Laserfiche WebLink
L Kelley/D Nishimori <br />March 4, 2013 <br /> <br />vicinity of the project site”. (P4.1-33). There is no real quantified basis for this assumption of “…no <br />reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity…”. How long ago was this assumption made? The 362 <br />and 320 acre parcels adjacent to the eastern and northern edges of the project could very well propose <br />development well before the infrastructure would be in place for the proposed Canyon Springs project. <br />In order for the DEIR to adequately address “cumulative impacts”, all possible scenarios need to be <br />taken into consideration and addressed in the DEIR. <br />The aesthetics section of the DEIR does not include impacts or cumulative impacts that take <br />into consideration the possibility of this project becoming, for an unknown period of time, an un-built <br />(ghost) development, as in Elkhorn Ridge or Sierra Bluffs in the same vicinity. Such an occurrence of <br />blight severely impacts view shed/aesthetics. How would this be prevented or mitigated? <br />Agriculture and Forestry Resources <br /> The DEIR refers to Town of Truckee GP 2025, page 7-12 (P4.2-5): “Areas of rangeland <br />vegetation in and around Truckee generally provide the best potential for agricultural uses; however, <br />there is no active grazing taking place in Truckee today”. How can it be proven that this statement <br />would apply in 20+ years (expected life of this development project)? Can it be proven that there will <br />not be a need for increased agricultural uses in the Truckee region in the next 20+ year future? Local <br />community farming has become a necessary trend for the past 10+ years. What are the cumulative <br />impacts in this scenario? <br /> <br />The DEIR claims “Overall, the 176.17 acres of public open space on the project site would be <br />permanently reserved by protective conservation easement or dedication to the Town of <br />Truckee/Truckee Donner Land Trust”. (P4.2-7). Where is the data to support this assertion? <br />Agreements of such conservation easements and acceptance of dedications by the Town of <br />Truckee/Truckee Donner Land Trust need to be included in the DEIR for support. Also, “permanently <br />reserved” needs to be clarified for the readers. <br /> <br />Biological Resources <br /> <br />Plant Communities <br /> Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995 reference used for analyses in the DEIR is outdated. This has <br />been updated in 2009 and analyses need to be done with the updated reference. <br /> <br /> The updated/current 2010 Alliances and Associations of Habitats on the CDFW website need <br />to be used in the DEIR analyses. <br /> <br />Snags <br /> P4.4-26: These microhabitats provide feeding habitat for woodpeckers and nesting and <br />roosting habitat for cavity nesters, including owls, woodpeckers, and bats. Approximately 72 snags <br />occur on the project site. <br /> <br /> P4.4-40: Project impacts: Implementation of the project would result in removal of <br />approximately 27.92 acres of Jeffrey pine community, approximately 7.25 acres of sagebrush <br />community, and removal of approximately 26 snags. These communities provide potential habitat for <br />Sierra Nevada red fox, goshawk, willow fly-catcher, and yellow warbler, and removal of this habitat <br />could impact these species if they are present on the project site during construction. An additional <br />approx. 76.68 acres of these combined communities would occur within the residential and recreation