Any
future water quality issues with that project would now seem to default to the Town. Therefore, concern
about this for Canyon Springs is not just speculation; it is based upon recent empirical evidence from an
adjoining piece of property. Therefore, this issue is directly relevant to the EIR’s fiscal analysis and must
be addressed in a new recirculated draft or in the Final EIR.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 36
Specifically, the wording of project conditions related to during-construction mitigation measures and
construction standards must be more rigorous that usual, and financial or other assurances ought to be
provided to the Town by the project in order to ensure that the mitigation measures that are finally
determined will actually be implemented effectively. Ideally, funds analogous to mining reclamation
bonds should remain in escrow (or actually be a bond exactly as for mining projects) for the Town’s use
to remedy potential shortcomings in construction or water quality BMP implementation or
maintenance, until monitoring demonstrates their effectiveness under a range of precipitation events.
The Final EIR must address this subject in a substantive manner, by summarizing the costs and value of
the project whether as a single approved project or as 185 individual lots. A quantitative analysis, that is,
substantial facts and evidence rather than unsubstantiated opinions, are important for the public and
the Town decision makers to be able to judge whether the EIR’s fiscal analysis and opinion about
viability of the mitigation measures are valid.
Alternatives
The correct thing to do would have been to adequately study the existing natural resources of the site
(soils, water-related features, biological resources) and to design a natural resources protection
alternative that would avoid all significant impacts or have residual significant impacts that could be
readily mitigated. If such an alternative was in fact completely infeasible, it would either provide
support for the proposed project or would reveal that the site is not suitable for dense residential
development. This approach was suggested in public comment and is suggested here again; it is one
that has been used in the past by other lead agencies, to excellent advantage. Given the relatively
limited work effort needed to evaluate CEQA alternatives, the Final EIR must satisfactorily explain why
this reasonable approach was rejected, especially once it was determined that the DEIR would be
partially recirculated anyway.
The RDEIR fails to explain why the natural-resources-protection alternative, suggested in writing in the
past, was not considered. Among other things, this would have entailed doing a systematic biological
study for things like deer usage (which really should have been done anyway) instead of a series of
random, cursory reconnaissances. But there have been two full field seasons since the close of the DEIR
comment period in early March 2013, so this would have been easily feasible.
There is also no consideration of a project of 88 smaller lots, clustered so as to avoid fawning areas and
areas of heaviest deer usage during migration seasons, as well as other sensitive resources such as
wetlands and waters. This would achieve the density criterion (which I personally do not understand,
but can accept that it makes some General Plan consistency sense, maybe) but could have the potential
for sufficient habitat avoidance that biological resources impacts might actually be significantly
reduced. There are almost certainly other deficiencies with such an idea, but that’s for the EIR to figure
out and explain, not public commenters.
ALTERNATIVE B
Subjectively, there seems to be a definite safety/sight-lines issue at the intersection of Courtenay and
Somerset, which would be substantially exacerbated by Alternative B and should be addressed in the
Final EIR. Vehicles coming down Somerset are rounding a semi-blind curve, coming downhill, and it is
shady and therefore potentially icy at this location. Vehicles attempting to turn right from Courtenay
onto Regency have a stop sign, then have to accelerate up a grade, which is often icy and is the site of
vehicles occasionally going off the road (I have photographs), as they are approached by the vehicles
coming around the corner and down Somerset. This is a problem spot, and with a big increase in
vehicles coming down Somerset, a safety concern.
Overall, the Final EIR needs to reflect impact statements and mitigation measures associated with the
possibility that the Edinburgh access could simply be opened up to unrestricted access at any time,
potentially without further environmental review. What assurance can be provided to the public that
this will not happen, and what is the means of enforcement of it? Would the community need to take
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 37
expensive legal action to ensure that the project is built and operated as stated in the application? What
is the applicable legal remedy (please identify code and section)? The public needs to be able to review
it and be satisfied that it would in fact be a remedy. The Final EIR must clarify all these things with
certainty, or, if not, it must identify the maximum degree of impact that results from either possibility
(emergency-only or unrestricted access via Edinburgh).
ALTERNATIVE D
The determination that potential water quality impacts would be reduced is not adequately supported.
Subjectively, it may well be true, but further discussion is needed to support the conclusion. In principle,
I am always supportive of smaller, clustered lots from an environmental perspective. However, unless
the water quality mitigation measures that are located outside the parcels are increased in size or
number or both, there is the potential that the reduced lot size means that there will be less
uncompacted/partially pervious land surface available and less potential to mitigate on-site runoff from
impervious surfaces within each parcel. The discussion should reflect the need to enhance the project’s
stormwater management infrastructure.
ALTERNATIVE E
The RDEIR states that “development on individual housing lots would be reduced from that of the
proposed project.” This statement requires substantiation. It may seem to be in accordance with
common sense, but in my long experience working with and studying residential development
projects, is not necessarily true. Many, probably most or all, of owners of a 1.2 acre lot would be likely to
build a much larger house and more developed outdoor living, parking, garage, and storage space that
they would if they only owned 0.25 acre. The correct procedure is for the RDEIR to assume that owners
will disturb all or most of the land within their parcels, because that is the maximum potential impact.
From the perspective of disturbance of migrating deer, an owner with a dog and a perimeter fence or
invisible (electronic) fence around a 1.2 acre lot has the same degree of adverse impact, perhaps more,
than if the entire lot were covered by the structures, paving, and other complete conversion to urban
conditions (e.g., a lawn). The evaluation of Alternative E must assume the same total land disturbance as
for the proposed project. It is achievable to maintain at least some degree of habitat value for deer
migration where lots are of sizes of 20 acres or more, if there are effective habitat protection deed
restrictions that are actually enforced. But where the lots average 1.2 acres, the impact is not really
notable reduced from that which results from lots averaging 0.35 acre, as in the proposed project.
The same error is made in the Hydrology subsection; impacts would not necessarily be reduced. They
might be; or they might not. But the EIR cannot be sure that they will and cannot assume that they
would be reduced. This text should be revised for the Final EIR.
I look forward to reviewing any other documentation for this project prior to the Planning Commission
public hearing on this project. Please keep my contact information on the Town’s list for notifications of
other steps in the CEQA process.
Sincerely,
Adrian Juncosa
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 38
References
Bauer, E.A. 1995. Mule Deer: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. Voyageur Press, Stillwater, MN.
California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). 1988. Truckee Loyalton Deer Herd Management Plan.
California Department of Fish and Game, Region II.
California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, and
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (DFG et al.). 1998. Report to the Fish and Game
Commission: An Assessment of Mule and Black-tailed Deer Habitats and Populations in California.
Available for download from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/habitatassessment.html
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW). 2013. The Economic Importance of Hunting. Internet
web page accessible at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/econ-hunting.html.
Collins, W.B., and P.J. Urness. 1981. Habitat preferences of mule deer as rated by pellet-group
distributions. Journal of Wildlife Management 45: 969-972.
Dealy, J.E., P.J. Edgerton, and W.G. Williams. 1986. Use of Curlleaf Mountain-Mahogany by Mule Deer on
a Transition Range. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station
Research Note PNW-439.
Flora North America Editorial Committee, editor (FNAEC). 2005. Flora of North America North of Mexico,
Volume 5. Magnoliophyta: Caryophyllidae, part 2. Oxford University Press, New York.
Garrott, R.A., White, G.C., Bartmann, R.M., Carpenter, L.H. & Alldredge, A.W. (1987) Movements of
female mule deer in northwest Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management, 51, 634–643.
Heffelfinger, J. 2006. Deer of the Southwest: A Complete Guide to the Natural History, Biology, and
Management of Southwestern Mule Deer and White-tailed Deer. Texas A&M University Press, College
Station, Texas.
Herrick, J.E. J.W. Van Zee, K.M. Havstad, L.M. Burkett, and W.G. Whitford. 2009. Monitoring Manual for
Grassland, Shrubland, and Savanna Ecosystems, Vol. I and II. USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, Las
Cruces, New Mexico.
Horne, J. S., E. O. Garton, S. M. Krone, and J. S. Lewis. 2007. Analyzing animal movements using Brownian
Bridges. Ecology 88:2354-2363.
Innes, R.J. 2013. Odocoileus hemionus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer).
Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed in February 2013.
Johnson, C.J., K.L. Parker, D.C. Heard, and M.P. Gillingham. 2002. Movement parameters of ungulates
and scale-specific responses to the environment. Journal of Animal Ecology 71: 225-235.
Kucera, T.E. 1978. Social behavior and breeding system of the desert mule deer. Journal of Mammalogy
59: 463-76.
Leckenby, D.A., D.P. Sheehy, C.H. Nellis, R.J. Scherzinger, I.D. Luman, W. Elmore, J.C. Lemos, L. Doughty,
and C.E. Trainer. 1982. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangeland - the Great Basin of Southeastern
Oregon: Mule Deer. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station
General Technical Report PNW-139.
Loft, E.R., J.W. Menke, J.G. Kie, and R.C. Bertram. 1987. Influence of cattle stocking rate on the structural
profile of deer hiding cover. Journal of Wildlife Management 51: 655-664.
Mackie, R.J., J.G. Kie, D.F. Pac, and K.L. Hamlin. 2003. Mule Deer. Chapter 43 in G.A. Feldhamer, B.C.
Thompson, and J.A. Chapman (editors), Wild Mammals of North America. John Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, Maryland.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 39
Millspaugh, J.J., and J.M. Marzluff. 2001. Radio Tracking and Animal Populations. Academic Press, San
Diego, California.
Morales, J.M., D.T. Haydon, J. Frair, K.E. Holsinger, and J.M. Fryxell. 2004. Extracting more out of
relocation data: building movement models as mixtures of random walks. Ecology 85: 2436-2445.
Muñoz, D., J. Kapfer, and C. Olfenbuttel. 2014. Do available products to mask human scent influence
camera trap survey results? Wildlife Biology 20:246-252.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Wildlife Habitat Management Institute, and Wildlife
Habitat Council. 2005. Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Fish and Wildlife Management Leaflet No. 28.
Neff, D.J. 1968. The pellet-group count technique for big game trend, census, and distribution: A review.
Journal of Wildlife Management 32: 597-614.
Nowak, R.M. 1991. Walker’s Mammals of the World, 5th edition, Vol. II. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, Maryland.
Pease, K.M., A.H. Freedman, J.P. Pollinger, J.E. McCormack, W. Buermann, J. Rodzen, J. Banks, E. Meredith,
V.C. Bleich, R.J. Schaefer, K. Jones, and R.K. Wayne. 2009. Landscape genetics of California mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus): the roles of ecological and historical factors in generating differentiation.
Molecular Ecology 18: 1848-1862.
Sawyer, H., M. J. Kauffman, R. M. Nielson, and J. S. Horne. 2009. Identifying and prioritizing ungulate
migration routes for landscape-level conservation. Ecological Applications 19:2016-2025.
Sawyer, H. and M.J. Kauffman. 2011. Stopover ecology of a migratory ungulate. Journal of Animal
Ecology 80:1078-1087.
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, second edition.
California Native Plant Society in collaboration with California Department of Fish and Game,
Sacramento, California.
Scribner, K.T. 1993. Conservation genetics of managed ungulate populations. Acta Theriologica 38,
Suppl. 2: 89-101.
Sheehy, D.P. 1978. Characteristics of shrubland habitat associated with mule deer fawns at birth and
during early life in southeastern Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Information Series,
Wildlife 78(1): 1-31.
Smith, E.G. 1983. Mule deer fawn habitat and winter range on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. M.S.
thesis, University of Nevada, Reno.
Verts, B.J., and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 40
Attachment 1: Summary of experience and qualifications of Adrian Juncosa
Current Position
President and Senior Ecologist (EcoSynthesis Scientific & Regulatory Services, Inc.)
Education
Harvard University, B.A.
Duke University, Ph.D.
Additional specialized training in wetland delineation, stream studies and restoration, erosion control,
and vegetation sampling.
Certification and License
Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (International Erosion Control Association)
California Contractor’s License
Professional Experience
Twenty-five years of experience in biological, environmental, and regulatory consulting.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (subcontractor): field studies of preserve acquisitions.
Missouri Botanical Garden (post-doctoral fellow): floristic studies of Choco region.
Harvard University (co-principal investigator on NSF grant): studies of Rhizophoraceae.
University of California at Davis (postgraduate researcher and visiting assistant professor): research on
Fabaceae and Euphorbiaceae; taught California floristics and flowering plant systematics.
EIP Associates (Director of Wetland and Botanical Studies): field surveys including habitat mapping,
floristic rare plant surveys, selected wildlife surveys; preparation of CEQA and NEPA
documentation including sections for draft and final EIRs and EISs; negotiation with agency staff,
legal teams, and project ownership to develop mitigation specifications; wetland delineations,
permitting (including associated water quality and streambed alteration authorizations);
mitigation design, implementation, and monitoring; expert witness services.
Parsons – Harland Bartholomew & Associates (Supervising Scientist): duties similar to above.
EcoSynthesis Scientific & Regulatory Services, Inc. (President and Senior Ecologist): botanical,
vegetation, and selected wildlife surveys; historical ecology; studies of soils and ecological
succession for riparian restoration, slope stabilization, and mine reclamation; specifications for
erosion control, revegetation, and ecological restoration; environmental impact evaluation and
documentation; permitting, mitigation, and monitoring; technical representation in meetings
with agency staff, project lenders, and third-party environmental auditors. Teach classes for IECA
on erosion control by means of native revegetation.
Technical Expertise
Botany (systematics, biogeography, and ecology)
Vegetation science and mapping
Revegetation ecology, including soils and hydrology
Erosion and sediment control; planning of vegetation-hydrologic performance of soil moisture regimes.
Interpretation of historical and successional ecology
Biology of selected wildlife groups (raptors, owls, and other birds; mule deer in the Sierra Nevada)
Geographic Areas of Expertise
Main emphasis: Northern Sierra Nevada, Great Basin, and many other ecological systems in California.
Additional expertise and project experience elsewhere in the arid West, northeastern and southeastern
U.S., Latin American tropics, West Africa, Indonesia, Australasia
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
November 19, 2014
page 41
Appendix A: Figure Illustrating Points Stated in Letter Text
Figure 1. Deer sign observed within Canyon Springs site (589 points, almost all being pellet groups),
plus tracks made in snow by several groups of deer migrating within site on Nov. 4, 2008. This confirms
that the migration corridor documented by DFG for the 1988 management plan remains in use,
although these preliminary observations and other deer sign data from outside the site suggest that the
migration corridor veers north-northwest instead of continuing northeast as mapped by DFG.
Additional Figures that are just as relevant to the RDEIR as they were to the DEIR were provided on
March 4, 2013, are incorporated into the present comment letter by reference, and constitute
comments to which the Final EIR must respond.
10141024
1034104410541064
1074
10841094
1104
1114112411341144115411641174
118411941204
12141224
1234124412541264
12741284
12941304
13141324133413441354
13641374138413941404141414241434
144414541464147414831493150315131523
1533154315531563
1574
1583 1593 1603 1613 1623
1633
1643
1653 1663
167316831693 1703171317231733
17431753
176317731783 17931803 181318231833 1843 1853
19131923193319431953
196319731983199320032013202320332043205320632073
20832093210321132123213321432153216321732183219322032213
222322332243
22532263
22732283
2293
2304
2323
2333
2343
2353
2363
2373
23832393
240324132423
2433
2443
2453
2463
2553
25632573
2583
2593
2603
26132623
2633
2643
2653266326732683
26932703
2713
2723
2733
2743
2753
2763
2773
2783
2793
2803
2813
2823
2833
2843
28532863
2873
2883
2893
2903
2913
2923
2933
2943
2963 29732983 2993 3003 30133023
303330433053
30633073 30833093 31033113 31233133
31433153
33533363
33733383339334033413342334333443
3453
346334733483
34933503
351335233533354335533563357335833593360336133623
364336533663367336833693370337133723
373337433753376337733783
3793
3803
3813 3823
3833
38433853
38633873388338933903391339233933
394339533963 39733983 399340034013402340334043
40534063 40734083
40934103
41134123413341434153 4163 41734183 41934203
4213422342334243425342634273
4283
429343034313 43234333 4343 43534363
4373 4383
43934403
4413
46034613462346334643465346634673468346934703
4713
472347334743475347634773478347934803481348234833
48434853
486348734883489349034913492349334943
49534963497349834993500350135023503350435053506350735083509351035113512351335143515351635173518351935203521352235233
524352535263
5273528352935303
53135323533353435353536353735383
5393540354125422
5463
5473 5483
54935503
55135523 55335543 5553 556355735583 5593 560356135623
5633
564356535663567356835693
5703 5713572357335743
5753
5763 5773 578357935803
5813
671267226732
6742
6752
676267726782679268026812682268326842
6852686268726882689269026912692269326942695269626972698269927002
7012
702270327042
722272327242725272627272 7282729273017311732173317341 7351
7361 73717381 739174017411 74217431 744174517461747174817491
7501
75117521753175417551 7561 7571758175917601761176217631764176517661767176817691770177117721773177417751776177717781779178017811782178317841 7851 7861787
78817891
014015016 017 018019020021022023 024025026027028029030031032033034035036 037038039 040041 042 043 044 045 046047048049050051052053054055056057 058059 060
061062
063
064065 066067068 069070071072073074075076077
153154155156157158
159160161162
163164165166167168169170171172173
0564
0574
0584 0594 0604
06140624
0634
064406540664
06740684
06940704071407240734
0744
075407640774078407940804
0814
0824
0834
0844 0854
0864
0874
0884
0894 0904 0914
0019002900310
00410
00490058
0059
0068
006900710
0079
00810
0089
00910
0099
01010
0109
01110
0119
01210
0129
01310
0139
01410
0149
01510
0159
01610
0169
01710
0179
01810
0189
01910
0199
02010
0209
02110
0219
0228
0229
0238
0239
0248
0249
0258
0259
0268
0269
0278
0279
0288
0289
0298
0299
0308
0309
0318
0319
0328
0329
0338
0339
0348
0349
0357
0358
0367
0368
0377
0378
0387
0388
0397
0398
0407
0408
0417
0418
0427
0428
0437
0438
0447
0448
0457
0458
0467
0468
0477
0478
04860496
0505
0515
0525
0527
0535
0536
0544
0545
0555
0556
0565
0566
0575
0576
0585
0586
0595
0596
0605
0606
0615
0616
0625
0626
0635
0636
0645
0646
0655
0656
0665
0666
0675
0676
0685
0686
0695
0696
0705
0706
0715
0716
0725
0726
0735
0736
0745
0746
0755
0756
0765
0766
0775
0776
0785
0786
0795
0796
0805
0806
0815
0816
0825
0826
0835
0836
0845
0846
0855
0856
0865
0866
0875
0876
0885
0886
0895
0896
0905
0906
0915
0916
0925
0926
0935
0936
0945
0946
0955
0956
0965
0966
0975
0976
0985
0986
0995
0996
1008
1009
1015
1016
1025
1026
1035
1036
1045
1046
1055
1056
1065
1066
1075
1076
1085
1086
1095
1096
1105
1106
1115
1116
1125
1126
1135
1136
1145
1146
1155
1156
1165
1166
1175
1176
1185
1186
1195
1196
1205
1206
1215
1216
1225
1226
1235
1236
1245
1246
1255
1256
1265
1266
1275
12761286
1295
1296
1305
1306
1315
1316
1325
1326
1335
1336
1345
1346
1355
1356
1365
1366
1375
1376
1385
1386
1395
1396
1405
1406
1415
1416
1425
1426
1435
1436
1445
1446
1455
1456
1465
1466
1475
1476
1484
1485
1494
1495
1504
1505
1514
1515
1524
1525
1534
1535
1544
1545
1554
1555
1564
1565
1575
1576
1584
1585
1594
1595
1604
1605
1614
1615
1624
1625
1634
1635
1644
1645
1654
1655
1664
1665
1674
1675
1684
1685
1694
1695
1704
1705
1714
1715
1724
1725
1734
1735
1744
1745
1754
1755
1764
1765
1774
1775
1784
1785
1794
1795
1804
1805
1814
1815
1824
1825
1834
1835
1844
1845
1854
1855
1864
1865
1874
1875
1884
1885
1894
1895
1904
1905
1914
1916
1924
1925
1934
1935
1944
1945
1954
1955
1964
1965
1974
1975
1984
1985
1994
1995
2004
2005
2014
2015
2024
2025
2034
2035
2044
2045
2054
2055
2064
2065
2074
2075
2084
2085
2094
2095
2104
2105
2114
2115
2124
2125
2134
2135
2144
2145
2154
2155
2164
2165
2174
2175
2184
2185
2194
2195
2204
2205
2214
2215
2224
2225
2234
2235
2244
2245
2254
2255
2264
2265
2274
2275
2284
2285
2294
2295
2306
2308
2314
2315
2324
2325
2334
2335
2344
2345
2354
2355
2364
2365
2374
2375
2384
2385
2394
2395
2404
2405
2414
2415
2424
2425
2434
2435
2444
2445
2454
2455
2464
2465
2474
2475
2484
2485
2494
2495
2504
2505
2514
2515
2524
2525
2534
2535
2544
2545
2554
2555
2564
2565
2574
2575
2584
2585
2594
2595
2604
2605
2614
2615
2624
2625
2634
2635
2644
2645
2654
2655
2664
2665
2674
2675
2684
2685
2694
2695
2704
2705
2714
2715
2724
2725
2734
2735
2744
2745
2754
2755
2764
2765
2774
2775
2784
2785
2794
2795
2804
2805
2814
2815
2824
2825
2834
2835
2844
2845
2854
2855
2864
2865
2874
2875
2884
2885
2894
2895
2904
2905
2914
2915
2924
2925
2934
2935
2944
2945
2954
2955
2964
2965
2974
2975
2984
2985
2994
2995
2W
3004
3005
3014
3015
3024
3025
3034
3035
3044
3045
3054
3055
3064
3065
3074
3075
3084
3085
3094
3095
3104
3105
3114
3115
3124
3125
3134
3135
3144
3145
3154
3155
31643165
3174
3175
3184
3185
3194
3195
3204
3205
3214
3215
3224
3225
3234
3235
3244
3245
3254
3255
3264
3265
3274
3275
3284
3285
3294
3295
3304
3305
3314
3315
3324
3325
3334
3335
3344
3345
3354
3355
3364
3365
3374
3375
3384
33943404341434243434344434543464
3474
3484349435043514
3524
35343544
3554
3564
3574
358435943604
3614
36243634
36443654
366436743684
36943704
3714
37243734
37443754
380438143824
38343844 3854
3864
38743884 3894
3904
3914
392439343944
3954
3964
3974
398439944004 401440244034 4044
4054 4064 4074
40844094
4104411441244134
4144 4154 4164
4174
4184
4194420442144224
4234
42444254
4264
4274
428442944304
4314
432443344344
43544364437443844394
44044414
44244434
444444544464
44744484449445044514452445344544
4554
4564457445844594460446144624
46344644465446644674
468446944704471447244734474447544764477447844794480448144824483448444854486448744884
4894
490449144924
4934494449544964
4974498449945004
5014
5024
50345044505450645074508450945104511451245134
5144
5154
5164
5174
51845194
52045214
52245234
52445254
5264
527452845294
53045314
5324
5334
5344
53545364
5374
5384
5394
5404 54135423
5433 5443
5453
5464
54745484
5494
5504
5514
55245534
5544 5554
5564
557455845594 56045614
56245634
56445654 5664
567456845694
570457145724
5734
57445754
5764 5774578457945804 5814 5824
58345844585458645874
5884 589459045914592459345944
5954
596459745984
599460046014
6024
60346044 6054 6064 6074 60846094
61046114612461346144 6154
6164 61746184 619462046214
6224
6234
62446254
6264
6274
6284
6294
63046313632363336343635363636373
63836393
6403
641364236433644364536463647364836493
65036513
6523
6533654365536563
6573
6583
6593
6603
6613662366336643
665366636673
66836693
6723
6733
6743
6753
6763
67736783
6793 68036813
6823
6833
684368536863
68736883
689369036913 6923
693369436953 69636973698369937003
701370237033
7043
7053
70637073708370937103
7113
712371337143
71537163
717371837193
7203
721372237233
72437253
7263
7273
72837293
7302
73127322
7332 7342
73527362
7372
7382
7392
7402
7412
7422
7432
7442
7452
7462
7472
748274927502
751275227532
754275527562
75727582
75927602
7612
7622
76327642
7652
7662
7672
7682
76927702
7712
7722773277427752
7762
7772778277927802
7812
7822
7832
7842
7852786278717882
78927902
7912
7922
7932
794279527962
7972
7982
79928002
80128022
80328042805280628072
8082
8092810281128122
8132
8142
8152
81628172
81828192
8202
8212
8222
8232
8242
8252
8262
82728282
8292
8302831283228332
83428352
8362
8372
83828392
8401
841184218431
8441
8451
846184718481
84918501
85118521853185418551
8561
8571
85818591
8601
861186218631864186518661
8671868186918701
87118721873187418751
8761
87718781879188018811
8821883188418851
886188718881
889189018911
8921893189418951896189718981
8991900190119021
903190419051
906190719081
9091
9101
911191219131
9141
9151
9161
91719181
919192019211
9221
9231
9241
92519261
927192819291
9301
93119321
9331
9341
9351
9361
9371
9381
9391
9401
9411
9421
9422
94319441
9451 946194719481 94919501951195219531 9541
9551
9561
9571 9581
9591
9601
96119621963196419651
9661967196819691
9701
97119721
9731 9741
9751
9761
9771 9781
97919801
9811
9821
9831
9841
9851
9861
987198819891
990199119921
9931994199519961997199819991
Legend
Canyon Springs boundary
Development areas
Deer sign
Tracks of migrating deer Nov 2008
0814
No observations were made in southernmost part of site
Figure 1. Deer sign observed within Canyon Springs site (>1,900 pellet groups, mostly or all deposited during migra-
tion seasons), plus tracks made in snow by deer migrating within site on Nov. 4, 2008. This confirms that there is
substantial migratory use of the site, verifying the existence of a major migration corridor as documented by CDFW
(then CDFG) for the 1988 management plan.