FONSI - Lytton Residential Development

Transcription

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR THE PROPOSED
LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA FEE-TO-TRUST AND
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AGENCY:
Bureau of Indian Affairs
ACTIONS:
Finding of No Significant Impact
SUMMARY:
The Lytton Rancheria of California (Tribe) submitted a request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) to approve the acquisition in trust of 124.12 acres of land for Tribal housing. The land
proposed for trust acquisition and development is located approximately two miles west of
Highway 101 near the Town of Windsor, California, one mile east of the Russian River, and
approximately ten miles north of the City of Santa Rosa. The project site occurs in Sections 14,
15, and unsectioned areas of Molinos, Township 8 North, Range 9 West, on the “Healdsburg”
California U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle.
Based upon the entire administrative record including the analysis in the Final Environmental
Assessment (EA) and consideration of comments received during the public review period, the
BIA makes a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the Federal action to acquire 124.12
acres into trust and subsequent implementation of Alternative A (Proposed Project with Windsor
Water and Sewer) or Alternative B (On-site Water and Sewer). This finding constitutes a
determination that the Proposed Action is not a Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required.
Comment letters received on the Final EA are provided as Exhibit A. Responses to each
comment letter received are provided as Exhibit B. A Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement
Program is provided as Exhibit C. A letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
concurring that the trust acquisition is not likely to adversely affect Federally listed species under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is provided as Exhibit D. Letters from the California
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) concurring that the undertaking will not affect cultural and
historic resources are provided as Exhibit E.
BACKGROUND:
Following the passage of the California Rancheria Termination Act (the Act of August 18, 1958,
PL. 85-671, 72 Stat. 619) the Federal government terminated the Lytton Rancheria and
distributed the tribal trust lands, which were located within Alexander Valley, to individual
members of the Lytton Rancheria. In 1991, the Lytton Rancheria was restored as a tribe (though
a stipulated judgment acknowledged that the Tribe was never legally terminated), and the Lytton
Rancheria was again listed in the Federal Register as an Indian entity which is recognized and
eligible to receive services from the BIA. Since that time, the Tribe has attempted to secure land
to re-establish a unified community in the vicinity of Alexander Valley. The Tribe’s purpose for
taking the 124.12 acres of land into trust is for the development of a residential community, a
community center, and associated Tribal facilities.
The Proposed Project will assist the Tribe in meeting the following goals:




Unite currently dispersed Tribal members by creating an identifiable physical
community;
Provide sufficient residential housing and associated infrastructure for Tribal members;
Allow the Tribe to foster its cultural identity, spiritual values, and traditional beliefs by
constructing a roundhouse, retreat, and community center;
Allow the Tribal government to exercise sovereign authority over a greater percentage of
its land, and protect and enhance the wellbeing of Tribal members and natural resources
on those lands.
An initial EA, documenting and analyzing the potential impacts of the Proposed Action and
Alternatives on the Tribe’s original 92 acres, was completed in July 2009. The initial EA was
distributed for public review from July 30, 2009 to August 31, 2009. Extensions to the 30-day
comment period were granted by the BIA, allowing comment submissions through October 9,
2009. The BIA received a total of 28 comment letters. Following the initial EA public comment
period, the Tribe purchased an additional 32.12 acres for a total of 124.12 acres. The 32.12 acres
were added to the Fee-to-Trust application and housing project site plan alternatives to provide
additional flexibility for reclaimed water reuse and mitigation of potential impacts in response to
comments and concerns raised during the initial EA public comment period. Subsequently a
Final EA was prepared and distributed for public review from May 10, 2011 through July 8, 2011
upon the Tribe’s request. Upon their request, the California Department of Justice and Sonoma
County received 7 day extensions to respond to the Final EA. One comment letter was received
and accepted via email on July 9, 2011. The BIA received a total of 45 comment letters on the
Final EA (Exhibit A).
On August 3, 2009, the BIA initiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1979. On May 17, 2011, the
BIA requested an amended consultation to ensure that all 124.12 acres were included in the
USFWS review. A field visit was conducted on October 12, 2011 by the USFWS. The USFWS
responded in a memorandum dated December 21, 2011, which, among other things, requested
that additional surveys be conducted for certain Federally listed species. On April 24, 2012 the
USFWS issued a letter of concurrence (Exhibit D) to the BIA supporting a finding of Not Likely
to Adversely Affect any listed species by the action of taking the 124.12 acres of land into trust.
The Tribe has agreed to conduct all the surveys requested, and those surveys are either complete
2
or underway and will be completed during the appropriate seasons in 2012. Thus far, all the
surveys have yielded negative results.
In 2008 the BIA initiated consultation with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. On August 4, 2009
the BIA received concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding this
consultation (Exhibit E). Because this concurrence was for the original 92 acres, on May 2, 2011
the BIA submitted an addendum request to the OHP to document cultural resources within the
32.12 acres purchased after the release of the initial EA. On February 1, 2012 the BIA received
concurrence from SHPO regarding the remaining 32.12 acres (Exhibit E).
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION:
The BIA’s Proposed Action consists of the transfer of the site into Federal trust status for the
benefit of the Tribe. The proposed Fee-to-Trust conveyance is for 14 parcels totaling
approximately 124.12 acres. A reasonably foreseeable consequence of this action is the
subsequent development of the site for Tribal housing and associated facilities. The Proposed
Project would include up to 147 residential units, as well as a Tribal community center, retreat, a
roundhouse, associative rural roadways, and signage.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The BIA considered four alternatives in the EA, as summarized below.
1) Alternative A - Proposed Project with Windsor Water and Sewer. Alternative A
consists of placing approximately 124.12 acres into Federal Status for the Tribe. This
trust action would shift civil regulatory jurisdiction over the 124.12 acres from the State
of California and Sonoma County to the Tribe and the Federal government. Alternative
A also involves the construction of up to 147 residential units, a community center, a
roundhouse, and retreat facilities. Rural roadways would be constructed to provide
access to the residences and community facilities. Signage would be provided for all
streets and community facilities. Under this alternative, water and wastewater services
would be supplied by the Town of Windsor’s public water supply and sewer system
under an agreement to be entered into between the Tribe and the Town of Windsor.
2) Alternative B - On-site Water and Sewer. Alternative B consists of placing the 124.12
acre site into Federal trust status for the benefit of the Tribe, and the subsequent
construction of Tribal housing on the site. Under this alternative, the same housing and
associated facilities would be constructed, however under Alternative B, water,
wastewater, and reclamation facilities would be constructed on-site.
3) Alternative C - Reduced Intensity Project. Consistent with Alternatives A and B,
Alternative C would include placing the 124.12 acre site into Federal trust status,
3
however the Tribe would develop only 55 residential units, a community center, a
roundhouse, retreat, and associated facilities. Water and wastewater facilities would be
constructed on-site.
4) No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the 124.12 acres would not be
placed into Federal trust, and would not be developed. Land use jurisdiction for the
124.12 acres would remain with Sonoma County.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potential impacts to land resources, water resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, socioeconomic conditions and environmental justice, transportation and circulation,
land use, public services, noise, hazardous materials, and visual resources were evaluated in the
initial and Final EAs, with the following conclusions:
A. Project design, implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and mitigation
measures will ensure impacts to land resources will be less-than-significant. See Final
EA Sections 2.1.9, 4.1.1, and 5.1.
B. Project design, implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures will ensure impacts to
water resources will be less-than-significant. See Final EA Sections 2.1.9, 2.2.6, 2.3.6,
4.1.2, and 5.2.
C. Project design, implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures will ensure impacts to
air quality will be less-than-significant. See Final EA Sections 2.1.9, 4.1.3, and 5.3.
D. Project design, implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures will ensure impacts to
biological resources will be less-than-significant. See Final EA Sections 2.1.9, 4.1.4, and
5.4.
E. Project design and implementation of mitigation measures will ensure impacts to cultural
resources will be less-than-significant. See Final EA Sections 4.1.5 and 5.5.
F. Project design and implementation of mitigation measures will ensure impacts to
socioeconomic conditions and environmental justice issues would be less-thansignificant. See Final EA Sections 4.1.6 and 5.6.
G. Project design and implementation of the mitigation measures will ensure impacts to
transportation and circulation will be less-than-significant. See Final EA Sections 4.1.7
and 5.7.
H. Project design and implementation of mitigation measures will ensure impacts to land use
resources would be less-than-significant. See Final EA Sections 4.1.8 and 5.8.
I. Project design, implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures will ensure impacts to
public services will be less-than-significant. See Final EA Sections 2.1.4, 2.1.9, 4.1.9,
and 5.9.
4
J. Project design, implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures will ensure impacts
associated with noise will be less-than-significant. See Final EA Sections 2.1.9, 2.2.6,
2.3.6, 4.1.10, and 5.10.
K. Project design and implementation of the mitigation measures will ensure that impacts
caused by hazardous materials will be less-than-significant. See Final EA Sections
4.1.11, and 5.11.
L. Project design, implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures will ensure impacts to
visual resources will be less-than-significant. See Final EA Sections 2.1.9, 4.1.12, and
5.12.
M. Project design, implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures will ensure that
cumulative impacts will be less-than-significant. See Final EA Sections 2.1.9, 2.2.6,
2.3.6, 4.5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.9, 5.10, and 5.11.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES:
Protective measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been incorporated in the
project design of Alternatives A and B to eliminate or substantially reduce environmental impacts
resulting from the project. These measures and BMPs are listed below:
Land Resources


All structures would meet design standards equivalent to the California Building Code
(CBC) requirements for the site, including the seismic design criteria of the most recent
edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Seismic Zone 4.
Protective coatings for buried steel facilities would be used for construction on corrosive
soil.
Water Resources





Areas outside of buildings and roads would be kept as permeable surfaces to the extent
practicable; either as vegetation or high infiltration cover, such as mulch, gravel, or turf
block. Pedestrian pathways would use a permeable surface where possible, such as
crushed aggregate or stone with sufficient permeable joints (areas between stone or brick
if used).
Existing native vegetation would be retained where possible.
Roof down spouts would be directed to splash blocks and not to underground storm drain
systems.
Runoff from rooftops, and other impervious areas would be directed to vegetated areas to
help treat and infiltrate stormwater prior to leaving the site.
Runoff from roadways would filter though rock-lined swales and bio-swales.
5







All storm drains would be equipped with silt and grease traps to remove oils, debris, and
other pollutants. Storm drain inlets would also be labeled “No Dumping – Drains to
Streams and Rivers.”
Permanent energy dissipaters would be included for drainage outlets.
Rock rip-rap energy dissipaters would be installed at the point of release of concentrated
flow.
High water-demand plants would be minimized in landscaping plans. Native and
drought-tolerant plant species (trees, shrubs, and ground cover) landscaping would be
emphasized.
Water-efficient fixtures and appliances would be installed in residences and community
facilities.
Water conservation standards at least equivalent to Sonoma County design standards
would be implemented in the residential and community buildings.
Implementation of check dams, rain gardens, and bio-swales would be used to reduce
stormwater velocities as recommended in the preliminary drainage plan in Appendix A of
the Final EA.
Air Quality
The following measures would reduce project related greenhouse gas emissions related to climate
change:
 Buildings would be sited to take advantage of aspect, shade, prevailing winds, and sun
screens to reduce energy use.
 Buildings would be designed to include efficient lighting and lighting control systems.
 Energy efficient heating and cooling systems as well as appliances would be installed in
residences and community facilities.
 Solar or wind power systems would be utilized where feasible.
Biological Resources




All identified heritage trees would be preserved to the maximum extent feasible.
Native trees with greater than nine inches diameter at breast height (DBH) within the
Sonoma County valley oak habitat (VOH) Combining District would be preserved to the
maximum extent feasible.
Native trees with greater than nine inches DBH within mixed riparian habitats would be
preserved to the maximum extent feasible.
Avoidance of mixed riparian habitat, as well as wetlands and drainages to the maximum
extent feasible.
6
Public Services



Structural fire protection would be provided through compliance with Uniform Fire Code
requirements for commercial structures of this size. The Tribe would ensure that
appropriate water supply and pressure is available for emergency fire flows.
The community center would be equipped with an early detection system that ensures an
initial response to any fire alarm (automatic, local, or report). This would rely on
automatic sprinkler systems in the occupied areas and smoke detection, along with
automatic sprinkler systems in the areas of the facility that are normally unoccupied, such
as storerooms and mechanical areas.
All structures would be constructed in accordance with design standards equivalent to all
Building Codes, as adopted or supplemented by Sonoma County.
Noise

To the extent feasible, houses would be designed to locate outdoor spaces away from the
sound path of travel in order to minimize noise levels for existing offsite houses in the
vicinity of the project site.
Visual Resources


Signage for all streets and community facilities would be subtly incorporated into the
landscape.
Lighting would only occur at street intersections and parking areas for the community
facilities. The lighting would consist of pole mounted lights limited to 18 feet and would
be required to have cut-off lenses.
Green Building
The Tribe proposes to incorporate the “Build it Green” 2005 Green Building Guidelines for New
Home Construction along with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for
homes criteria for all the residential units on the project site (U.S. Green Building Council, 2010).
In addition, LEED certification is proposed for the community center and retreat buildings. The
above-noted BMPs and protective measures would aid the Tribe in achieving these standards. In
addition, the following measures would be implemented:




Roadways will be generally designed as narrow country lanes with surface runoff
diverted into vegetated bioswales.
Individual homes would have limited personal planting areas with a portion of the
watering needs satisfied from captured rainwater or reclaimed water.
Indoor plumbing would use the highest efficiency fixtures and fittings available.
All homes would be designed for efficient use of energy and natural resources and would
be sized below the median standard based on the LEED for Homes rating system. Each
7














plan would be oriented to maximize access to solar energy and natural daylight.
Operable windows would be placed to provide efficient natural ventilation, taking
advantage of prevailing breezes.
All appliances and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment would
be Energy Star Certified for optimal performance.
During construction, all waste material would be separated and sorted into individual bins
for recycling.
Upon completion, the community center would have trash enclosures for separation of
recyclable materials and newspapers.
The communal buildings would meet all Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
accessibility requirements. Pathways would meet required slopes and roadway crossings
would include textured paving and indicators for the visually impaired.
At least 75 percent of the residences built would be single story to minimize visual
effects.
The single story retreat building would be located on the site of an existing two-story
home.
Building envelopes would be designed to maximize performance of HVAC, lighting, and
other energy systems. Equipment and appliances would meet or exceed California state,
Title 24 energy requirements.
HVAC equipment would have no chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerants.
To the extent possible, building materials with recycled content would be specified for
use during construction.
Building and landscape elements would be designed to give preference to materials that
are produced regionally or within 500 miles of the project.
Wood materials and products used in construction would be specified to be Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) certified from suppliers who practice responsible and
sustainable forest management.
During construction, on-site absorptive materials would be protected from moisture
damage.
All paints, coatings, adhesives and sealants used on the interiors of buildings would have
a low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) limits to reduce odor and harmful indoor air
contaminants.
Carpets, cabinets, and other interior finishes would be selected, in part, on minimizing
their potential to off-gas or adversely affect indoor air quality.
The following additional measures would be implemented for the wastewater treatment and
reclamation facility’s (WTRF) reclamation and surface water discharge, to the extent applicable:

Sodium hypochlorite, caustic soda and/or citric acid would be stored in the chemical
room of the WTRF. The storage and metering facilities would be located inside a
8











chemical spill containment area, sized to contain 150 percent of the storage volume in
case of an unintentional release.
The sodium hypochlorite would be stored in a 55-gallon drum and the citric acid would
be stored as dry material and then in a 50-gallon mixing tank when needed.
The WTRF would incorporate an active odor control system, consisting of a packaged
biofilter with an active carbon absorption unit.
All treated effluent storage dimensions have been calculated to hold 100-year rainfall
event precipitation amounts, which is approximately 1.5 times greater than that estimated
to be required for normal rainfall years.
Spray drift from the spray disposal irrigation areas would be monitored daily during
operation by qualified personnel. Spray drift shall not be allowed to migrate outside of
the irrigation area.
Spray irrigation would cease when winds exceed 30 miles per hour.
Disposal of treated wastewater to irrigation areas shall be adjusted based on weather
conditions in order to prevent surface runoff.
The Tribe would adopt standards equivalent to the landscape irrigation standards in the
State Water Resources Control Board Recycled Water Policy (as referenced in
Resolution No. 2009-0011).
Potential groundwater impacts from irrigation and effluent storage will be minimized
through treatment of effluent with nitrogen and salinity reduction processes.
Operation and maintenance of the wastewater utility from house service laterals, through
the wastewater and effluent system, to treatment and disposal will be by the Tribe
utilizing contract services. Individual residents will have no responsibility regarding
operation and maintenance of any aspect of the wastewater treatment and conveyance
systems. The residents’ sole responsibility would be to follow Tribal guidance on what
should and should not be flushed down sinks and toilets. Community education shall be
promoted to reduce needless contaminants to wastewater.
The effluent storage basins and irrigation areas would be located and designed so that
they are well-drained and readily accessible.
Implementation of the following measures would be incorporated during design and
operation of the wastewater and effluent system to minimize chances of system failures:
o Solvent welded plastic house services;
o Above grade cleanouts;
o Dual (redundant) discharge pumps;
o High water alarms;
o Adherence to recommended tank pump-out frequency;
o Maintaining records of pumping, inspections, and other maintenance activities;
o Flushing of solvent, paint, paper towels, diapers, feminine hygiene products,
cigarette butts, pesticides, and fertilizer would be discouraged by recurring
9
outreach notices to the residents. The frequency of the noticing would be based on
the results of ongoing system inspections.
SUMMARY OF EA MITIGATION MEASURES:
The following mitigation measures described below are included to: 1) reduce significant impacts
to a less-than-significant level, 2) further reduce already less-than-significant impacts, or 3)
accomplish both. To ensure that the mitigation measures are enforceable, the Tribe shall pass a
resolution requiring full compliance with all mitigation measures. All mitigation that is necessary
to reduce significant impacts to a less than significant level will be binding on the Tribe because
it is subject to a Tribal resolution, intrinsic to the project, required by Federal law, and/or required
by agreements between the Tribe and local agencies. The construction contract for the Proposed
Project will include applicable mitigation measures, and inspectors shall be retained during
construction.
Implementation of the protective measures and BMPs described above along with the mitigation
measures below shall minimize potential impacts related to soils. These measures are
recommended for Alternatives A and B:






All site preparation and earthwork construction in the field shall be performed by
licensed contractors.
Suitability of earth and construction materials shall be determined by a licensed
professional employing geotechnical/soils laboratory testing standards according to
standard engineering practice.
All grading plans, subsurface investigations, and slope stability and seismic design
calculations as well as all foundation, paving, and building design parameters shall be
produced under the supervision of appropriate licensed professionals.
Construction on expansive soil shall be mitigated by using specialized grading techniques
or designing structural foundations to withstand expansion pressures.
The effects of soil movement shall be mitigated by strengthening the soils during grading
and/or designing and constructing satisfactory foundation support.
Prior to finalization of the grading and development plans for the property, design-level
geotechnical specifications addressing the specific grading and development plans shall
be developed. The specifications should include, but not be limited to, the following:
o Site, building and facility-specific grading recommendations regarding site
preparation, clearing and grubbing.
o Select grading procedures, remedial grading procedures, material suitability and
compaction criteria.
o Cut and fill slope stability analyses, recommended slope configurations and
inclinations.
10
o
o
o
o
o
Evaluation of soil expansion and corrosion potential.
Building-specific foundation design parameters.
Site-specific seismic design parameters.
Lateral earth pressure parameters for retaining wall design, if applicable.
Pavement design specifications.
Implementation of the protective measures and BMPs described above along with the
recommended mitigation measures below would minimize potential impacts to water resources
related to the construction of Alternatives A and B:




The Tribe shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
(NPDES General Permit) from the USEPA for construction site runoff during the
construction phase in compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA). A Storm Water
Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared, implemented, and maintained
throughout the construction phase of the development, consistent with General Permit
requirements. The SWPPP would detail the BMPs to be implemented during
construction and post-construction operation of the Proposed Project. The BMPs may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
o Straw wattle placement on cut and fill slopes.
o Straw wattle check dam installation within drainage swales.
o Covering disturbed areas with plastic, hydro-seed applications, or straw.
o Installation of “construction only” entrances to reduce off-site sediment transport.
o Revegetation following construction activities.
If Alternative B is chosen, the Tribe shall construct the WTRF as described in Appendix
B in the Final EA. Salt-based chemicals shall not be used whenever feasible in the
wastewater treatment process. Water softeners that dispose of salt into the wastewater
system shall be prohibited.
Should Alternative B be chosen, the Tribe shall obtain a NPDES permit for surface
discharge of treated effluent. An energy dissipater that does not result in any fill of
waters of the U.S. shall be installed at the effluent discharge outfall.
The nested monitoring well constructed for the hydrogeologic investigation shall be
maintained and used for groundwater-level monitoring.
Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures below would minimize potential
impacts related to the wastewater effluent discharge from Alternatives B:

Wastewater effluent discharge shall be reduced or eliminated, if possible, during the
issuance of an Urban and Small Streams Flood Advisory by the National Weather
Service for the receiving waters into which project effluent is discharged.
11






Community education programming will be conducted to educate residents of the
importance of reducing chemical product use and disposal in the home and minimizing
release of medicines and other contaminants into wastewater.
All effluent discharge basins shall maintain a minimum vertical distance of two feet
freeboard between the high water level and pond levee crowns. Storage basins will also
be gated to restrict access. All basins shall be equipped with draining systems and level
monitors.
Spray drift from the spray disposal irrigation areas would be monitored daily during
operation by qualified personnel. Spray drift shall not be allowed to migrate outside of
the irrigation area.
Spray irrigation would cease when winds exceed 30 miles per hour.
The Tribe would adopt standards equivalent to the landscape irrigation standards in the
State Water Resources Control Board Recycled Water Policy (as referenced in
A wastewater contingency plan shall be developed that ensures untreated wastewater is
not discharged to the environment in the event of WTRF failure or malfunction.
recommended mitigation measures listed below would minimize potential impacts associated
with air quality for Alternatives A and B:









Construction vehicles, delivery, and commercial vehicles shall not idle for more than five
minutes.
The Tribe shall designate an onsite Air Quality Construction BMP Manager (AQCBM),
who shall be responsible for directing compliance with BMPs for the project construction
heavy-duty equipment.
Heavy, diesel-powered equipment idling shall be limited to two minutes.
The Tribe shall use heavy duty construction equipment equipped with a diesel particulate
matter filter.
The Tribe shall fully fund a program to encourage and facilitate the use of ‘carpools’ by
construction workers, including providing an off-site location for construction workers to
park their vehicles and meet to carpool.
If possible, the Tribe shall use heavy duty construction equipment, which meets CARB’s
most recent certification standards.
The Tribe shall provide a storage area for recyclables and green waste during
construction.
The Tribe shall recycle 50 percent or more of construction waste.
The Tribe shall use environmentally preferable materials to the extent practical for
construction of facilities. Buildings will be designed to meet LEED or equivalent
12

certification standards, except with respect to indoor smoking allowed in certain
restricted areas.
The AQCBM shall be responsible for directing compliance with the following BMPs for
fugitive dust control practices during project construction:
o For any earth moving which is more than 100 feet from all property lines, conduct
watering as necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in
length in any direction.
o For all disturbed surface areas apply dust suppression in a sufficient quantity and
frequency to maintain a stabilized surface. Any areas, which cannot be stabilized, as
evidenced by wind driven dust, must have an application of water at least twice per
day to at least 80 percent of the unstabilized area.
o Establish a vegetative ground cover as soon as feasible after active operations have
ceased.
o Either water all unpaved roads used for any vehicular traffic as often as necessary to
minimize dust; or apply chemical stabilizer to all unpaved road surfaces in sufficient
quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface.
o Provide track-out control to minimize tracking of soil onto neighboring roadways.
o For all off site haul vehicles, cover loads.
o Grading activities shall not occur when winds exceed 25 miles per hour (mph).
o Speed on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
recommended mitigation measures listed below would minimize potential impacts associated
with climate change for Alternatives A and B:


For operation of the proposed project, the Tribe shall institute and fund an on-site waste
composting program. Waste composting reduces green house gas (GHG) emissions from
landfills. This mitigation measure would reduce GHG emissions from mobile sources by
one percent.
For operation of the proposed project, the Tribe shall plant trees and other carbonsequestering vegetation (as part of the Mitigation Measure outlined for native oak trees in
Section 5.4.2 of the Final EA) or preserving an equivalent area of oak woodland. The
addition of photosynthesizing plants would reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)
because plants use CO2 for elemental carbon and energy production. Trees planted near
buildings would result in additional benefits by providing shade to the buildings,
reducing heat absorption and the need for air conditioning. Implementation of this
mitigation measure would reduce the project’s electricity consumption, thus lowering
indirect GHG emissions in the residential air conditioning sector by up to 30 percent.
13
The Tribe shall use solar hot water heaters where possible for all project components.
The use of solar hot water heaters would reduce the project’s energy usage, thus lowering
indirect related GHG emissions by reducing natural gas and electricity usage.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the project’s indirect GHG
emissions from gas water heaters by up to 70 percent.
The Tribe shall seal all residential and other buildings heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning ducts. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the
project’s electricity consumption, thus lowering indirect GHG emissions in the residential
air conditioning sector by up to 30 percent.


Implementation of the following mitigation measure for construction of the proposed project
would reduce Alternatives A and B project-related GHG emissions:
The Tribe shall purchase 1,716.44 metric tons of carbon credits from a carbon credit
exchange or trading entity.

Implementation of the protective measures and BMPs described above, along with the mitigation
measures below, would ensure that impacts to biological resources are less-than-significant:
The following mitigation measures are recommended for Alternatives A and B to avoid and/or
reduce impacts to waters of the U.S. (including wetlands) within the project site:



A 50-foot setback, where possible, shall be established around each of the potentially
jurisdictional wetland features within the project development and no development
shall occur within the setback areas.
Prior to the onset of construction activities, these wetland avoidance setbacks shall be
established around jurisdictional wetland features using high-visibility fencing. A
qualified biologist shall be present during construction activities that ensue within the
vicinity of the wetland avoidance buffer zones. The qualified biologist shall monitor
construction activities to ensure that the fencing remains intact and that construction
activities do not penetrate the wetland avoidance buffer zones. The high-visibility
fencing may be removed upon the completion of construction.
Temporary fencing shall be installed around riparian habitats. Fencing shall be in
place prior to the initiation of any construction activities and no encroachment into the
fenced areas shall be permitted. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction
activities have ceased.
14


Any proposed construction activities that would occur within 50 feet of jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. shall be conducted during the dry season (i.e., April 15 through
October 15) to further reduce sedimentation within the watershed.
If complete avoidance of waters of the U.S. is not possible and impacts to wetland
features cannot be avoided, authorization from the USACE would be required. A
Section 404 Clean Water Act (CWA) permit shall be obtained from the USACE and
mitigation ratios defined within the permit conditions shall be implemented. Typical
Nationwide Permits (NWP) mitigation occurs at a ratio of 1:1 acres created versus
impacted and 2:1 acres preserved versus impacted. Individual permit conditions may
vary. A CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification permit from the U.S. EPA
would also be required.
The following mitigation measures are recommended for Alternatives A and B to avoid or reduce
impacts to any potentially occurring native trees within the project site:




Trees of notable size (i.e., heritage trees exceeding 33 inches diameter at breast height)
shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible.
Impacts to valley oak trees within the Valley Oak Habitat Combining District shall be
avoided to the maximum extent feasible.
Protection of tree crowns and root zones shall be required for all trees planned for
retention in the vicinity of the construction footprint.
Native oak trees permanently removed as a result of project construction will be
mitigated through re-planting of removed trees at a 1:1 ratio, as detailed below, or
alternatively, preserving an equivalent area of oak woodland.
o Replacement oak trees will be planted on Tribally-owned land and/or other parcels
in the vicinity of the project site.
o Oak trees may be established by planting in replacement areas trees salvaged from
construction impact zones, 15 gallon-sized trees, 24-inch boxes, 36-inch boxes,
saplings, propagated seedlings, acorns or any combination of these sizes or stages.
o To ensure the success of planted oak trees, the trees shall be monitored annually by
a qualified biologist for a period of five years, with a survival target goal of 60
percent by the third year. If it is determined after the third year of monitoring that
the 60 percent survival rate is not being met, additional trees shall be planted to
meet a 80 percent survival goal near the end of five years.
o Trees removed for construction shall be assessed by a qualified biologist to see if
the removed trees would be suitable for relocation in replacement areas.
The above mentioned mitigation measures will be formalized and further developed in an Oak
Woodland Management Plan that will be developed for the project site. The Oak Woodland
15
Management Plan will be developed by a qualified ecologist, biologist, or forester. The Oak
Woodland Management Plan would include measures for the mitigation of lost oak woodland
habitat, as well as the preservation of oak woodland habitat to remain on-site.
The following mitigation measures may be appropriate for Alternative B, pending the results of
the surveys described below. Such mitigation measures, if applicable, would avoid and/or reduce
impacts to any potentially occurring special-status animal species or their habitats within the
project site:
The remaining aquatic surveys for the California Tiger Salamander (CTS) and California
Red-Legged Frog (CRLF) are currently being conducted within the stock pond located on
parcel 066-050-047. If either CTS or CRLF is found, facilities proposed under
Alternative B in the area upland of the pond could be restricted or could require
additional mitigation.

reduce impacts to any potentially occurring special-status plant species or their habitats within the
project site:



The remaining floristic surveys for Sonoma sunshine, Sebastopol meadowfoam,
Burke’s goldfields, and many-flowered navarretia (Section 4.1.4 of the Final EA;
Attachment E to Appendix E) shall be conducted within the required areas of the
project site in accordance with the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy protocol
prior to groundbreaking on those parcels.
If the protocol-level floristic survey results are positive, then formal consultation with
USFWS must be initiated. Upon consultation, an appropriate course of action shall be
established.
Prior to the onset of construction activities, an avoidance plan must be formulated,
submitted, and approved by the USFWS that will likely entail the following:
o Prior to the onset of construction activities the areas where the plants occur shall
be delineated with avoidance buffers via high visibility fencing. The avoidance
buffers shall be 50 feet in width, unless otherwise specified by USFWS.
o A qualified botanist shall be present during construction activities that ensue
within the vicinity of the special-status plant avoidance buffer zones and
monitored to ensure that the fencing remains intact and that construction activities
do not penetrate the special-status plant avoidance buffer zones.
16
When project development is completed, the high-visibility fencing may be
removed. However, future development shall not occur within the setback buffer
areas.
If complete avoidance of the Santa Rosa Plain special-status plants is not feasible, the
Tribe shall mitigate for impacts to the plants according to the mitigation ratios in Table
1, which are outlined in the Programmatic Consultation for USACE 404 Permitted
Projects that May Affect Four Endangered Plant Species on the Santa Rosa Plain,
California (File Number 223420N) (USFWS, 2007).
o

TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION RATIOS FOR THE FEDERALLY LISTED PLANTS
OF THE SANTA ROSA PLAIN*
Impact to:
Occupied Habitat
Suitable Habitat
Compensation
Compensation
Burke’s goldfields
OR
Sonoma sunshine
3:1 occupied or established
habitat (any combination) with
success criteria met prior to
groundbreaking at project site
AND
0.5:1 established habitat with
groundbreaking at project site.
Sebastopol meadowfoam
AND
0.5:1 established habitat with
groundbreaking at project site.
Source: USFWS, 2007
Note: *According to the USFWS Biological Opinion issued for the 2007 Consultation, “This Programmatic will not cover
the many-flowered navarretia because of its limited distribution [on the Santa Rosa Plain].” (USFWS, 2007:4)
Nesting Migratory Birds
reduce impacts to any potentially occurring migratory bird species within the project site:

If any construction activities are scheduled to occur during the nesting season
(February 15 – August 31), pre-construction bird surveys shall be conducted. Preconstruction surveys for any nesting bird species shall be conducted by a qualified
wildlife biologist, throughout all areas of suitable trees and habitat that are within 500
feet of any proposed construction activity, including oak trees slated for removal. The
17
surveys shall occur no more than 14 days prior to the scheduled onset of construction
activities. If construction is delayed or halted for more than 14 days, another preconstruction survey for nesting bird species shall be conducted. If no nesting birds are
detected during the pre-construction surveys no additional surveys or mitigation
measures are required.


If migratory nesting bird species are observed within 500 feet of the construction area
during the surveys, appropriate avoidance setbacks shall be established by the qualified
biologist. The size and scale of nesting bird avoidance setbacks is dependent upon the
species of nesting bird observed and the habitat that the nest occurs. Avoidance
setbacks shall be established around all active nest locations via stakes and high
visibility fencing. The nesting bird setbacks shall be completely avoided during the
duration of construction activities and the fencing must remain intact. The qualified
biologist shall also determine an appropriate monitoring plan and shall decide if
construction monitoring is necessary during the duration of construction activities.
Again, monitoring requirements are dependent upon the species of nesting birds
observed, the habitat in which the nests are contained, and the number of nests
observed. The setback fencing may be removed when the qualified biologist confirms
that the nest(s) are no longer occupied and all young have fledged.
If impacts (i.e., take) to migratory nesting bird species are unavoidable, consultation
with USFWS shall be initiated. Through consultation, an appropriate and acceptable
course of action shall be established.
The following mitigation measures are recommended for Alternatives A and B to reduce the
potential for significant construction-related impacts to previously unknown cultural resources,
including archaeological sites, human remains, and/or paleontological resources:

Should any buried cultural materials (archaeological or paleontological) be uncovered
during ground-disturbing project activities, such activities shall cease within 100 feet
of the find. Prehistoric archaeological indicators include: obsidian or chert flakedstone tools and waste flakes (debitage) resulting from the toolmaking process; bedrock
outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; ground stone implements (grinding slabs,
mortars and pestles); and locally darkened midden soils containing any of the
previously listed items plus fragments of faunal bone or shell, fire-affected rocks,
and/or unusual amounts of charcoal. Historic period site indicators generally include:
fragments of glass, ceramic and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structural
and feature remnants such as building foundations, privy pits, wells, irrigation ditches,
and refuse dumps; and old trails. The Lytton Rancheria shall be notified of the
discovery and a professional archeologist (or paleontologist, as appropriate) shall be
18


retained to evaluate the find and recommend appropriate treatment measures in
consultation with the Lytton Rancheria. Project-related activities shall not resume
within 100 feet of the find until all mitigation measures have been approved and
completed.
If suspected human remains are encountered, work should halt in the vicinity and the
Sonoma County Coroner should be notified immediately. At the same time, the Lead
Agency and a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to evaluate the find. If
human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Coroner must
notify the NAHC within 24 hours of this identification. Construction activities shall
not resume within 100 feet of the find until the NAHC-designated Most Likely
Descendant (MLD) and the Tribe approves and implements a strategy for the
appropriate disposition of the remains.
Should paleontological resources be unearthed, a paleontological resource impact
mitigation plan (PRIMP) shall be created prior to further earthmoving in the vicinity of
the find. The PRIMP shall detail the procedures for collecting and preserving the
discovered fossils. Any fossils discovered during construction shall be accessioned in
an accredited scientific institution for future study.
No mitigation is necessary for Alternatives A and B.
The following mitigation measures shall be implemented for Alternatives A and B due to
potential impacts for the cumulative plus project traffic conditions in the Year 2030.

The Tribe shall pay a proportionate share for necessary intersection improvements at
the intersection of Windsor River Road and Bell Road (Intersection #6). The
improvements shall include, but not limited to, installation of a traffic signal if and
when the Town of Windsor determines a signal is warranted.

The Tribe shall pay a proportionate share for intersection improvements at the
intersection of Old Redwood Highway and the Northbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramp at
Lakewood Drive (Intersection #9). Improvements would include the construction of an
additional southbound left turn lane, an additional southbound right-turn lane, and
restriping the northbound approach to include a shared through-left lane. It is assumed
that the project’s equitable share of any planned improvements at this intersection
would be calculated based on the methodology set forth in Appendix “B” of the
California Department of Transportation “Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact
Studies.” It is also assumed this will be determined in consultation with Sonoma
County, the Town of Windsor and the Tribe.
19
No mitigation is necessary for Alternatives A and B.
measures below would ensure that the construction and operation of Alternatives A and B would
have a less-than-significant impact on fire and emergency services:

To minimize the risk of fire and the need for fire protection services during construction,
any construction equipment that normally includes a spark arrester shall be equipped with
a spark arrester in good working order. This includes, but is not limited to, vehicles,
heavy equipment, and chainsaws.

During construction, staging areas, welding areas, or areas slated for development using
spark-producing equipment would be cleared of dried vegetation or other materials that
could serve as fire fuel. To the extent feasible, the contractor would keep these areas
clear of combustible materials in order to maintain a firebreak.

Fire extinguishers shall be maintained onsite and inspected on a regular basis.

An evacuation plan shall be developed for the proposed development in the event of a
fire emergency.

Fire hydrant spacing will follow current fire codes.

Fire alarm and suppression systems installed shall conform to design standards equivalent
to the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes as amended and adopted by
Sonoma County.

On-site development shall be generally consistent with Sonoma County Fire Safe
Standards Sections 13-54 through 13-59.

A vegetation management plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional prior to
occupation of any residences. The plan shall include, at a minimum, defensible space
zones, identification of vegetation types, replacement of non-native flammable vegetation
with fire resistive vegetation, and a maintenance program for all vegetation. The Tribe
shall approve the plan and pass a resolution that requires that it will be implemented and
maintained. Prior to approving the plan, the Tribe shall submit it to the County Fire
Chief for review.

The Tribe shall arrange and coordinate with local law enforcement and emergency
services if needed to assist with large events held at the proposed community center.
20
If Alternative A is selected, the Tribe and the Town of Windsor shall enter into a mutually
agreeable binding service contract for the provision of water and sewer service to the project.
measures below, would ensure that the construction and operation of Alternatives A and B would
have a less-than-significant impact on noise:

The Tribe shall restrict construction activities to normal daytime hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.),
Monday through Saturday, with no work performed on Sundays.

The Tribe shall ensure that construction equipment used at the project site shall be
equipped with the best available noise reduction technology feasible, including the use of
mufflers on motorized equipment according to the manufacturer’s specifications.

All existing residences within 200 feet of the project site shall be notified at least one day
in advance of construction that is proposed to take place within 300 feet of the residence.

Stationary noise-producing equipment such as compressors and generators shall be
placed as far as practical from homes, and shielding shall be provided between any such
equipment and homes when it is necessary to operate the equipment closer than 200 feet
from a home.

If Alternative B is chosen, on-site water reclamation facility equipment shall be shielded
or enclosed.
The mitigation measures listed below are recommended to reduce potential impacts associated
with construction and operation of Alternatives A and B:

Potentially hazardous materials, including fuels, shall be stored away from drainages and
secondary containment shall be provided for all hazardous materials during construction.

A spill prevention and countermeasure plan shall be developed which shall identify
proper storage, collection, and disposal measures for potential pollutants (such as fuel
storage tanks) used on-site, as well as the proper procedures for cleaning up and reporting
of any spills.

Vehicles and equipment used during construction shall be provided proper and timely
maintenance to reduce potential for mechanical breakdowns leading to a spill of materials
into water bodies. Maintenance and fueling shall be conducted in an area that meets the
criteria set forth in the spill prevention plan.
21
EXHIBIT A
COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE FINAL EA
EXHIBIT B
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENT LETTERS
REGARDING THE FINAL EA
EXHIBIT B
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENT LETTERS
REGARDING THE FINAL EA
The following responses are provided to address the comments received on the Final Environmental
Assessment for the Proposed Lytton Rancheria of California Fee-to-Trust and Residential
Development Project.
LETTER 1 – CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Response to Comment 1-1
The commenter remarks that General Response 3.1.4 (Traffic Issues) in the Final EA states that the
additional improvements at the Old Redwood Highway/Northbound (NB) US-101 Off-Ramp to
Lakewood Drive intersection (Intersection #9) were not found to be warranted until cumulative 2030
conditions were applied. However, the commenter notes that Table 5, Level of Service Summary for
Background plus Project Conditions (Traffic Impact Study (TIS) p. 19) (Appendix G), shows that
there are project impacts to LOS at Intersection #9 with a change from LOS D to LOS E. The
commenter also states that mitigation should be constructed as part of the project and should be
completed prior to project completion. The change in the LOS at intersection #9 from D to E under
Background Plus Project does not violate Windsor Town’s LOS standards and is not considered a
significant impact. While LOS D is generally the Town’s LOS standard, please note that page 4-33
of the Town of Windsor General Plan (2009) specifies that “A level of service E is tolerated at this
intersection (Old Redwood Hwy./U.S. 101 Northbound Off Ramp/Lakewood Drive) by the Town
because it is a “critical” location into the Town’s commercial and civic areas, in addition to being
located at the main northbound off-ramp from U.S. 101.”
The commenter asks for clarification regarding discrepancies between the summary data presented in
the Final EA, the revised TIS, and the Synchro data outputs (Appendix G of the Final EA) as the
coordination of Intersections #5, #6, #7, #8, and #9 must be reviewed due to the existing coordination
system. Specifically:
A) The commenter states that for Old Redwood Highway/Southbound (SB) US-101 Ramps
intersection (Intersection #8), the Synchro outputs indicate an improved LOS D
(Background Plus Project scenario) versus LOS E (Background scenario) at the US-101
SB Off-Ramp thru-left approach for the PM peak period, and the commenter requests
June 2012
1
Lytton Residential Development
Response to Comments on the Final EA
verification of the lane configurations used in the analysis and the revision of Table 5 of
the TIS.
B) The commenter states for Intersection #9, the Synchro outputs indicate LOS E for PM
peak in the Background scenario, but remarks that Table 5 of the TIS shows LOS D. The
commenter requests verification of the discrepancy and revision of Table 5 accordingly.
Item A of this comment notes that the Synchro outputs indicate an improved LOS on one approach to
Intersection #8 (the southbound off-ramp approach). The LOS standards apply to the overall
intersection LOS and do not apply to individual approaches. However, the Synchro calculations for
this intersection have been revised to reflect the fact that motorists are also permitted to turn left from
the right lane and Table 5 of the TIS has been revised accordingly. As seen in the revised Table 5,
Intersection #8 would continue to meet the LOS standards with this revision and none of the
conclusions about the project’s impacts would change.
TIS Table 5 (Revised)
Level of Service Summary for
Background Plus Project Conditions
Background
AM Peak
Background plus Project
PM Peak
AM Peak
PM Peak
Traffic
Control
LOS
Average
Delay
LOS
Average
Delay
LOS
Average
Delay
LOS
Average
Delay
1. Eastside Road and Windsor
River Road
Stop Sign
(Future)
B
10.1
B
10.1
B
10.2
B
10.2
2. Windsor River Road and
Project Entrance #1
Stop Sign
(Future)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
B
10.1
A
10.0
Project Entrance #3
Stop Sign
A
9.7
A
9.5
B
10.8
B
10.9
Starr Road
All-Way
Stop
B
11.4
A
9.6
B
12.1
B
10.3
Windsor Road
Traffic
Signal
D
38.1
C
31.5
D
39.4
C
31.5
Bell Road
Stop Sign
C
21.7
C
22.9
C
23.8
D
26.2
7. Windsor River Road and Old
Redwood Hwy/Conde Lane
Traffic
Signal
D
39.1
D
36.7
D
39.6
D
38.0
8. Old Redwood Highway and
the SB Hwy 101 Ramps
Traffic
Signal
B
16.9
B
15.8
B
18.1
B
17.4
Intersection
June 2012
2
NB Hwy 101 Off-Ramp –
Lakeside Road
Traffic
Signal
Project Entrance #2
Stop Sign
C
29.8
E
61.4
D
35.8
E
61.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
A
9.4
A
9.4
Note: Average total intersection delay is presented in seconds per vehicle
Source: Abrams and Associates, 2011
Item B of this comment indicates that the Synchro outputs for Intersection #9 indicate LOS E yet
Table 5 indicates the intersection would operate at LOS D conditions. Please note that this was a
typographical error in the table and the correct delay from the appropriate Synchro output is actually
included in the table. Table 5 has been revised to specify LOS E conditions at this intersection under
the PM peak hour Background Plus Project scenario. As described in Response to Comment 1-1,
LOS E does not violate the Town’s LOS standards at this intersection and is therefore not considered
a significant impact.
The commenter requests the submission of queue lengths of all movements for the Department of
Transportation’s review, as queues may spill beyond the left-turn and right-turn pockets, and/or block
upstream signalization intersections. The Synchro results presenting the queuing analysis are attached
as Attachment A to these responses. Please note that the queuing results were reviewed as part of
this analysis and there were some queuing problems identified at Intersection #9. In particular, the
queuing results indicated a potential for queues to extend back from this intersection into the
signalized intersection to the north at Lakewood Drive and Brooks Road. The LOS results indicate
this would occur with or without the Proposed Project under both background and cumulative
conditions. It should be noted that the queuing problems identified at this intersection are consistent
with the Town’s LOS standards for this intersection which allow LOS E conditions. The Highway
Capacity Manual (2000) defines LOS E conditions at a signalized intersection as follows: “LOS E
describes operations with control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 sec/veh. These high delay
values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle
failures are frequent.” V/C is defined as the ratio of the traffic volume to the roadway capacity (both
in vehicles per hour). Queuing problems would generally occur at any intersection with poor
progression and frequent cycle failures.
The Synchro LOS results attached as Attachment A to these responses show that the cumulative
mitigation measures proposed to meet the LOS standards at Intersection #9 would also eliminate any
problems with queuing. However, while Intersection #9 would not violate the LOS standards under
background conditions (with or without the project), the above mentioned queuing problems are
forecast to occur and no mitigation was proposed for this in the original traffic study.
The improvements that are required to mitigate the queuing problems at this intersection involve the
exact same improvements that are proposed to address the cumulative LOS deficiency. The Synchro
June 2012
3
LOS calculations attached as Attachment A to these responses show that the queuing problems
identified in the background scenario could be mitigated by implementation of the cumulative
mitigation measures identified for this intersection. It should be noted that the mitigation measures
1
assumed for this intersection are based on information provided by Caltrans. Caltrans specified the
need for an additional SB left-turn lane, an additional SB right-turn lane, a separate right-turn pocket
for the westbound approach, widening of the NB US-101 off-ramp to allow for an exclusive left-turn
lane, a shared left-through lane, a through lane, and an exclusive right turn lane (for a total of four
approach lanes).
The Proposed Project’s required contribution to transportation improvements will help ensure timely
completion of this development. It is assumed that the project’s equitable share of any planned
improvements at this intersection would be calculated based on the methodology set forth in
Appendix B of the previously referenced Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact
Studies. It is also assumed this will be determined in consultation with Sonoma County, the Town of
Windsor, and the applicant. Implementation of mitigation measures from Section 5.7 of the Final EA
would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
The commenter requests a revised intersection phasing plan based on the commenter’s provided
graphic. The detailed phasing plan that is provided in this comment presumably represents the current
phasing plan being used at the two traffic signals in question. This information may be appropriate
for a detailed operational review but a planning level analysis is a more appropriate environmental
review because the phasing may be optimized in the future as traffic volumes change. For an
environmental review, phasing will typically be optimized when developing forecasts of the future
intersection delay and LOS. However, please note it is standard practice to keep the phasing and
cycle lengths the same for the scenarios where project traffic is included.
The commenter states that the TIS (Appendix G) indicates that at both the US-101 NB and SB ramp
terminals, the intersection approaches from SB thru-left and NB thru-right would degrade to the next
LOS in the Background Plus Project scenario. The commenter states that even with the proposed
mitigation measures at the NB and SB ramp terminals for the Cumulative and Cumulative Plus
Project scenarios, these movements will further degrade to LOS F. The commenter requests revisions
to the intersection lane configuration and signal timing at both the US-101 NB and SB ramp terminals
that will be coordinated with and reviewed by the Department. While it is correct that individual
approaches would operate at LOS E and LOS F under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, this would
not violate the established LOS standards because the standards are based on the overall average
delay and LOS for the intersection. The Town’s current LOS standards only apply to the LOS for the
intersection as a whole and do not apply to individual approaches.
1
Letter from Lisa Carboni, California Department of Transportation, Oakland, CA, August 31, 2009.
June 2012
4
LETTER 2 – CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
The commenter notes that the 124-acre acquisition consists of 14 individual parcels that are not
within the boundaries of, or contiguous with, the Tribe’s existing reservation located approximately
60 miles away in the City of San Pablo. The commenter states that the following comments concern
the inadequacy of the Final EA, particularly regarding the addition of 32 acres that were not
considered in the initial EA. Comments noted. While it is correct that the Tribe currently owns the
Casino San Pablo in trust in the City of San Pablo, this area is already fully developed and incapable
of supporting the proposed housing development. As stated in the Final EA Section 1.2 and
General Response 3.1.1, the Tribe purchased seven additional parcels comprised of approximately
32.12 acres following the initial comment period. These parcels were added to the Fee-to-Trust
application and housing project site plan alternatives in order to better facilitate lower density, to
provide additional flexibility for reclaimed water use, and to provide for additional mitigation in
response to public comments. The addition of these seven parcels to the Fee-to-Trust application is
thoroughly analyzed in the Final EA and does not represent a significant impact. The Tribe has also
purchased several additional parcels in the vicinity of the Proposed Project site and elsewhere. These
parcels are not part of the Tribe’s Fee-to-Trust application and have no proposed changes in land use;
therefore there are no potential impacts – direct or indirect – to be evaluated in the EA. Please refer
to Response to Comment 2-6 for more information on this topic.
The commenter states the Final EA has been prepared for a project consisting of either 55 or 147
housing units plus community facilities and infrastructure improvements. The commenter notes that
this project will be a major undertaking and will constitute a significant change of land use. The
commenter states that the BIA should require an EIS for the project. Comments noted. Please see
Response to Comments 3-24, 3-25, 4-5 and 4-10 regarding these issues.
The commenter states that Alternative A cannot be implemented because the proposed housing units
would need to be served by the City of Windsor’s water supply and sewage treatment facilities, and
the expansion of the geographical area served by these City facilities to include the proposed trust
acquisition is precluded by a voter initiative limiting the boundaries of the service area. The
commenter states that Alternative A is therefore illusory, as water service and sewage treatment must
be provided by the Tribe as described under Alternatives B and C. Alternative A, however, is a valid
and feasible alternative. As stated in General Responses 3.1.2 and 3.1.11 of the Final EA and Final
EA Section 4.1.9, connection to the Town of Windsor water and wastewater systems from an existing
service pipeline along Windsor River Road is possible and the existing system would be able to
accommodate the increased service requirements. While it is true that the Town of Windsor generally
does not provide water and sewer services outside town limits pursuant to its General Plan without
June 2012
5
voter approval for the proposed connection, it is feasible that an expansion of the service area will be
approved by the voters to allow for municipal water and sewer service. For these reasons, Alternative
A is potentially feasible. Please refer to Response to Comment 9-4 for more information on this
issue.
The commenter states that NEPA requires the preparation of an EIS for major federal actions
significantly affecting the human environment. The commenter states that a federal agency may
prepare an EA if the action does not normally require an EIS or if the action is categorically exempt
from the requirement. The commenter states that the EA must provide sufficient evidence and
analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The commenter also states that agencies are required to make diligent efforts to include and solicit
information from the public. Refer to Response to Comments 2-6, 4-3, and 4-5 regarding the
completeness of the EA and the need for an EIS.
The commenter states that an Indian tribe desiring to have the United States take land into trust is
required to file a written request for approval of the acquisition by the Secretary, and that it is unclear
whether the Tribe has filed a written request to take the additional 32 acres into trust, or simply added
the additional land to the Final EA. The commenter requests that if the Tribe has not filed an
application to take the 32 acres into trust, the Secretary should not consider the application until such
application has been filed. The commenter states that once the Tribe has have filed a new or amended
notice of trust application that includes the 32 acres, the BIA should circulate a new draft EA
covering the additional acreage for public review. The Tribe’s application to the BIA has been
amended to include the additional 32 acres. This issue is addressed in Response to Comment 2-1.
The commenter states that the initial EA contained no assessment of the environmental impacts
arising from the acquisition of the 32 acres or from the placement of project features upon them. The
commenter remarks that the Final EA includes the construction of a large effluent basin on a portion
of the additional 32 acres immediately adjacent to an existing housing subdivision. The commenter
states that the purposes of NEPA are not served by characterizing this significant change in the
project as merely a response to comments received concerning the initial EA for the original 92-acre
acquisition. The commenter notes that if a new draft EA is not required for the additional 32 acres,
the current Final EA should be construed as an amended draft EA subject to public comment and
response by the BIA, and a new Final EA should be developed. As stated in the BIA’s NEPA
handbook (516 DM 3) “where appropriate, bureaus and offices, when conducting the EA process,
shall provide the opportunity for public participation and shall consider the public comments on the
pending plan or program.” The initial EA did include the construction of an effluent basin pursuant
to Alternative C, although it was proposed to be located in the southeast corner of the project area.
June 2012
6
Alternative B in the initial EA did not include the construction of an effluent basin because it was not
feasible given the space constraints of the Alternative B described in the initial EA. As noted in
Response to Comment 2-1, seven parcels were added to the Fee-to-Trust application and housing
project site plan alternatives to provide additional flexibility for reclaimed water reuse and to provide
for additional mitigation of potential impacts. These parcels were added in response to comments and
concerns raised during the initial EA public comment period. The potential effects of taking these
additional parcels into trust, including the proposed relocation of the effluent basin under Alternative
B (Option 1), were thoroughly analyzed within the Final EA. The addition of the 32 acres allows the
Tribe to relocate the effluent basin to more favorable topography and include it as a wastewater
treatment option in Alternative B (Option 1). Note that all comments received on the Final EA were
reviewed and responded to within this document, similar to how comments received on the initial EA
were responded to. Refer to Response to Comment 3-29 and 4-62 where the potential impacts of an
effluent basin, including potential impacts to air quality, are discussed.
The commenter states that the Proposed Action is large, immediately adjacent to the Town of
Windsor, and includes residential densities substantially greater than are allowed under Sonoma
County’s General Plan. The commenter states that if the BIA proceeds solely on the basis of the
Final EA, the commenter would urge the BIA to require the preparation of a full EIS to ensure that
the BIA’s final decision regarding the Proposed Action is based upon thorough consideration of its
environmental impacts. Please see Response to Comments 3-24, 3-25 and 4-10 regarding
compliance with the Sonoma County General Plan. The Final EA is of appropriate length and level of
detail to allow the BIA to make a determination of whether the Proposed Project would result in a
significant impact to the environment that could not be mitigated. Refer to Response to Comment 26 regarding public participation on the initial and Final EAs. Refer to Response to Comment 4-5
regarding the need for an EIS.
The commenter states that although the conveyance of 10 acres into trust in San Pablo for the Tribe
was permitted under the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act of 2000, Public Law 106-568, Title VIII,
Section 819, it does not authorize an additional acquisition of land. The commenter states that
subsequent legislation clarified that the Tribe must comply with the provisions of the IRA. The
commenter also states that the act describes the 10 acres of land as the Tribe’s “reservation”;
therefore the Tribe’s location should be considered to be in Contra Costa County rather than Sonoma
County and that the enormous distance between the location of the “reservation” and the proposed
trust acquisition should be found to preclude it. The commenter states that under the provisions of 25
C.F.R § 151.11, great weight should be given to local government objections. While the commenter is
correct that the Secretary of the Interior accepted the conveyance of 10 acres of land in Contra Costa
County into trust for the benefit of the Tribe, the provision did not limit the tribe from applying for
other lands to be taken into trust. As stated in 25 C.F.R §151.11, the Secretary of the Interior can
June 2012
7
evaluate tribal requests for the acquisition of lands in trust status when the land is located outside of
and noncontiguous with the Tribe’s reservation. As stated in General Response 3.1.12 in the Final
EA, NEPA documents and findings are considered by the Secretary in making a decision on trust
acquisition. The purpose of the EA is to evaluate potential environmental impacts of the proposed
trust acquisition, not to determine the Secretary’s decision making process in deciding whether or not
to take land into trust.
The commenter states that the inclusion of seven additional parcels consisting of 32 acres in the Final
EA constitutes a foreshortening of the environmental review process that deprives the public of the
opportunity to comment on that portion of the proposed acquisition with the prospect of any response
and modification by the Tribe. The commenter states that due to the many comments received with
regards to the initial EA, the increase in the proposed acquisition, and the objectives of environmental
review including making a diligent effort to involve the public in the decision-making process, an EIS
should be prepared. Comments noted. Refer to Response to Comments 2-6, 4-3 and 4-5 regarding
the completeness of the EA and need for an EIS.
LETTER 3 – TOWN OF WINDSOR
The commenter states that the Town of Windsor appreciates the time and resources the Lytton
Rancheria of California (Tribe) has spent to collect a wide variety of information and analysis related
to the Proposed Project, and the commenter states that the issues contained in their letter are an
attempt to balance the interests of the community and to assist the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in
assessing the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. They have limited their comments for
the Final EA to address issues raised in their original comment letter dated October 7, 2009 regarding
changes to the Proposed Project and to emphasize their opinion regarding the need for additional
review. Comment noted.
The commenter states that the Final EA should be revised to clearly state that “a vote by the citizens
of the Town of Windsor would be required to provide town services, including water and wastewater
services, to this project” as Alternative A is only feasible if the voter’s elect to have the town provide
these services to the project. Refer to Response to Comments 2-3 and 8-4 regarding this issue. The
exact method of approval of the connection is not necessary to assess the environmental impacts and
no revision to the Final EA is necessary. The Final EA includes an alternative to develop on-site
water and wastewater systems should connection to municipal systems not be possible. Therefore,
the Final EA adequately assesses alternatives for providing water and wastewater services to the
project site.
June 2012
8
The commenter states that the impact of traffic from the use of Tribal facilities by non-tribal members
was not analyzed. As stated in Response to Comment 10-43 (page 3-35 in Volume I, Final EA), the
use of on-site facilities for Tribal gatherings and events would not be a frequent occurrence. And, as
stated in General Response 3.1.5 and Section 2.1.3 of the Final EA, these facilities would be open
only to Tribal residents and their guests for Tribal events, functions, and ceremonies. The facilities
would not be open to the general public for the purposes of hosting private business meetings,
conferences, events, or gaming. Because these facilities would not be open to the general public, no
additional trips were assigned. As with any planned community or residential development there will
be visitors. The Institute of Traffic Engineers provides a trip generation rate for residential
development which takes into account trips from visitors; the occasional trips from other locations
within the County are accounted for in the calculation of the residential trip generation rate.
The commenter states that the Town’s original comment regarding non-motorized transportation was
not addressed. The commenter requested that the original comment be addressed because the Town
requires pedestrian and bicycle frontage improvements from all major developments and
subdivisions. A response to the Town’s Comment 13-24 is provided on page 3-45 of the Final EA.
Once the project site is taken into trust by the BIA the Proposed Project would not be under the
jurisdiction of the Town and would not be subject to its requirements. Refer to Response to
Comments 3-24 and 3-25 for discussion relating to land use impacts and applicable zoning
regulations. As stated in General Response 3.1.4, potential impacts from construction traffic is
described in Section 4.1.7 of the Final EA. It is expected that the potential minor increase in
pedestrian traffic along Windsor River Road would not justify creation of a sidewalk on the south
side of Windsor River Road, considering the relatively long walk to any likely destination and given
that the existing sidewalk on the north side of Windsor River Road could be utilized. Pedestrians and
bicycles alike can legally cross at any nearby intersection on Windsor River Road.
The commenter states that their original comment has not been adequately addressed in the Final EA.
The commenter remarks that the TIS states that the Proposed Project’s access driveways have
adequate sight distance, but notes that there is no analysis in the TIS or the Appendices (Volume III,
Final EA) that justifies this conclusion. The commenter states that the TIS should identify the sight
distance needed based on roadway design speed along with available sight distance with the
conclusions drawn from this review. The original comment (Comment 13-26) was addressed on page
3-45 in Section 3.0 of the Final EA (Volume I). The sight distances at the project driveways were
reviewed based on the Caltrans Highway Design Manual which specifies the minimum sight distance
shall be equivalent to the minimum stopping sight distance as specified in Table 201.1 of the manual.
In the vicinity of the project driveways, Windsor River Road has a speed limit of 45 miles per hour
(mph), which equates to a required stopping sight distance of 360 feet. Based on measurements of the
sight distance taken at each of the project driveways it was determined there would be approximately
400 feet of sight distance available in both directions at all of the project driveways.
June 2012
9
The commenter states that their original comment has not been adequately addressed in the Final EA.
The commenter remarks that the TIS states that it was determined that separate left-turn pockets
would not be warranted at any of the project driveways, but there is no justification for this
conclusion in the TIS. Original Comment 13-27 was addressed in Section 3.0, page 3-45 of the Final
EA (Volume I). The analysis of the need for separate left-turn pockets was based upon Caltrans’
guidelines which are set forth in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO,
2004). The guide for when left-turn lanes should be considered on two lane highways is presented in
Exhibit 9-75. For the analysis conducted for the TIS a 50 mph operating speed for Windsor River
Road was conservatively used. Based on the Cumulative Plus Project volumes the busiest driveway
(Intersection #3) would not come close to meeting the volume threshold where a left-turn pocket
would normally be considered. The analysis indicated that even if the project had higher volumes on
the left-turn movements in question the volumes on Windsor River Road would still need to be higher
by at least 100 trips per hour before the volumes would have the potential to meet the established
guidelines for determining when left-turn pockets should be considered.
The commenter notes that the TIS (Appendix G) makes reference to the intersection of Windsor
River Road and Bell Road as possibly not meeting traffic signal warrants; the commenter states that
traffic signal warrants will be met under future traffic conditions. The commenter states that the Tribe
should contribute its fair share to the signalization of the intersection at Windsor River Road and Bell
Road. The commenter also states that Section 5.2 of Appendix G makes statements that disagree
with statements made within Section 2.2 in Appendix G. The commenter also provides instruction on
how to enter into an improvement agreement with the Town. It is unclear why the commenter
believes the statements in Section 5.2 of Appendix G regarding the intersection of Windsor River
Road and Bell Road disagree with the statements made in Section 2.2 of the TIS. The statement in
Section 2.2 of Appendix G states that the intersection at Windsor River Road and Bell Road may
never meet the warrant for a signal. Section 5.2 of Appendix G states that if and when the
intersection meets the warrant, the Tribe shall pay its fair share to signalize the intersection. Section
5.7 of the Final EA also states that the Tribe would pay its fair share to signalize the intersection of
Windsor River Road and Bell Road. Comment noted, regarding the procedure for entering into an
agreement with the Town.
The commenter states there is a discrepancy in the background LOS table for Intersection number 9.
Refer to Response to Comment 1-2 regarding this issue.
June 2012
10
The commenter states that Comment 13-30 in the initial EA has not been adequately addressed in the
Final EA and goes on to state that the cumulative impacts to groundwater are not addressed in the
Water and Wastewater Feasibility Study (Appendix B of the Final EA). Response to Comment 1330 is presented on page 3-44 of Volume I of the Final EA. In response to the comments received on
the initial EA, the discussion of cumulatively considerable impacts to water resources was expanded
within Section 4.5.2 of the Final EA. Section 2.3.2 of Appendix B does contain a cumulative
analysis of groundwater impacts for Alternatives B and C. As noted therein, a feasibility study was
conducted to determine potable water supplies for Alternatives B and C. Based on the review of
available well logs, geological and hydrological reports, estimations of probable well yields, and
estimates of potential interference drawdown in neighboring wells, it was concluded that the
estimated impact to the overall aquifer as a result of the project in relation to past and present
cumulatively considerable actions is not considered significant. By reviewing neighboring well logs
and assessing the existing conditions of the groundwater table, the feasibility study incorporates
cumulatively considerable past and present actions into the analysis. Section 4.5.2 of the Final EA
provides adequate analysis in accordance with the standards for analysis established by the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in Chapter 5 of Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National
Environmental Policy Act (1997).
The commenter states that the Response to Comment 13-31 in the initial EA was not adequately
addressed because the Water and Wastewater Feasibility Study does not provide adequate baseline
information for the potable water demands (including fire flows), address the corresponding
wastewater flows generated by the project, or adequately identify the improvements to the Town’s
system that would be required to connect the Proposed Project and that a corresponding study should
be conducted for the missing information prior to finalization of the EA. As discussed in Section 1.5
of Appendix B in Volume III of the Final EA, water demands for the project alternatives were
calculated using a combination of local and regional demand factors, readily available usage data, and
local evaporation/transpiration rates and are presented in Table 1-1. Wastewater flows generated by
the project alternatives are addressed in Section 1.6 and presented in Table 1-3 of Appendix B in
Volume III of the Final EA and were estimated using Sonoma County design standards. Wastewater
conveyance from the project site is addressed in Section 3.5 (summarized in Section 4.3.1) of
Appendix B in Volume III of the Final EA.
The commenter recommends that the Tribe consider development of an on-site well or contribution of
well development funds to the Town to offset the project’s potable water demands and that if an onsite well is pursued, then the Town should be provided with the on-site well records concerning the
hydrogeology, potential production volume, and water quality of the well. Existing conditions with
regard to water resources were described in Section 3.2 of the Final EA. Potential impacts of the
Proposed Project resulting from these issues were fully described in Section 4.1.2 with proposed
mitigation in Section 5.2 of the EA. As discussed within Final EA General Response 3.1.2 and
June 2012
11
Final EA Section 4.1.2 on pages 4-3 and 4-4, impacts to water resources, including the local
groundwater basin, from the development of Alternative A would be less-than-significant. As stated
in Final EA Section 2.2.2, the treatment plant would ensure concentrations of arsenic and manganese
are treated to levels at least meeting Federal Safe Drinking Water Act standards.
The commenter states that although the Final EA commits the Tribe to incorporating Sonoma County
water conservation measures (at a minimum); the Town’s conservation measures are more stringent
and would be required of any project served by the Town. Comment noted and the Tribe would not
be subject to Town ordinances requiring conservation. However, conservation measures may be
implemented through service agreements between the Tribe and the Town. Additionally, the
commenter states that the Tribe would not be subject to the Water Conservation Act of 2009 and
therefore the Town could not meet the mandated 20 percent reduction in water consumption because
the Tribe is not subject to the Town’s conservation measures. As stated by the commenter, the State
law is not applicable on Tribal lands, and therefore the water demands of the Tribal housing
development would not be incorporated into the Town’s baseline water consumption rate that would
be required to be reduced by 20 percent by 2020. Therefore, connection of the Tribal housing
development to the Town’s municipal system would not impact the Town’s ability to meet water
demand targets as required by the Water Conservation Act of 2009.
The commenter states that the Response to Comment 13-32 provided within the Final EA is
inadequate. However, the commenter does not provide specifics concerning the purported flaws
within the response. In accordance with CEQ guidance, an agency is not under any obligation to
issue a lengthy reiteration of its methodology for any portion of its analysis, if the only comment
addressing the methodology is a simple complaint that the methodology is inadequate (46 Federal
Register 18026 [1981]). Without concrete statements of concern, a detailed response cannot be
provided to the commenter.
The commenter states that a vote would be required to connect the project site to municipal facilities
and that the Water and Wastewater Feasibility Study does not provide adequate baseline information
for the potable water demands or the corresponding wastewater flows generated by the project. The
commenter adds that the Town believes an upgrade to the Deer Creek Pump Station will be required
along with other wastewater system or plant improvements and that the Tribe is considering funding a
study by the Town to assess wastewater system improvements that may be required to connect the
project site to the municipal wastewater system. Refer to the Response to Comment 2-3 and 3-2
concerning approval of municipal service connections. Refer to Response to Comment 3-10
regarding the adequacy of the Water and Wastewater Feasibility Study. Appendix B in the Final EA
addresses the off-site improvements required to connect Alternative A to the municipal water supply
system. In order to connect the project site to the Town of Windsor Wastewater Treatment,
June 2012
12
Reclamation, and Disposal Facility (WWTRDF), approximately 3,200 feet of force main and a sewer
pump station would be required to establish a connection at the manhole located near the intersection
of Windsor River Road and Starr Road. The connection to the municipal wastewater system from the
Proposed Project would result in the increase of wastewater treated by the WWTRDF by 63,600 gpd.
The WWTRDF has sufficient treatment and disposal capacity to serve the Proposed Project. The
Tribe would adhere to the local regulations, including the Town’s Sanitary Sewer Management Plan,
when planning and constructing sewer system improvements for the project site. The WWTRDF
would not experience any adverse impacts from the connection of the Proposed Project. The analysis
within in the Final EA adequately addresses the potential impacts associated with connection of the
project site to the municipal sewer system.
The commenter states that the proposed development is located within the West Trunk Sewer area
identified within Appendix B of the April 2000 Trunk Sewer Master Plan, that the Final EA should
consider extending and discharging into the West Trunk Sewer, and the increase in flows from the
Proposed Project should be compared to the master plan flows identified for the West Trunk Sewer.
As discussed in Response to Comment 3-14, 3,200 feet of force main would be constructed to
establish a connection at the manhole located near the intersection of Windsor River Road and Starr
Road. Extension of the West Trunk may be considered in lieu of connecting to the Windsor River
Road and Starr Road manhole. The Tribe would adhere to the local regulations, including the Town’s
Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, when planning and constructing a sewer connection for the project
site.
The commenter states that while the Final EA acknowledges that Alternative B would require that the
EPA issue an NPDES Permit to address water quality issues regarding any on-site treatment facilities,
the issues concerning the environmental impacts as a result of the quantity of wastewater discharge
were not adequately addressed in the Final EA. Additionally, the commenter states that the Final EA
does not address issues regarding the roadside ditch capacity during lower storm events to handle the
proposed discharge of treated wastewater, the ability to retain treated wastewater on-site during storm
events, and that a water balance analysis is required (with associated improvements needed to
mitigate off-site discharges during storm events). As indicated in Section 4.2.2 of the Final EA,
should a wastewater treatment and reclamation facility (WTRF) be developed on-site, adequate
storage capacity would be developed on the project site due to discharge limitations of the Russian
River. If Alternative B (Option 1) is chosen, the storage capacity would allow for permitted
discharges to the adjacent drainage ditch along Windsor River Road to flow to an abandoned quarry
located adjacent to the Russian River or to an on-site unnamed stream tributary to Winsor Creek,
thence Mark West Creek (thence Russian River) at such a rate as to prevent topping of the banks. If
Alternative B (Option 2) is chosen, then an on-site effluent pond will be constructed. With the
development of effluent storage capacity on the project site, discharge rates of effluent from
Alternative B to the receiving waters would be controlled to ensure adequate capacity would be
June 2012
13
available to convey stormwater flows during storm events without topping of the banks. As stated in
Final EA Appendix B, in times of wet weather, Alternative B (Option 1) will store excess effluent in
a covered storage tank. A water balance analysis was completed for the Proposed Project and is
presented in Appendix B. In accordance with the analysis within the Final EA, mitigation measures
for identified impacts to water resources are provided in Section 5.2 of the Final EA.
The commenter states that the Final EA did not respond to Comment 13-34 from the Town of
Windsor. Comment 13-34 was addressed on page 3-46 of Section 3.2, Volume I of the Final EA by
referring to the Responses to Comments 13-33, 8-5, and 8-6, and as well as General Response 3.1.2,
which previously addressed wastewater discharge, conveyance, and the enforceability of the USEPAissued NPDES permit for discharges from the project site. Refer to Response to Comments 2-3, 314, 3-16, 4-19, and 9-4 regarding these issues.
The commenter states that the Final EA did not respond to Comment 13-35 from the Town of
Windsor. Comment 13-35 is addressed on page 3-46 in Section 3.0 of Volume I of the Final EA.
Refer to Response to Comment 3-9 for comments and responses relating to cumulative impacts on
water resources.
The commenter states that Response to Comment 13-36 in the Final EA was inadequate. Refer to
Response to Comments 2-3, 3-14, 3-16, 3-29, and 9-4 regarding the proposed WTRF and its
potential impacts, as well as connection to the Town’s wastewater system.
The commenter states that response to Comment 13-37 in the Final EA is inadequate and a water
balance analysis is required to complete the Final EA. Concerning the response to Comment 13-37,
refer to Response to Comment 3-17. Refer to Response to Comment 3-16 concerning the water
balance analysis included within the Final EA.
The commenter states that response to Comment 13-38 in the initial EA is inadequate. As stated in
on page 3-51 in Section 3.2 of the Final EA (Volume I) an EA is used to determine whether the
Proposed Action will result in adverse effects to the environment. Under NEPA, the Affected
Environment is defined as the existing environment to be affected by a proposed action (40 CFR
1502.15). Therefore, in compliance with NEPA, the EA serves to analyze potential impacts to the
environment compared to the conditions prior to the project’s construction. Refer to Response to
Comments 3-9, 3-11, 3-14, and 3-16 regarding impacts to water resources. Refer to Response to
Comments 2-6, 4-3, 2-7, and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS and the completeness of the Final
EA.
June 2012
14
The commenter states that the Proposed Project results in significant environmental impacts related to
land use. Refer to Response to Comments 3-24, 3-25 and 4-10 regarding this issue.
The commenter states that the Proposed Project and trust application would take land that has been
identified by the Town of Windsor for possible future expansion of the Town limits, and that taking
such land into trust reduces the options for future growth and eliminates the ability of the Town to
regulate the intensity, timing and environmental impacts of future development. Refer to Response
to Comments 3-24, 3-25 and 4-10 regarding this issue.
The commenter states that the General Plan is more than a map and a list of land use designations, but
rather is a comprehensive statement and vision intended to separate urban from rural development by
the use of the Town Limits, the Urban Growth Boundary and the Planning Area. The commenter
further states that both the Town’s General Plan and the Sonoma County General Plan are designed
such that intensity and density of land uses are intended to increase as one moves from rural County
lands toward the center of Town. The commenter states that it is the “intent” of the General Plan to
create such a vision. The commenter also cites specific sections of the Town of Windsor General
Plan, and concludes with a statement that the Proposed Project is contrary to established land use
plans. The specific sections of the Town of Windsor General Plan cited by the commenter include:

June 2012
The commenter cites page 4-1 of the Town of Windsor General Plan that describes the need
for an orderly pattern of development, with higher density towards the Town center and lower
density within the Planning Area’s periphery. Please see Section 4.0 and Section 4.1.8 of the
Final EA where the topic of local land use and zoning designations is discussed. Once the
project site is brought into Federal trust, the Sonoma County General Plan and Town of
Windsor General Plan land use policies and standards would no longer apply to the project
site. The Proposed Project balances various environmental considerations, of which density
is one such consideration. If the Proposed Project was to focus only on density, then the
Proposed Project would less successfully address other environmental factors. For example,
Alternative A proposes locating an effluent storage basin on parcels 066-050-040 and 066050-047, which are near the eastern border of the Proposed Project (i.e., closer to the Town of
Windsor). One of the reasons that the effluent storage basin is proposed on these parcels is
due to topography. These parcels are more level than some of the other parcels, and therefore
the required amount of soil excavation and moving would likely be less than most of the
parcels to the west. There are other considerations as well. For example, numerous
comments were received that suggested the commenters were significantly concerned about
potential noise, impacts on visual resources and even the physical proximity of Tribal
improvements to existing developments. The distribution of the proposed improvements, as
described in Alternatives A, B and C, addresses these issues. Furthermore, under
15
Alternatives A, B and C, the Community Center is currently proposed to be located near the
middle of the Proposed Project property and the Roundhouse and Retreat Facility are
proposed in locations to the west. Residential units in Alternatives A, B and C are proposed
to be distributed within reasonable proximity of these non-residential facilities in order to
foster a better sense of community. Locating these improvements in their proposed locations
is consistent with the Tribe’s attempt to better foster its cultural identity, spiritual values, and
traditional religion. The Proposed Project will improve the quality of life of the Tribal
members by reversing a history in which Tribal members were geographically dispersed and
separated from each other, to their individual and mutual detriment. The Proposed Project
will allow Tribal members to enjoy a physical community of their own. The Proposed
Project better accomplishes this objective than a project in which density is heavily
concentrated at or near the eastern border (i.e., closer to the Town of Windsor).

The commenter cites Section A.1.3 of the Town of Windsor General Plan that indicates that
the Town should preserve natural resources, such as oaks and waterways, and should clearly
define the Town’s form to distinguish between urban areas and the surrounding rural and
agricultural areas. The commenter also cites Section B.1 of the Town of Windsor General
Plan that describes the purpose of the Urban Growth Boundary and Section B.2 of the Town
of Windsor General Plan that proposes a Sphere of Influence that is consistent with the Urban
Growth Boundary. Please see Sections 3.4, 4.1.4, 4.2.4, 4.3.4 and 5.4 of the Final EA.
Refer to Response to Comments 3-9, 3-11, 3-14, and 3-16 and Response to Comments 435 through 4-41 regarding these issues. Also see the Response in the preceding paragraph.

The commenter cites Section B.7.27 of the Town of Windsor General Plan that describes
Special Area E and requirements for a planning study for that area. Section B.7.27 of the
Town of Windsor General Plan describes a number of factors that should be addressed in
such a planning study of Special Area E. These include an interconnected street system,
density, natural resources preservation, natural amenities and on-site detention ponds.
Among other things, the Final EA includes Section 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives,
Section 3.0 Description of Affected Environment, Section 4.0 Environmental Consequences
and Section 5.0 Mitigation Measures. The commenter did not state whether or not the Final
EA addressed the items that would be requested in a planning study for Special Area E.
The commenter states General Response 3.1.12 in the Final EA presents the highest possible figure
for the total allowed density of the project when it states that 143 units are allowable under the
Sonoma County General Plan and Town of Windsor General Plan. The commenter further states that
a realistic estimate of density that could be allowed by the County and Town ranges from 28 at the
low, to a midpoint of 85, and a high of 142. The statement contained in General Response 3.1.12 of
the Final EA that 143 units are allowable under the County and Town General Plans is based on the
analysis in Table 1 (below).
June 2012
16
As illustrated in Table 1 below, the Town of Windsor General Plan provides for a density range for
some land use categories. Regarding such density ranges, Section B.6.6 of the Town of Windsor
General Plan states “…Property owners and developers are encouraged to submit applications at
densities at the midpoint or greater of each density range.” The figure of 143 units presented in Table
1 is based on using the upper end of density ranges described in the Town of Windsor General Plan.
June 2012
17
Some parcels to the east of the Proposed Project are currently zoned “SR” or “Surrounding
Residential/Low-medium Density Residential” (City of Windsor General Plan Map dated May 25,
2000 and revised as of November 1, 2005.) As illustrated in Table 1, the Proposed Project includes
five parcels that are located either within the Town of Windsor Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) or within
the Town of Windsor City limits. The concentration of the proposed housing development and
associated community facilities is similar to or less dense than some of the housing developments that
the Town of Windsor has historically approved within the urban growth boundary. Therefore, the
Proposed Project is generally compatible with the existing land use designations and zoning. As
similar developments currently exist in the surrounding area (such as the residential subdivision
northeast of the project site), and no significant land use conflicts are expected to occur, land use
impacts would be less-than-significant.
The commenter also states that General Response 3.1.12 in the Final EA did not mention the 19,000
square foot community center, the roundhouse and retreat. The commenter does not state whether or
not it believes the inclusion of the community center, the roundhouse and the retreat are consistent
with local land use designations. This comment is noted.
The commenter states that the Proposed Project shifts density from the parcels north of Windsor Road
to the properties to the south without providing for assurance that the northern property would not be
developed. Please see comment responses contained in General Response 3.1.11 of the Final
EA and Response 2-01. Furthermore, specific layout of structures and other improvements described
in Alternatives A, B, and C were designed to minimize environmental impacts, and also incorporated
suggestions made by City and County staff members during face-to-face and telephonic meetings.
The commenter cites the Proposed Project’s intent to improve the quality of life for Tribal members,
and recommends that the Tribe consider locating the community center within the proposed park in
order to optimize the functionality of the community center and park for appropriate and compatible
uses. The commenter believes that this would support the Tribe’s goal of offering quality of life
elements for residents and their families. Additionally, the commenter recommends that the Tribe
include park areas that complement the Retreat Center and other facilities including community
garden areas that support sustainable living and landscaped areas that support water conservation.
The commenter notes that facilities such as a community center, parks, open space, trails, and
recreation facilities can be a vehicle for recreation programs and services that foster human
development and facilitate social connections, human development, therapy, the arts, and lifelong
learning. The commenter notes that while the facilities will be desirable and attractive, it can be
argued that the facilities cannot capture all of the parks and recreation needs that can otherwise been
found in the Town at local and regional parks and recreation facilities and school sites. Comments
noted. As discussed in Section 4.1.9 (Public Services) of the Final EA, no adverse impacts would
June 2012
18
occur to local parks or recreational facilities; as such, no further mitigation is required under NEPA.
Also, please see Response to Comment 3-28 regarding this issue.
The commenter states that at a cost to the Tribe, the Parks and Recreation Department can collaborate
and be contracted to offer specialized classes, programs, and services to serve children, adults, teens,
and seniors including educational, sports, fitness, special events, or cultural programs to enhance
Tribal living in the development. Comment noted.
The commenter states that while the EA acknowledges that the Riverfront Park is the closest Sonoma
County Regional Park to the project area, it is far from existing Town of Windsor parks, recreation
facilities, programs, and services. The commenter notes that the Town of Windsor serves a number
of non-residents due to the quality of programs and variety of offerings. The commenter notes that
Tribal families will most likely utilize Town of Windsor parks and recreation facilities significantly
more frequently than regional parks due to their proximity to the project, Town of Windsor
businesses and services, and the scope of recreation programs and park services that are available for
residents. As stated on page 3-17 in Section 3.2 of the Final EA (Volume I), the Tribe’s Proposed
Park (Figure 2-1) would be closest to the Tribal residences; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that
this park would be the primary one utilized. As a result, environmental impacts resulting from the use
of local parks outside the Proposed Project would not be significant.
The commenter suggests four mitigation measures for incorporation into the project. The commenter
suggests that the project be required not to develop or take property into trust that is located within
the Town’s Sphere of Influence or the Town’s Limits and purchase enough property to develop at
current County General Plan and Zoning densities. The commenter suggests that the project be
required to develop properties within the Town’s Sphere of Influence or Town Limits without taking
the properties into trust, which would ensure compliance with the Town of Windsor’s General Plan
and Zoning Code. The commenter suggests that the project be required to comply with the
requirements of the Windsor General Plan Special Area E. As discussed in Response to Comment
3-24 above and in Section 4.1.8 of the Final EA, once the project site is brought into Federal trust, the
Sonoma County General Plan and Town of Windsor General Plan land use policies and standards
would no longer apply to the project site. Additionally, an inconsistency with local zoning
regulations does not necessarily result in any environmental impacts distinct from those caused by the
development itself, which are analyzed for each alternative throughout Section 4.0 of the Final EA.
The alterative of not taking the land into trust, which could lead to either no land use changes or
development subject to local land use restrictions, is evaluated in Section 4.4 of the Final EA as
Alternative D.
June 2012
19
If an on-site WTRF is constructed, the commenter suggests that the project be required to consider
geological conditions and site design when locating the wastewater storage basin in order to provide a
safe buffer to adjacent residential properties. Additionally, the commenter suggests that the project
be required to locate the wastewater ponds and all equipment a minimum of 250 feet from adjacent
residential properties, and that all appropriate noise and odor controls be included in the project. As
stated in Sections 2.2.3 and 2.3.6 of the Final EA, if Alternative B or C is chosen all reservoirs
wouldbe lined with 60 millimeter high density polyethylene liner to prevent effluent percolation, and
will be sized to hold a 100-year rainfall event precipitation amount, which is approximately 1.5 times
greater than that estimated to be required for normal rainfall years. Exact spacing and sizing of the
storage tanks/effluent storage pond will occur during the design phase. As stated in Section 2.2.6 of
the Final EA, because the WTRF would incorporate an active odor control system consisting of a
package biofilter with an active carbon absorption unit, potential odors from the WRTF would be
minimal. As stated on page 3-38 in Section 3.2 of the Final EA (Volume I), potential noise impacts
from the water treatment facility are analyzed in Sections 4.2.10, 4.3.10, and 5.10 of the Final EA.
Also refer to Response to Comment 2-7 and 4-62 regarding this topic.
The commenter states that given the significant environmental impacts identified, if the project was
being considered by the Town of Windsor as the lead agency, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
would be required prior to approval of the project. For reasons set forth in the comment letter, the
Town of Windsor believes that NEPA mandates preparation of an EIS for the project. The
commenter requests that the Town of Windsor be informed of the BIA’s decision regarding
preparation of an EIS and, if the BIA determines that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is
warranted, that the BIA address, in writing, the Town’s comments set forth in the comment letter.
Comments noted. No significant effects would occur after the implementation of mitigation measures
stated in Final EA Section 5.0. Thus, under NEPA, an EIS is not warranted. Refer to Response to
Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding this issue. This Response to Written Comment Letters
document, which is an attachment to the FONSI, presents the written responses to comments on the
Final EA. In accordance with NEPA, a Notice of Availability of the FONSI shall be announced.
LETTER 4 – COUNTY OF SONOMA
The commenter states that the following letter comprises the comments of the County of Sonoma
regarding the Proposed Project. Comment noted.
The County of Sonoma appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Final EA, and that the BIA has
granted an extension of time to the County so that comments could be mailed or hand-delivered by
July 18, 2011. The commenter notes that the Final EA contains revisions to the initial EA circulated
in 2009 that clarify the Tribe’s intended use of the proposed community center, roundhouse, and
retreat; analyze the proposed mitigation measures for climate change impacts; identify new or revised
June 2012
20
mitigation measures to water resources, air quality, transportation and circulation, public services, and
noise; and identify protective measures and BMPs relating to green building practices and the
wastewater treatment and reclamation facility proposed as part of Alternatives B and C. Comment
noted.
The commenter states that the Final EA lacks feasible project alternatives that would reduce harmful
environmental impacts while failing to properly address impacts related to native oak woodlands,
greenhouse gas emissions, public services, land use consistency, and other resources. The commenter
also stated that the Final EA did not address comments made by the County with regards to the initial
EA including but not limited to Comments 10-5, 10-10, 10-12, 10-20, 10-21, 10-61, 10-63, 10-74, 1077, and 14-8. All comments made by the County of Sonoma were adequately addressed in Sections
3.1 and 3.2 of the Final EA (Volume I). The range of alternatives considered in the Tribe’s Final EA
satisfies the requirements for the analysis of alternatives in an EA. As stated in the BIA’s NEPA
handbook (59 IAM 3-H):
“Consideration of alternatives should not be a mere exercise, but a good faith
effort to find an adequate range of ways to fully and realistically meet the
identified need or purpose of the Proposed Action.” NEPA Handbook § 4.4(D).
Because Alternatives A, B, and C meet the identified need or purpose of the Proposed Action to
various degrees, the Final EA complies with the provisions of NEPA and associative guidance. As
stated in the Final EA, the Proposed Action is to acquire land into trust on behalf of the Tribe for the
proposed residential development. Impacts relating to the native oak woodlands, greenhouse gas
emissions, public services, land use consistency, and other resources were identified and mitigation
measures were adequately addressed in the Final EA. Refer to Response to Comments 2-7 and 4-5
The commenter requests the BIA to initiate the preparation of an EIS that identifies a range of project
alternatives and fully discloses, analyzes and mitigates all project impacts; if the BIA is not willing to
initiate an EIS, the commenter requests that the BIA direct further work on the EA to revise its
analysis, consider new alternatives and mitigation measures, respond to public comments, and
perform other changes to make the EA adequate for a decision as this additional work is necessary to
meet NEPA’s fundamental purpose of informed public participation and agency decision-making.
Refer to Response to Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS. Refer to Response to
Comment 4-10 relating to the range of alternatives.
June 2012
21
The commenter states that the Final EA misstates the Standard for Preparation of an EIS, and states
that the relevant legal test is not whether significant effects would occur as a matter of fact, but
whether substantial questions have been raised as to whether the project may cause a significant
impact. The commenter notes that the BIA’s NEPA Handbook states that the “purpose of preparing
an EA is to determine whether or not the proposed action will or may significantly affect the human
environment.”(NEPA Handbook, Section 4.4(F)). The commenter notes that the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) has similarly held that an EIS “must be prepared if ‘substantial questions
are raised as to whether a project...may cause significant degradation of some human environmental
factor.’” Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 402 F. 3d 846, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2005)
(citations omitted). The commenter quotes that commenters “need not show significant effects will in
fact occur, [because] raising ‘substantial questions whether a project may have a significant effect’ is
sufficient” Id. (citations omitted). The commenter states that substantial questions exist about whether
the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and the Final EA does not provide the
“requisite convincing statement of reasons explaining why the [project] would have only a negligible
impact on the environment.” As a result the preparation of an EIS is requested to allow the BIA to
make an informed evaluation of the Proposed Project.
The standard that the commenter cites is incomplete. Under the commenter’s characterization of the
rule set out in Ocean Advocates, if anyone raises any question regarding whether a project might have
a significant impact, then an EIS is required. This is not a rule in the Ninth Circuit. If the commenter
were correct, then anytime someone raised an objection to an EA, an EIS would be required. Under
the rule announced in Ocean Advocates and other Ninth Circuit decisions, more is required.
The commenter also states that the Final EA states the wrong legal standard when it concludes there
will be no significant impacts due to mitigation. The Final EA does not state a standard, it reaches a
conclusion as to the absence of significant impacts. Although the County is correct that if
“substantial questions” are raised that a project “may” cause significant effects, the standard is
whether the issues raised are “significant.” The commenter still has to demonstrate that the issue
raised may be “significant”, and a determination of significance is made in accordance with CEQ’s
regulatory factors. As noted in Response to Comment 2-07, the cumulative administrative record
for the NEPA process of the Proposed Project, including the EA, responses to comments, and the
Final EA, provides sufficient information allowing for the BIA to determine that the Tribe’s Proposed
Project would not result in a significant impact to the environment and an EIS is not warranted.
The commenter states that although the Final EA has been revised in response to comments by the
County and others, the initial EA failed to identify the future uses of the Proposed Project facilities
such as the community center, and the Tribe’s Final EA does not restrict the project site nor impose
any restrictions on uses not considered. The commenter states that their original comment on
limitations was not answered. The commenter’s previous comment was noted and referred to the
appropriate response, General Response 3.1.5 in the Final EA. As stated above in Response to
June 2012
22
Comment 3-3, users of the facilities are limited to Tribal members and their guests only. Gaming and
public events are not proposed for the site; the site plan is clearly oriented to residential, cultural, and
park/open space use. Refer to Response to Comment 4-7 below for discussion on facility uses.
Additionally, as noted in Response to Comment 3-24 above, Section 4.1.8 of the Final EA clearly
states that local land use and zoning designations, including the County of Sonoma General Plan and
the Town of Windsor General Plan, would no longer apply after the land is taken into trust.
The commenter states that the BIA should impose a substantive and legal limitation on future uses as
part of any project approval, or initiate preparation of an EIS to fully disclose, analyze, and mitigate
the significant environmental impacts of using the site for gaming and other uses. As detailed in the
response to comments for the initial EA and detailed in Section 2.1.3 (Associated Facilities) of the
Final EA, future uses for the facilities are clearly set forth in Table 2-2. Note that NEPA does not
require the analysis of every possible future use of a site, only those that are proposed and are
reasonably foreseeable. The facility use is limited to Tribal members and their guests; no gaming or
other commercial uses are proposed, as the facilities would be open only to Tribal members and their
guests for Tribal events, functions, and ceremonies. Furthermore, the use of newly acquired trust
property for gaming purposes must either meet one of the exceptions under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (IGRA) Section 20 (25 U.S.C. 2719(a)), or achieve approval through the process
identified under 25 U.S.C. 2719(b) (hereinafter “two-part process”) which requires approval by the
Secretary of the Interior and concurrence by the Governor of the State. Both processes require further
documentation and approvals in addition to the current Fee-to-Trust application process. The Tribe
would therefore have to submit a full request to the Secretary of the Interior seeking approval under
the IGRA requirements. Thus, gaming uses of the property could not be achieved by approval of the
Fee-to-Trust application, but rather further submissions and documentation would be required in a
separate process.
The commenter states that the initial EA should be revised to include an alternative in which the site
is developed “consistent with local general plans and zoning.” The commenter also states that their
original comment was not addressed. The commenter’s previous comment was noted on page 3-29 of
Section 3.2 in the Final EA and the commenter was referred to the appropriate response in the Final
EA, General Response 3.1.11. Refer to Response to Comments 3-24, 3-25 and 4-10 regarding
project alternatives and the Sonoma County General Plan.
The commenter stated that an alternative consistent with local general plans and zoning is especially
warranted now that the Tribe has purchased and revised the project to include 32.12 additional acres
of land. Refer to Response to Comments 2-1, 3-24, 3-25, and 4-10 regarding these issues.
June 2012
23
The commenter states that the EA should include a new alternative that would maximize consistency
with local General Plans and zoning. The commenter cites the recent acquisition of land parcels as
one of the reasons that such an alternative should be proposed. The commenter refers to the BIA
NEPA Handbook, Section 4.4(D) and also 40 C.F.R. Section 1502.14. The Final EA does
appropriately analyze potential environmental impacts that could result from land use conflicts or
incompatible land uses. Specifically, the Final EA evaluates four separate alternatives, which include
Alternative A, Alternative B, Alternative C and Alternative D (No Action Alternative). General
Response 3.1.12 explains the legal basis for taking the land into trust. Refer to Response to
Comments 2-1 and 7-4 regarding the additional parcels added to the Fee-to-trust application and
housing project site plan alternatives to better facilitate lower density and an alternative with onsite
water supply and wastewater treatment as well as a response regarding other parcels owned by the
Tribe.
Furthermore, the legal basis for considering alternatives in an EA is found in the definition of
“environmental assessment,” in 40 C.F.R. Section 1508.9, which in subsection (b) says “Shall include
brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives as required by Section 102(2)(E), of the
environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons
consulted.” The reference to section 102(2)(E) refers to that section of the statute, i.e., the National
Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). The range of alternatives described in the Final EA is
determined by which are feasible in the context of the scope of the Proposed Action. Final EA
Section 1.3 describes that the Proposed Project involves taking 124.12 acres of land into trust on
behalf of the Tribe and the subsequent development of a residential community. The Proposed
Project is generally compatible with the existing land use description and zoning. Also refer to
Response to Comments 3-24 and 3-25 and Table 1 regarding conformance with the General Plans,
land use, and zoning. .
In response to the commenter’s citation of 40 C.F.R. Section 1502.14, it should be noted that 40
C.F.R. Section 1502.14 specifically addresses requirements for an Environmental Impact Statement,
and not an Environmental Assessment.
The commenter states that the initial EA improperly assumed that under Alternative D, “the property
would remain as rural residences and oak woodland habitat and would not be further developed.” The
commenter states that this no-development assumption describes the baseline, not the No Action
Alternative. The commenter remarks that the No Action Alternative is the development that is
reasonably foreseeable on the site if the project site is not taken into trust, and that several of the
relevant parcels are within the Town of Windsor and/or its Sphere of Influence and the Urban Growth
Boundary and thus could be developed with up to 3 dwelling units per acre. Refer to Response to
Comment 4-12 regarding Alternative D, the No Action Alternative.
June 2012
24
The commenter states that the No Action Alternative was not adequately addressed in the Final EA.
Specifically, the commenter states that the No Action Alternative described in the Final EA is no
development. The commenter states that this may be inconsistent with the definition of the No
Action Alternative pursuant to NEPA. In particular, the commenter states that “the No Action
Alternative is the development that is reasonably foreseeable on the site if the project site is not taken
into trust.” The commenter further states that “it is unreasonable for the Final EA to suggest that
without a favorable decision on its trust application, the Tribe would simply abandon all its land
holdings and never seek to develop any residential units or other uses on the project site. Instead, it is
reasonably foreseeable that the Tribe would seek to meet the project’s purpose and need by
developing the parcels like any other landowner in the Town or County.” The commenter cites the
BIA NEPA Handbook, Section 4.4(F)(3).
Section ES.3 of the Final EA states that, “Under the No-Action Alternative, the 124.12-acre site
would not be placed into trust for the benefit of the Tribe and would not be developed as identified
under the Proposed Project. Jurisdiction of the property would remain within Sonoma County.
Ultimately, the 124.12-acres site could be developed by the Tribe with the property owned in fee, or
by a private party, consistent with local zoning. However, for the purposes of the environmental
analysis in this EA, it is assumed that the property would remain as rural residences and oak
woodland habitat and would not be further developed.” Because the Tribe currently has no plans to
develop the parcels outside of trust, the No Action alternative described by the Final EA did not
involve a scenario under which the Tribe would develop the site pursuant to City and County General
Plans and zoning. As described in Response to Comment 4-10, an alternative of developing the land
in accordance with local General Plans and zoning would not fulfill the purpose and need for the
Proposed Project, which is to have a homeland in trust in which development is governed by tribal
law, subject to the framework of applicable federal law. The Proposed Project will allow Tribal
members to enjoy a physical community of their own.
Furthermore, the comment described above is speculative in that it implies a direct causal
relationship. As noted previously, commenter states “It is unreasonable for the Final EA to suggest
that without a favorable decision on its trust application, the Tribe would simply abandon all its land
holdings and never seek to develop any residential units or other uses on the project site. Instead, it is
reasonably foreseeable that the Tribe would seek to meet the project’s purpose and need by
developing the parcels like any other landowner in the Town or County.” This is a speculative
comment because the Tribe could instead sell its land holdings to a third party or parties. In such a
scenario, the parcels could be developed in an integrated manner by a single developer, developed
individually by different owners, or remain in their current state without further development.
Because of the uncertainties associated with this type of scenario, exploring such a No Action
Alternative was not pursued.
June 2012
25
The commenter states that the Final EA acknowledges that the BIA received eight comment letters
regarding the project’s inconsistency with the County and Town General Plans. The commenter
states that the Final EA incorrectly claims that the project is “generally compatible” with the land use
designations and zoning, and improperly suggests that all impacts are irrelevant because the General
Plans and zoning would not apply if the project is approved; the commenter states that neither
approach is proper under NEPA. Refer to Response to Comments 3-24, 3-25, and 4-10 regarding
project alternatives and the General Plans.
The commenter states that the project is incompatible with the County and Town General Plans. The
commenter states that the proposed residential units differ greatly between the number of units
allowed per individual parcel under the existing land use and zoning designations. According to
Sonoma County and Windsor zoning regulations (using Windsor zoning for parcels within the
Town’s Sphere of Influence), 143 housing units would be allowable on the project site. Refer to
Response to Comments 3-24, 3-25, and 4-10 regarding this issue.
The commenter states that the Final EA suggests that the project is “generally compatible” with land
use designations and zoning because, when combined, the County and Town land use designations
would allow 143 residential units, similar to the 147 proposed by the project. The commenter states
that this claim is not true, and that the Final EA has inappropriately applied Town of Windsor land
use designations over parcels in the unincorporated County, and vice versa. The commenter states
that a determination of land use consistency requires a parcel-by-parcel analysis, because individual
parcels can have divergent General Plan and zoning designations in order to accommodate each
parcel’s unique resources and attributes. The commenter states that in its original comment
(Comment 10-77 on page 3-39 in the Final EA), it noted that the initial EA improperly confused
Town and County land use information. The commenter states that the Final EA does not provide
this information which was specifically requested by the commenter and asks that the EA preparers
give the BIA and the public a parcel-by-parcel breakdown of land use designations and allowable
residential units. The commenter states that “In the end, the parcels within Town limits and Sphere of
Influence appear to be designated for up to 124 residential units, but Alternatives A and B appear to
propose just 36 units. Similarly, the parcels in the unincorporated County appear to be designated for
approximately 24 units, but Alternatives A and B appear to propose 111 units, including 94
residential units on APN 066-300-031 alone”. The commenter states that the project is not consistent
with either the County or Town General Plan or zoning. Refer to Response to Comments 3-24, 3-25
and 4-10 regarding this issue. Furthermore, it should be noted that the following portion of Comment
3-15 (that portion that specifically refers to Comment 10-77 on page 3-39 of the Final EA) appears to
be inconsistent with the balance of Comment 3-15 and certain other comments. Specifically, the
commenter states “In Comment 10-77, the County noted that the initial EA improperly confused
Town and County land use information, and specifically asked that the EA preparers give the BIA
June 2012
26
and public a parcel-by-parcel breakdown of the land use designations and allowable residential units.
The County even provided a one-page table containing the relevant information, which the preparers
could copy directly into the Final EA.” The table included in Comment 10-77 includes a calculation
of the allowable densities of the seven original parcels included in the Proposed Project. It should be
noted that numbers of “Allowed Lots & Dwellings” in the Comment 10-77 table differs significantly
from the numbers included in the table listed in the Response to Comment 3-25. For example, the
table in Comment 10-77 in the Final EA states that the number of Allowed Lots & Dwellings for
parcels 066-191-017 and 066-191-022 are 1 and 2, respectively. In contrast, Table 1 (included in
Response to Comment 3-25) lists the “Units at Allowable Density” for parcels 066-191-017 and
066-191-022 at 28 and 36, respectively. However, other figures stated in Comment 3-15 (e.g., 143
units, 124 units, 24 units) do reconcile, or approximately reconcile, to the corresponding figures listed
in Table 1(included in Response to Comment 3-25). In addition, the numbers of residential units
stated by the commenter in Comment 3-9 (143 units), Comment 3-10 (60 units) and Comment 3-14
(10 units and 60 units) also appear to reconcile to the corresponding figures listed in Table 1
(included in Response to Comment 3-25).
The commenter states that the issue of applicability of local land use regulations after project
approval is distinct from the issue of whether, as part of the NEPA-required determination, it is
necessary to determine if the Proposed Project is consistent with local land use regulations. Refer to
Response to Comments 3-24 and 3-25 regarding this issue.
The commenter provides a summary of comments submitted on the initial EA concerning public
services (referencing impacts to the school district as an example) and states that the Final EA
dismisses the comments and describes the impacts to public services (including loss of tax revenue)
as de minimis, negligible, and nominal and that the discussion within the Final EA does not provide
adequate discussion in accordance with NEPA as to the reasoning behind the dismissal of such
impacts. In response to comments received on the initial EA, a Final EA was released for public
review that included the responses to those comments received. The responses to comments, which
are incorporated into the Final EA and public record, provided additional discussion concerning
impacts to public services from the implementation of the Proposed Project. Refer to General
Response 3.1.6 in the Final EA for an example of supplemental discussion addressing impacts to the
school district. With the discussion of impacts to public services contained within the three volumes
that constitute the Final EA, the analysis and impacts statements concerning the implementation of
the Proposed Project meet the requirements for environmental review under NEPA.
The commenter states that 147 new residential units and attendant community facilities would be
added by Alternative A and summarizes the required taxes and fees required of new development
within the Town of Windsor and states that taxes and fees are required to offset project impacts. As
June 2012
27
discussed in Section 4.1.8 of the Final EA, and stated in Response to Comment 3-24 above, once the
project site is brought into Federal trust, neither Sonoma County nor the Town of Windsor would
have jurisdiction over the project site. Accordingly, the Tribe would not be required to pay property
taxes or development fees to local agencies. In accordance with NEPA, the initial EA and Final EA
present potential impacts associated with the development of a housing development on Tribal trust
lands and corresponding mitigation based on the extent of the impact. For public services, impacts
are addressed in Section 4.1.9 for Alternative A. In response to comments on the initial EA,
additional discussion was presented in Section 3.0 of Volume I of the Final EA. Refer to General
Response 3.1.13 for additional discussion regarding impacts to public services. In accordance with
the analysis within the Final EA, mitigation measures for identified impacts to public services are
provided in Section 5.9 of the Final EA. With the implementation of the mitigation measures
presented in Section 5.9, impacts associated with the development of 147 residences and
corresponding community facilities on tribal trust land would result in a less-than-significant impact
to public services in the region.
The commenter states that absent new mitigation, the Final EA cannot justify the claim the
implementation of Alternative A would result in a less-than-significant impact to public services. The
commenter states that the BIA should intervene regarding the impact statements and direct mitigation
measures compelling the Tribe to enter into enforceable agreements with relevant service providers
and pay its fair share of in-lieu of property tax, special tax, and developer and mitigation fees paid by
other developers. Refer to the Response to Comments 4-17 and 4-18 concerning the discussion of
impacts from Alternative A to public services.
As Section 5.0 of the Final EA states, the Tribe will pass a resolution requiring compliance with all
mitigation measures. This resolution, by Tribal law, would ensure that the Tribe completes all
mitigation that is necessary to reduce significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. To assist in
their efforts, agreements will be made as needed with local agencies to ensure that all mitigation
measures, including measures for the oak woodlands, surface water quality, special status species, and
traffic within the Final EA are implemented and enforced. Refer to Response to Comment 4-68
regarding the legal enforcement of mitigation measures. As Lead Agency under NEPA, the BIA is
responsible for the content of the EAs and responses to comments and has been involved in the
development of the documents throughout the entire process. Accordingly, the request for the BIA to
“intervene” is unnecessary. The costs associated with implementation of Alternative A are addressed
in Section 4.1.9 of the Final EA as well as General Response 3.1.13 in Volume I of the Final EA.
The commenter states that the Final EA should be revised to remove the statement that the loss of
annual tax revenues could be offset by increased tax revenues resulting from the construction of the
project, as the statement is unsupported and results in a one-time event while millions of dollars in
property taxes and special taxes would be lost each year due to the trust status of the properties. The
June 2012
28
statement concerning increased tax revenues refers to not only the increase associated with
construction of the project, but also the expenditures of the tribal members within the Town of
Windsor and Sonoma County that would occur annually and are not a one-time event. The increased
tax revenue is adequately addressed in General Response 3.1.13 (Volume I, Section 3.0 of the Final
EA). Furthermore, the commenter discusses losses associated with a development that is not
proposed on the project site. The commenter is addressing “potential” taxes and fees; however no
other projects are proposed on the lands held in fee by the Tribe.
The commenter states that the Final EA’s contention that the loss of property tax revenue might be
offset by off-site sales tax revenue from Tribal member purchases is unsupported and incorrect as the
majority of sales tax revenue goes to the State. As stated in General Response 3.1.13 of the Final
EA, the loss of the property taxes to the County’s overall tax revenue is minimal. Such an impact is
not significant and the increased spending from Tribal members would further lessen the impact.
The commenter states that the cumulative analysis regarding public services in Section 4.5.9 of the
Final EA states that the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts could be offset by County or
Town tax increases and such an increase would only mitigate impacts from unrelated projects and not
the cumulative impacts of the housing project. The analysis within Section 4.5.9 of the Final EA
does not indicate that the increase in local taxes and fees would mitigate the impacts of the proposed
housing projects, but that such mitigation would reduce impacts from each cumulatively considerable
project. While taking into consideration that other unrelated projects in the region, including but not
limited to the Windsor Station Development and the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit connection,
would be subject to approval from local agencies and that such approvals would include provisions
for public services (and any necessary mitigation), the less-than-significant impacts attributable to the
proposed housing would not be cumulatively considerable. These unrelated regional projects would
not bear any financial burden for providing public services to the project site.
The commenter states that the Final EA did not respond to Comment 14-8 from the Windsor Unified
School District. Comment 14-8 is addressed in Section 3.2 of Volume I of the Final EA and
references other responses to comments received on the initial EA. The Proposed Project would not
adversely affect property values of homes adjacent to the project site; the development would be a
high quality and well maintained development compared to others in the region, which may result in
an increase in property values within the neighboring community.
The commenter states that the Final EA provides no basis for its claim that service requests would not
be disproportionate to other residential or commercial development in the county. The commenter
states that other residential and commercial developments offset the cost of service calls through
June 2012
29
payment of property taxes and fees. The commenter remarks that this project seeks to pay no
property taxes at all, and thus would create significant unfunded service demands which would result
in significant adverse impacts to service providers and recipients. As stated in General Response
3.1.13 in the Final EA, potential impacts to County services as a result of the proposed project were
fully described in Section 4.1.9, 4.2.9 and 4.3.9, with proposed mitigation in Section 5.9 of the EA.
Appendix I of the EA includes the agreement between the BIA and the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to provide services on tribal land. With the implementation
of the protective measures and mitigation measures described in Section 5.9 of the Final EA,
potential impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services would be less-than-significant.
As noted in Response to Comment 4-18 above, Section 4.1.6 of the Final EA contains an analysis of
potential impacts from removing the subject parcels from local tax rolls. These impacts are
appropriately noted to be less-than-significant based on context and intensity. The loss of local tax
revenues to the County as a result of transferring the land into trust could be offset by increased local,
state, and Federal tax revenues resulting from construction of the Proposed Project. Taxes are paid in
all other circumstances, including off-site sales tax revenue generated by Tribal member purchases in
the Town of Windsor and Sonoma County, as well as all activity generated during construction and
operation of the Proposed Project ancillary facilities, such as potential jobs associated with
maintaining project infrastructure.
The commenter states that an EIS is also necessary to expand on the admission in the Final EA that
large events would be held at the proposed community center, potentially requiring the Tribe to
arrange and coordinate with the Sheriff’s Office. The commenter requests that the Tribe answer the
“Who? What? Where? and When?” questions identified in the BIA’s NEPA Handbook and identify
what types of events will be held, when they will be held, whether they will be fee-based, and what
security services would be required. The commenter states that absent of more information and a
performance standard governing the required coordination, the Final EA should not assume the
impacts will be less-than-significant. As stated on pages 3-35 in Section 3.2 of the Final EA (Volume
I), and reiterated in Response to Comment 3-3, the use of on-site facilities is for tribal gatherings and
events and would not be a frequent occurrence. As noted in General Response 3.1.5 and Section
2.1.3 of the Final EA, the “who” would be individuals using the facilities, specifically Tribal
members and their guests; the “what” would be ceremonies and special events sponsored by the
Tribe; the “where” would be at the Tribe’s community facilities including the roundhouse,
community center, and retreat facility; and, the “when” would be periodically at the discretion of the
Tribe. Refer to Response to Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS.
The commenter states that the remaining references to the Sonoma County’s Sheriff’s “Department”
should be changed to the Sonoma County Sheriff’s “Office.” Comment noted.
June 2012
30
The commenter states that the Final EA attempts to address several comments of the Sonoma County
Department of Emergency Services, at Responses 10-67 to 10-73. Refer to Response to Comment
4-28 for discussion.
The commenter states that the Final EA fails to adequately address Comment 10-74. The commenter
states that the Final EA references Appendix I, an agreement between the BIA and the CAL FIRE to
provide services on tribal land, but that really the agreement is not to provide services on tribal lands,
but instead just allows CAL FIRE to function on Tribal Land. The commenter requests that the Final
EA acknowledge that the mission of CAL FIRE is wildland fire suppression, and CAL FIRE
resources are limited and seasonal in nature, with no guarantee of a timely response or commitment to
structure fires, traffic collisions, rescue calls, medical assistance calls, or other project service needs;
therefore an EIS is necessary to adequately address these needs. As stated in General Response
3.1.13 of the Final EA, CAL FIRE will provide services on tribal land, specifically wildland fire
prevention and protection. The Agreement (Appendix I in the Final EA) between the BIA and CAL
FIRE specifically states that the “State shall provide wildland fire services on Indian Trust Lands…”
The Final EA does explicitly state that CAL FIRE will provide wildland fire protection, specifically
“wildfire protection to the project site during the summer months, when regional wildland fires most
commonly occur.” As stated in Section 2.1.8 of the Final EA, structural fire protection would be
provided through compliance with the California Building Code requirements, with sufficient fire
flows, sprinklers, and alarm systems available for commercial buildings. With the implementation of
the protective measures and mitigation measures described in Section 5.9 of the Final EA, potential
impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services would be less-than-significant. As noted
in Section 4.1.9 of the Final EA, several privately funded ambulance companies provide services in
the area; thus, ambulance companies are able to respond to increases in demand with additional
resources. Refer to Response to Comments 2-6 and 4-3 regarding the completeness of the Final EA.
The commenter states that the Final EA includes a new mitigation measure stating that fire hydrants
shall be spaced no more than 500-feet apart throughout the developed portions of the site. The
commenter remarks that the Final EA should be revised to be consistent with 2010 California Fire
Code. Conformity with the California Fire Code is not required as the Proposed Project will be
located on trust land; however, as part of its Tribal resolution requiring full compliance with
mitigation measures, the Tribe will ensure that hydrant spacing will follow current fire codes.
The commenter states that the all remaining references to the “Uniform” Fire Code should be revised
to the California Building Code. Comment noted. The Tribe will ensure that structural fire
protection measures are consistent with the California Building Code.
June 2012
31
The commenter states that the Final EA fails to justify its assertion that the Proposed Project would
not result in significant increased use of Riverfront Park and other regional parks because project
residents would use the small park proposed on the eastern side of the site. The commenter states that
the Final EA does not appear to provide any details about the Proposed Park. Refer to Response to
Comments 3-26 through 3-28 for comments and responses relating to impacts on local and regional
parks.
The commenter notes that the Proposed Park does not appear to be sufficient to permanently satisfy
all the needs of the 147 residential units. Refer to Response to Comments 3-26 through 3-28 for
comments and responses relating to park use for Tribal members.
The commenter states that the project will result in particular and very frequent use of Riverfront Park
due to its close proximity and variety of recreational opportunities. Refer to Response to Comments
3-26 through 3-28 for comments and responses relating to park use for Tribal members.
The commenter states that increased use of regional parks would not be fully funded by vehicle fees,
as the Final EA implies. The commenter is incorrect that the Final EA implies that the increased use
would be fully funded by vehicle fees. Section 3.1.13 of the Final EA explicitly stated that the
closest Sonoma County Regional Park to the project site is Riverfront Park on the Eastside Road
along the Russian River, and that the park charges a user fee of $6 per vehicle to residents and nonresidents alike. Therefore, any use of this particular park by Tribal members will mean an increase in
revenue for the County of Sonoma. Refer to Response to Comments 3-26 through 3-28 for
comments and responses relating to park use for Tribal members.
The commenter states that the initial EA elicited comments from multiple parties regarding impacts to
native oak woodlands, including specific comments from Dr. A. Merenlender, biologist and
Cooperative Extension Specialist in the Environmental, Science, Policy, and Management
Department at the University of California, Berkeley. The commenter states that the Final EA
responds to these comments in General Response 3.1.3, criticizes Dr. Merenlender and others, but
fails to address comments satisfactorily. The Final EA responded to comments regarding native oak
woodlands in General Response 3.1.3; additional clarifications are included below in Response to
Comment 4-36. Responses to comments are only intended to clarify information presented in the
EA; criticisms of individual commenters were neither intended nor implied.
June 2012
32
The commenter states that the removal of up to 1,717 native oak trees under Alternative B is a
significant environmental impact, regardless of the preservation of 292 more native oak trees than
originally proposed in the initial EA. The commenter further states that the project will result in the
irreversible loss of significant ecosystem services at the grove, site, and landscape scales, including a
self-sustaining oak woodland (i.e., in which natural regeneration is occurring). The commenter states
that habitat connectivity between the Coast Ranges and the Mayacamas Mountains was not addressed
in the Final EA. The commenter further states that the proposed development will fragment the
existing native oak woodlands, resulting in significant impacts to native biological diversity, bird
communities, encourage exotic competitors, and eliminate habitat values. The commenter remarks
that there is an attachment to their comment letter entitled Rebuttal to Responses Related To Oak
Woodland Impacts Associated with the Final Environmental Assessment of the Lytton Rancheria
Development Project. We have reviewed and acknowledge this attached study. Responses are
below.
As stated in General Response 3.1.3 of the Final EA, potential impacts to local and landscape scale
ecosystems due to the Proposed Project were fully described in Sections 4.1.4, 4.2.4 and 4.3.4, with
proposed mitigation in Section 5.4 of the Final EA. As stated in Table 4-7 in Final EA Section 4.1.4,
impacted habitat types include aquatic, annual grassland, mixed oak woodland, oak savannah, mixed
riparian, pasture, and seasonal wetland. The total number of native trees estimated by subsampling
on the project site was roughly 4,500 including (in approximate order of abundance): blue oak, black
oak, madrone, Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana), coast live oak, and valley oak. As detailed in
Section 4.1.1 of the Final EA, roughly 63 percent (approximately 2,800 trees) will be preserved in
Alternative A. As stated in Table 4-7 of the Final EA, impacts to mixed oak woodland are limited to
17.04 acres (32 percent) of the total 53.59 oak woodland acreage onsite.
As stated in Section 3.4.2 of the Final EA, the trees within the project site are not protected under
Federal law. State and local laws and ordinances addressing the protection of oaks and other trees are
not applicable to trust lands, however, the standards and recommended requirements for tree
preservation within the Sonoma County Tree Ordinance have been considered and the proposed
project meets all requirements of the county’s tree ordinance. The Sonoma County Code provides a
level of protection for several native tree species, including oaks. In addition, the Sonoma County
Tree Ordinance (Ordinance) mandates additional protection for valley oak trees and valley oak
woodlands that occur within a designated Valley Oak Habitat (VOH) Combining District as defined
in the Open Space and Resource Conservation Element in the Sonoma County General Plan.
Section 5.4.2 of the Final EA includes numerous specific mitigation measures that address the
preservation of native oak trees. Such measures will be formalized and further developed in an Oak
Woodland Management Plan that will be developed for the project site. The Oak Woodland
Management Plan will be developed by a in qualified ecologist, biologist, or forester. The Oak
June 2012
33
Woodland Management Plan will include measures for the mitigation of lost oak woodland habitat, as
well as preservation of oak woodland habitat to remain onsite. Measures will include, but not be
limited to, the following: best management practices for the removal of oak trees during construction
to reduce potential for effects of adjacent habitat; identification of appropriate areas for replacement
of oak trees on Tribal land or other suitable parcels; a five-year maintenance and monitoring program
that uses standard practices for establishing oak seedlings; and adaptive management procedures to
ensure success of mitigation plantings and stands of oaks identified for preservation onsite.
Additionally, trees removed for construction shall be assessed by a qualified biologist to see if the
removed tree would be suitable for replacement elsewhere. As stated in Section 4.1.4 of the Final
EA, structures and lots were located in a manner to avoid large diameter trees and pristine stands of
trees.
GROVE AND SITE
There are two types of oak woodland on the project site, as defined in the most recent version of the
Manual of California Vegetation (MCV; Sawyer et al., 2009): 1) Blue Oak Woodland Alliance,
including both continuous- to intermittent canopy as well as, blue oak savanna; and 2) Black Oak
Forest Alliance with a relatively continuous canopy with some large, grassland-dominated canopy
gaps. The continuous- to intermittent canopy Blue Oak Woodland Alliance and the Black Oak Forest
Alliance together make up the area designated as mixed oak woodland (Figure 4 in Appendix E of
the Final EA). The blue oak woodland is almost exclusively comprised of blue oaks (with occasional
coast live oak), and has a grassy understory with occasional seedling and sapling recruitment.
Frequent fire and annual grazing can prevent blue oak regeneration, and the lack of fire and grazing
recently on the site has obviously benefitted overall blue oak regeneration. The black oak forest is
dominated by black oak, but also contains coast live oak, Oregon white oak, blue oak, and valley oak.
Oregon white oak in particular is present in the western quarter of the project site. The understory is
primarily herbaceous with localized patches of manzanita and poison oak. The black oak forest has
an apparently mixed-age structure with some regeneration of oaks and some dead snags with high
wildlife value. The dividing line between the Blue Oak Woodland Alliance and the Black Oak Forest
Alliance is approximately from the southeast corner of APN 066-300-017 to the southwest corner of
APN 066-300-033.
Large areas of the project site will remain undeveloped under the Proposed Project, including areas
with slopes greater than 30 percent and wetlands with 50-foot buffers. Approximately 6.6 percent of
the project site (8.2 acres) contains blue oak savanna, and 43 percent of the site (53.6 acres) is
designated as mixed oak woodland. The mixed oak woodland contains roughly 30 acres of
continuous-canopy blue oak woodland and 24 acres of black oak woodland (see Table 3-7 of the
Final EA). Large blocks of roughly three to more than 10 acres are scattered throughout the project
site, with the largest undisturbed areas in the southwestern and western portions. These “woodlots”
will continue to provide excellent ecosystem services and habitat for migratory songbirds, birds of
prey, small mammals, and rodents. There is an overall fuel build-up throughout the mixed oak
June 2012
34
woodland on the property due to lack of wildfires and other forms of management. For the 63 percent
of the oak woodland that will not be impacted by the development of the proposed project, various
oak woodland management techniques may be applied, including thinning. All management
techniques would be completed based on recommendations by qualified arborists.
LANDSCAPE AND CONNECTIVITY
As stated in the Sonoma County General Plan, the “Hills East of Windsor” are presumably part of the
Mayacamas Mountains, and are valued as a “scenic backdrop to the Santa Rosa Plain.” Eastside
Road is considered “an important transition between the community of Windsor and the rich
agricultural and mineral resource areas of the Russian River Valley.” Several streams initiate in the
Mayacamas Mountains including Mark West Creek which is tributary to the Russian River and is
several miles south of the project site.
It is important to have patches of habitat (i.e. the “woodlots” described above) connected by “highquality” wildlife corridors that provide ecosystem services and habitat for both species survival and
reproduction. Henein and Merriam (1990) observed that for two isolated patches, increasing the
number of high quality wildlife corridors increased metapopulation size (collections of populations),
while adding low-quality wildlife corridors actually decreased metapopulation size. They also
observed that the addition to a metapopulation of a patch connected by a low quality corridor had a
negative effect on the metapopulation size, indicating increased mortality during movement. It is also
important to align corridors with other habitats that are suitable to the target species.
Development of the Proposed Project will not significantly affect wildlife corridors. Wildlife
generally favors riparian (as opposed to upland) corridors in highly modified urban and agricultural
landscapes due to the availability of water and shelter. However, the project site does not have very
good connectivity to high quality riparian corridors or to high quality upland habitat corridors.
Ephemeral drainage 1, which runs west to east across most of the project site (ED-1; see Figures 5
and 11 in Appendix E in the Final EA), is tributary to an unnamed tributary to the Russian River.
The nexus of the property to the Russian River runs through relatively poor quality habitat for
wildlife movement, dominated by intensive agricultural fields and short patches of narrow wooded
riparian corridors. The shortest access to the Russian River from the project site is due west, across
Eastside Road and several agricultural fields
In addition to the relatively low quality riparian connectivity from the site to the Russian River,
upland oak woodlands to the north and south of the project site are fragmented by vineyards and
urban and agricultural development, especially along both sides of Eastside Road and Winsor River
Road. As the Proposed Project is surrounded to the north and south largely by agriculture (primarily
vineyards) and on the east by the Town of Windsor with more dense development that this project
proposes, wildlife movement is presumed to be concentrated primarily along the western end of the
project site towards the Russian River riparian corridor. The proposed development is primarily in
June 2012
35
the eastern two-thirds of the site, and little development is proposed on the western-most portion of
the site. Habitat corridors surrounding the site are of relatively poor quality, and yet large patches of
woodland will remain (particularly in the western third of the project site). On the eastern portion of
the site, which is proposed for primarily Tribal housing, there will be no clear cutting of oaks or
complete removal of habitat. Further, as noted in Response to Comment 4-62 below, appropriate
setbacks will be maintained along waters of the U.S.
Thus, the project site does not have very good connectivity to high quality habitat corridors. As such
the proposed project will have less-than-significant impacts to wildlife movement across the
landscape. The types of wildlife most likely using the project site would be “corridor dwellers”, that
is, most plants, some reptiles, amphibians, insects, small mammals, and birds with limited dispersal
ability, in addition to neotropical migrants and small birds of prey.
Implementation of the BMPs described in Section 2.0 along with the mitigation measures described
in Section 5.4 of the Final EA would ensure that the impacts to biological resources are less-thansignificant.
The commenter states that General Response 3.1.3 suggests that no analysis of oak impacts is
necessary because CEQA, State, and County codes would not apply to the development of lands in
trust. The commenter argues that the project site is not in trust and that NEPA requires assessment of
all potential environmental impacts, including oak woodland habitat, before final action can be taken
on the project. Refer to Response to Comments 3-24 and 4-36 for responses relating to these issues.
The commenter states that General Response 3.1.3 assumes that Dr. Merenlender did not conduct a
site assessment of the native oak woodlands. The commenter states that Dr. Merenlender did assess
the oak woodlands in the company of Kerry Heise. General Response 3.1.3 does not assume Dr.
Merenlender did not make a site visit; General Response 3.1.3 in the Final EA states that Dr.
Merenlender’s report did not indicate that a site assessment was conducted by the author to determine
the species and habitat quality on-site.
According to the commenter, General Response 3.1.3 states that suitable habitat is not present for
Oregon white oak. General Response 3.1.3 also states that the native oak woodland is overcrowded
and suffers from mistletoe and other conditions that are “not ideal from a biological or aesthetic
viewpoint.” The commenter states that this is incorrect, and the oak stands are not overcrowded and
do not require thinning. The commenter further states that pruning and thinning can harm native oak
trees and increase their susceptibility to disease, and that mistletoe does not impair tree health and is
an important food source for native birds.
June 2012
36
Refer to Response to Comment 4-36 above regarding these issues. Specifically, Oregon white oak is
present in the western quarter of the project site, in areas of mixed oak woodland that would not be
adversely affected by development associated with the Proposed Project.
While the commenter is correct that mistletoe is a natural part of a healthy oak woodland ecosystem
and a valuable resource for wildlife, an abundance of mistletoe in individual oak trees could result in
branch failure, reduced growth rate and increased instances of fungal infection (USDA Forest
Service, 2010).
Management of the existing mixed oak woodland onsite would be limited to that required to develop
firebreaks, reduce occurrences of wildland fires, and create defensible space surrounding the human
environment, as required by Cal Fire. Management techniques utilized for the creation of firebreaks
and defensible space include pruning and thinning of the canopy and removal of fuels such as fallen
branches from the woodland understory. All management activities would be conducted in
consultation with Cal Fire and under the direction of a qualified ecologist, botanist, or forester.
The commenter states that project impacts would occur beyond the diameter of each tree removed.
The commenter states that building envelopes (including defensible firebreaks of 100 feet around
each building and road), new roads, new areas for landscaping, and new areas of human activity will
all directly impact native trees. Reasonable buffers surrounding project components were taken into
account when calculating impact acreages to oak woodlands. Impacts to mixed oak woodlands are
limited to approximately 17 acres (32 percent) of the approximately 54 acres total mixed oak
woodlands onsite. In addition, as stated in Response to Comment 4-36 and in Section 5.4.2 of the
Final EA, best management practices would be utilized during the removal of oak trees to minimize
adverse effects to surrounding habitat and trees. .
The commenter states that replanting blue oaks and other oak species at a 1:1 ratio (removed:
replanted) with five years of monitoring and 60 percent survival target is problematic because of
competition from annual grasses and human and animal disturbances. The commenter cites Public
Resources Code 21083.4(b)(2)(C), and states that planting may not fulfill more than one-half of the
project mitigation requirement. The commenter also states that the EA must include more effective
mitigation alternatives, such as the contribution of funds for the purpose of purchasing oak woodlands
conservation easements. As mentioned above, approximately 68 percent of the mixed oak woodland
onsite would not be developed, contributing to the preservation of this habitat onsite. The
development of an Oak Woodland Management Plan would ensure proper management of the
mitigation plantings and preservation stands by cultivating a balance between the need to provide
defensible space for human habitation in the event of wildland fires and preservation of quality oak
June 2012
37
woodland habitat that provides ecosystem resources, wildlife habitat and movement corridors. To aid
in the attainment of successful mitigation plantings, active and adaptive management techniques
would be incorporated into the Oak Woodland Management Plan to reduce the occurrence of annual
grasses and animal disturbance in the mitigation sites. Refer to Response to Comments 4-19, 4-36
and 4-68 for further information regarding these issues including mitigation enforcement.
The commenter states that the sentence containing the words “[t]o the maximum extent feasible” in
the General Response 3.1.3 of the Final EA is false. Specifically, the commenter suggests that a
“maximum extent feasible” project design would relocate residences and other facilities out of APN
066-300-031 and other woodland parcels onto APNs 066-050-040, 066-050-047, and 066-191-022.
This particular sentence cited by the commenter that contains the words “[t]o the maximum extent
feasible” should be read in the context of the entirety of General Response 3.1.3 given the scope of
the Proposed Action. The commenter’s statement regarding the proposed low housing densities of
APNs 066-050-040 and 066-050-047 did not take into account that these two parcels contain critical
elements of the wastewater treatment facility under Alternative B. The proposed density of APN
066-191-022 is, among other factors, a byproduct of that particular parcel’s nonlinear western
boundary, which reduces the effective density that can be developed on that parcel. Furthermore, the
proposed placement of facilities and other improvements on the parcels was partially based on input
from City and County staff obtained during in-person and telephonic meetings.
Also see General Response 3.1.3 that addresses numerous comments that relate to the impact of the
Proposed Project to on-site oak trees, and Response to Comments 4-36 through 4-42.
The commenter states that the Final EA provides a comprehensive analysis of climate change and
provides mitigation measures which would reduce the Proposed Project’s greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, and that this is an improvement over the initial EA. The comprehensive analysis in the
Final EA was conducted to clarify, expand and update the conclusions identified within the initial EA.
The comprehensive climate change analysis provided in the Final EA did not result in new impacts
compared to those identified in the initial EA.
The commenter states that the Final EA has missed one important category of project GHG
emissions, the loss of sequestration from the removal of trees on the project site. The commenter
states that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines were
misapplied. The commenter states that the BAAQMD GHG Model specifically includes an
accounting for loss of sequestration due to tree-clearing. Sequestration via a biogenic process occurs
when CO2 is converted to elemental carbon and oxygen through biological processes. The elemental
carbon is typically utilized for biological development while the oxygen is expelled. Flora is
June 2012
38
considered a biogenic sinks. The loss of a biogenic sink is a ‘direct’ impact, because it occurs as a
result of tree removal; therefore, contrary to the commenter’s statement under the Draft BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines the loss of sequestration should not be included in a climate change analysis.
In the October 8, 2009 County comment letter, the County suggested that the climate change analysis
in the Final EA be completed using the recently published Draft BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines,
stating these guidelines would likely be approved before final action on the project. The comment
was correct and the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were approved in June 2010. The Final EA
provides a climate change analysis consistent with the BAAQMD Guidelines. The Final EA climate
change analysis was prepared in February 2010 and due to delays the Final EA was not released to
the public until March 2011. During preparation of the Final EA climate change analysis, the
BAAQMD did not have a model for calculating project-related loss of sequestration. The June 2010
Final BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines require that project-related GHG emissions be modeled using the
BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Model (BGM); however, the beta version of the BGM was released in
February 2011. Currently, the BGM is still in trials and has not yet been approved by the BAAQMD
board. The current beta version of the BGM does not provide modeling for the loss of CO2
sequestration by trees. The beta version of the BGM provides a “tab” (methodology) for determining
the CO2 that is sequestered in newly planted trees. This methodology is for mitigation purposes only
and is not capable of estimating the loss of sequestration over time in a stand of mature trees;
mitigation measures stated in Section 5.4.2 in the Final EA provides that removed oak trees would be
replanted at a 1:1 ratio. 53.59 acres of mixed woodland was identified on the project site. There are
an estimated 4,528 trees on the 53.59 acres and the Proposed Project would remove 1,717 trees or
approximately 38 percent, resulting in approximately 20.32 acres of cleared woodland.
Although it is not required under the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (refer to the discussion above) to
fully disclose all potential climate change impacts, the following calculations of the project’s loss of
CO2 sequestration were conducted. The EPA provides average carbon sequestration rates of 1.33
metric tons (MT) of carbon per acre per year for existing forest and 1.20 MT of carbon per acre per
year for reforestation. The sequestration of the existing mixed woodland proposed to be cleared is
27.03 MT of carbon. By multiplying 27.03 by 3.664, the molecular fraction of carbon to carbon
dioxide (CO2), a total of 99.04 MT of carbon dioxide would be sequestered by the existing forest.
The sequestration of the replanted forest, using the same methodology would be 24.38 MT of carbon
per acre per year or 89.34 MT of CO2. However, under mitigation measures provided in Section
5.4.2, the required survival rate of replanted trees is 60 percent; therefore, the actual sequestration of
the replanted forest would be 53.60 MT per year. The difference in carbon dioxide sequestration
between existing forest and replanted forest for the Proposed Project is 45.44 MT per year (EPA,
2011). The loss of sequestration for the Proposed Project constitutes 0.94 percent of the operational
emissions, which would be deemed de minimis under the California Air Resource Board’s Mandatory
GHG Reporting Program. The Tribe shall purchase an additional 46 MT of GHG reduction credits
for the loss of sequestration, refer to Response to Comment 4-45. The additional 46 MT of CO2
June 2012
39
emissions do not result in a new impact compared to those identified in the Final EA.
The commenter states that the Final EA proposed mitigation should clarify the source of the GHG
emissions credits and that the Tribe should consider funding actual energy conservation, renewable
energy, transportation, riparian restoration, and similar projects in Sonoma County that are subject to
verification and offset project emissions. As discussed in Response to Comment 4-44, the last
Mitigation Measure in Section 5.3.2 in Volume II of the Final EA is hereby revised as follows:
The Tribe shall purchase 1,716.44 MT of AB 32 approved carbon credits from a carbon
credit exchange or trading entity, such as the Climate Action Reserve, Chicago Climate
Exchange or similar entity prior to the operation of the Proposed Project.
The purchase of emissions reduction credits provides real quantifiable reduction in GHG emissions.
Because climate change is a global issue, the purchase of reduction credits and/or funding of
reduction measures do not need to occur within the geographic region of the project site.
The commenter states that the Final EA and its Appendix A have been revised and the Final EA
includes lengthy individual responses to the County’s comment regarding stormwater impacts. The
commenter states that per a request by the County, the Tribe’s consultant Adobe Associates printed
copies of the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan set (including the concept Erosion Control Plan)
that is mentioned on page 4 but not included in Appendix A or elsewhere in the Final EA. The
commenter appreciates the effort. Comment noted.
The commenter states that the Final EA does not appear to contain hydraulic calculations or disclose
the slope and materials of proposed drainage pipes. The commenter states that this information is
necessary to determine the pipe capacity required to drain the hydrologic generated pipe capacities.
Hydrology calculations are presented in Appendix B of the Revised Grading and Drainage Report
(Revised Drainage Study) included as Appendix A of Volume III of the Final EA. However, tables
in the Appendix A erroneously presented the same calculations for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm
events. Accurate tables are included as Attachment B to these responses. The exact materials and
slopes of proposed drainage pipes are not necessary to assess potential environmental impacts under
NEPA. Accordingly, the Revised Drainage Study assesses the introduction of impervious surfaces
onto the project site and the corresponding increase in stormwater runoff compared to existing (predevelopment) conditions. As discussed on page 4 of the Revised Drainage Study, the drainage
methods and calculations are consistent with Chapters 11 and 11a of the Sonoma County Grading
Ordinance and the rational method was used to calculate 2-, 10-, and 100-year stormwater runoff
using the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) Flood Control Design Criteria. Based on the
results of the hydrologic analysis, storm drain structures were sized to accommodate increased runoff
June 2012
40
from the design storm event and prevent storm water from discharging off-site at rates that would
result in adverse impacts.
The commenter reiterates the provisions of the preliminary drainage plan as detailed on page 2-7 in
Volume II of the Final EA and states that the plans provided to the County (refer to Response to
Comment 4-46) do not identify structures and information regarding the location, number, size,
dimensions, slopes, depth, and other details of the proposed features as needed. Preliminary Grading
and Drainage plans have not been revised to incorporate the provisions outlined in Section 2.1.9 in
Volume II of the Final EA; however, Tribal ordinance will require the final engineering plans to
incorporate these stormwater management protective measures and best management practices. As
discussed in Response to Comment 4-47 regarding the request for specifications for drainage
pipeline engineering details, these details will be provided in the final design plans.
The commenter states that Appendix B of Appendix A in Volume III of the Final EA provides the
pre-project 2-, 10-, and 100-year hydrology calculations; however, the calculations for all three events
are identical, indicating that only one set is correct. As stated in Response to Comment 4-47, the
hydrology calculation tables in Appendix A erroneously presented the same calculations for the 2-,
10-, and 100-year storm events; accurate tables are included as Attachment B to these responses.
Although the tables are identical, the correct post construction volumes are presented in Appendix C
of Appendix A in Volume III of the Final EA, which are utilized to assess the drainage needs of the
site concluding that adequate retention and conveyance can be developed on the project site to reduce
adverse impacts to drainage systems.
The commenter states that after conducting confirmation calculations of the initial time of
concentration presented within Appendix B to Appendix A in Volume III of the Final EA, it appears
that each concentration time is exactly five minutes less than the time reported in the report (except
for Area E1) and that the calculations within the study utilized the Federal Aviation Administration
formula and then added five minutes to each concentration time, resulting in decreased flow rates that
may lead to under-sizing drainage improvements. The commenter further states that there is no
justification for this approach. When it comes to analyzing storm events, the Sonoma County Water
Agency allows any established method to calculate the times of concentration as long as the same
method is used for both the pre- and post-development conditions2. The time of concentration (TOC)
equation from the County of Marin Department of Public Works (attached as Attachment C to these
responses) was used for this project and has been an accepted method for comparing pre- and post
construction TOC with the Sonoma County Permit & Resource Management Department.
Calculations can be prepared using any established method to calculate the TOCs as long as the same
2Email
from Alex Rosas, Sonoma County Water Agency, Santa Rosa, CA, September 1, 2011.
June 2012
41
method is used for both pre- and post-development conditions. Appendix C of this document
includes a modified TOC spreadsheet for pre-construction conditions. The equation used for the
uppermost watersheds in the Final EA was incomplete, and it should have an extra five minutes added
to the results. As such the results in the Final EA are correct and acceptable, just missing the five
minutes needed to complete the equation. The equation below the results table in Attachment C to
these responses has added this missing part of the equation.
The commenter states that water from the water treatment plant containing arsenic should be
manifested and disposed of in accordance with California law as hazardous waste; if the wastes do
not meet the State’s definition of hazardous waste, they should be dried and disposed of in the
regional landfill. All waste from the water treatment facility would be disposed of in compliance with
Federal law and require contracted waste-hauling companies to comply with hazardous material
disposal requirements.
The commenter states that the revisions included within Sections 2.0 in Volume II of the Final EA
which detail protective measures and best management practices (BMPs) to reduce impacts from the
on-site wastewater treatment plant and associated facilities are not all included as mitigation measures
in Section 5.0 in Volume II of the Final EA. The commenter recommends several mitigation
measures that should be required if Alternative B or C is chosen and the WTRF is constructed.
Comment noted. Section 2.0 in Volume II of the Final EA presents the descriptions of project
components and includes features to reduce anticipated adverse impacts to the environment. For
example, Section 2.2.3 in Volume II of the Final EA presents a description of the proposed effluent
storage facilities for Alternative B. As noted by the commenter, all reservoirs would be lined with 60
millimeter high density polyethylene (HDPE) liner to prevent effluent percolation. This is a provision
of the project description and was included to prevent adverse impacts to groundwater. Conversely,
Section 5.2 in Volume II of the Final EA presents mitigation measures that are recommended based
on the analysis in Section 4.0 in Volume II of the Final EA. Both the provisions within Sections
2.2.3 and 5.2 would be enforceable through Tribal ordinances and other mechanisms and would
reduce adverse impacts to water resources. Refer to Response to Comments 4-19 and 4-68
regarding enforcement of mitigation measures.
The comment states that the Final EA does not address County Comment 10-61. The commenter
states that at a minimum the Final EA should have measured the ambient noise levels in the project
area and predicted the noise level change by project traffic. A response to Comment 10-61 was
provided on page 3-38 of Section 3.2 of the Final EA (Volume I).
The Final EA response states that no additional noise measurements are warranted because the
threshold of significance used to determine if the Proposed Project may have a significant impact is
June 2012
42
not based on the increase in the ambient noise level, but instead on a set threshold, in this case, 65
dBA. As stated in Section 3.10.2 of the Final EA, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) consider outdoor day-night noise
exposure up to 65 dBA, Ldn as acceptable under most circumstances. The increase in the ambient
noise level due to project-related traffic is provided in Section 4.10 of the Final EA. The resulting
increase in the ambient noise level was compared to an appropriate significance threshold. Because
the Proposed Action is a Federal project, a Federal noise threshold is appropriate. It should also be
noted that the 65 dBA noise threshold is consistent with Sonoma County’s General Plan noise
threshold (refer to Section 4.10 in the Final EA).
The following provides a more comprehensive response to Comment 10-61: the level of traffic noise
depends on three things: l) the volume of the traffic, 2) the speed of the traffic, and 3) the number of
trucks in the flow of the traffic. The speed of vehicles in the vicinity of the project site and the mix of
trucks in the existing traffic would not change during the operation of the Proposed Project; however,
the traffic volume would increase. A doubling of traffic would cause a three dBA increase in the
ambient noise level, which is considered barely audible (Caltrans, 2009). The existing peak hour
traffic along Windsor River Road at Windsor Road (greatest volume of traffic) is currently greater
than 400 vehicles per hour (refer to Figure 4 in Appendix G of the Final EA). The Proposed Project
would add 148 vehicles per peak hour on local roadways (refer to Final EA, Section 4.1.7).
Therefore, 148 vehicles per hour added to Windsor River Road would increase the ambient noise
level by less than 3 dBA. Therefore, it is appropriate to state that an increase of 148 vehicles would
not create a noticeable increase in the noise level.
The 2009 Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement provides common day- and night-time ambient noise
levels for rural areas, such as the project vicinity. The Caltrans daytime ambient noise level for rural
areas is 55 dBA (Caltrans, 2009). If 400 vehicles per hour produce a noise level of 55 dBA then 800
vehicles per hour would produce a noise level of 58 dBA (Caltrans, 2009). The commenter’s
Comment 10-61 on the initial EA assumes that a fairly low number of new vehicle trips can cause a
noticeable noise change for existing sensitive receptors is not accurate.
Other possible ambient noise sources at the project site, such as social events, would be minimal due
to the infrequent use of the facilities and their distance away from the nearest sensitive receptors. For
example, the ceremonial dance circle would be used for traditional ceremonies and it is not
anticipated that amplified music would occur. Given the sparse use of the facility, the traditional
nature of its use, the distance of the proposed ceremonial dance circle to the nearest sensitive noise
receptor (approximately 2,100 feet), and the natural and manmade noise barriers between the nearest
sensitive noise receptor and the ceremonial dance circle (trees and houses, refer to Figure 2-1 of the
Final EA) noise levels at the nearest sensitive noise receptor would not significantly increase.
The noise mitigation measures provided in Section 5.10 of the Final EA are sufficient to reduce noise
June 2012
43
levels to below appropriate significance thresholds provided in the Final EA. No revision of noise
mitigation is needed.
The commenter stated the use of FHWA standards is not appropriate to determine if noise impacts are
significant for the land use project. The commenter states FHWA is used to determine whether noise
impacts from highways would occur. Refer to Response to Comment 4-53 regarding an appropriate
significance standard.
The commenter states that traffic noise should be judged based on the change in the noise
environment caused by the project and that the methodology used in the Final EA is inappropriate
under NEPA. Refer to Response to Comments 4-53 and 4-54 regarding this issue.
The comment states that the Final EA does not adequately address County Comment 10-63. The
commenter states that noise from the WRTF is not addressed in the Final EA. The commenter states
that the ambient noise level at the project site may be much quieter than the estimated 55 decibels,
and requests information on how that estimate was reached. The commenter states that noise from
operation of the WRTF should have been evaluated and compared to County NE-2 Performance
Standards. County Comment 10-63 was addressed on page 3-38 in Section 3.2 of the Final EA. As
stated in Final EA Sections 4.2.10 and 4.3.10 operational noise from the WTRF would not be
noticeable at any on-site or off-site residences unless operational pumps and generators were not
enclosed or shielded. Implementation of the protective measures presented in Section 2.1.9 and
mitigation measures in Section 5.10 would ensure impacts are less-than-significant. Please see
Appendix B for a preliminary layout of the WTRF, and for a description of recommended equipment
to be used on-site. The specific layout and equipment used at the WTRF will be determined during
the final design stage and would be consistent with the mitigation measures and protective measures
listed in the Final EA.
As stated in Final EA Section 3.10.4, the noise environment surrounding the project site is influenced
primarily by vehicle noise traveling on Windsor River Road. The surrounding area is mainly
populated with single-family residences. Therefore, the area is characterized as rural suburban and is
assumed to have a typical ambient noise level of 55 dBA during the day and 45 dBA or less at night
(see Table 3-17 in the Final EA).
The County’s NE-2 Performance Standards are not appropriate standards to evaluate the WRTF given
the Proposed Project is a Federal project and the County’s NE-2 Performance Standards are used to
evaluate noise impacts due to the operation of transportation facilities. As stated above, potential
noise impacts from the WRTF are analyzed in Final EA Sections 4.2.10 and 4.3.10, with mitigation
June 2012
44
measures detailed in Section 5.10 of the Final EA. Additional analysis added to these sections
indicate a conclusion of less-than-significant. Given the distance of the proposed WRTF from the
nearest sensitive noise receptor (1,050 feet), the proposed mitigation measure would reduce potential
noise from the WRTF to below the Department of Urban Housing significance threshold of 65 dBA;
therefore, the impact to the noise environment would be less-than-significant.
The commenter states that noise impacts for the proposed ceremonial dance circle were not addressed
in the Final EA. The commenter suggests that noise mitigation be revised. Refer to Response to
Comment 4-53 regarding this issue.
The commenter states that the Final EA has been revised to relocate several residential units very
close to Windsor River Road, and these units will likely be visible from Windsor River Road. The
commenter states that the Final EA has not been revised to disclose this likely impact, or
acknowledge that the project visibility would detract from the road’s scenic and rural character, and
asks that the project position these units so they are not visible from Windsor River Road. As stated
in General Response 3.1.7 and Section 4.1.12 of the Final EA, development of the project site would
be completed in general conformance with Sonoma County’s Rural Design Guidelines, and would
complement existing rural residential development in the project vicinity. The project would leave
natural open space areas along Windsor River Road and Eastside Road in order to provide a transition
between the development and other nearby rural and agricultural uses. The higher-density areas of
housing would be located toward the southern side of the property, away from public roadways and
public view, as would the community center and roundhouse facilities. Single-family houses would
primarily be oriented toward the interior of the property so that limited development would be visible
to local residents or travelers on Eastside Road and Windsor River Road. Because of the dense tree
cover on-site and along nearby roadways, the Proposed Project would not be visible to traffic or
pedestrians.
The commenter states that the Final EA admits that its assessment of air quality impacts included “no
vehicle trips” to or from the proposed community center, roundhouse, or retreat. The commenter also
mentions that the Final EA states that these facilities “would only be open to Tribal members and
their guests” and thus would not generate vehicle trips. The commenter remarks that this is
contradicted by Response to Comment 10-43, which concedes that when project facilities are used, “a
large proportion of attendees would travel only a short distance from their residences on-site, or from
other locations within the County.” The commenter states that it is apparent that the project would
generate vehicle trips from on-site residences, “from other locations within the County,” and even
from out-of-County locations, and as such this lack of information and analysis is improper under
NEPA. The quotation cited by the commenter relates to Alternative D (the No Action Alternative)
June 2012
45
and not the Proposed Project. Under Alternative D, no impacts to air quality would occur because
there would be no additional vehicle trips. As stated in Final EA Section 3.3.1, impacts from “the
residential development, community center, and related Tribal facilities … are analyzed in Section
4.0 using information from the SFBAAB and the BAAQMD.” Refer to Response to Comment 3-3
regarding use of the Proposed Project site. Refer to Response to Comments 2-6 and 4-3 regarding
the completeness of the Final EA.
The commenter states that air quality mitigation measures for construction should be revised to
include additional measures comprising “Best Management Practices.” Mitigation provided in
Section 5.3.1 of the Final EA mitigates project-related construction emissions to less-than-significant
levels. No additional mitigation is warranted. Specific BMPs relating to air quality are described in
Section 2.1.9 of the Final EA. Refer to Response to Comments 4-19 and 4-68 regarding
enforcement of mitigation measures.
The commenter states the Final EA does not address potential odor impacts from the proposed
project. The commenter states that Final EA should be revised to include mitigation which requires an
odor control plan to respond to complaints in a manner that would immediately correct any
operational odor issues. As stated in Section 2.2.6 of the Final EA and in Response to Comment 329, the proposed WRTF would incorporate an active odor control system, consisting of a packaged
biofilter with an active carbon absorption unit. Given the relatively small size of the WRTF, the odor
control system would prevent potential odors from the WRTF from impacting sensitive receptors. As
stated in Final EA Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 and Appendix B in the Final EA, the effluent pond would
consist of discharge from the WTRF that would be treated to tertiary standards under Chapter 3,
Division 4, Title 22, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 60304, et seq. (Title 22). Water
treated to Title 22 standards will have no odor and has the appearance of potable water. Therefore, as
stated in the Final EA, odor impacts would be less-than-significant. Refer to Response to
Comments 4-19 and 4-68 regarding enforcement of mitigation measures.
The commenter states that the Final EA does not respond to the County’s Comment 10-20. The
commenter’s original comment requested that the EA be revised to require a minimum 50-foot
setback from all waters of the United States, and not merely “where possible.” The commenter states
that the Final EA proposes a 50-foot setback from all wetlands “where possible” (Section 5.4.1 of the
Final EA), and that this language is insufficient because if a particular setback is not possible, it must
be identified and justified specifically with further mitigation measures provided. The County’s
comment was answered on page 3-31 of Section 3.2 of the Final EA. As stated in Section 3.1.4 of
the Final EA, slopes within the project site range from 5 to 30 percent with the majority of proposed
development planned in areas with slopes between 5 and 15 percent. All wetlands on-site are
June 2012
46
seasonal or intermittent in nature, and the majority of potential waters identified are ephemeral
drainages, none of which support fish and very few aquatic invertebrates. These drainages, tributaries
that eventually flow into the Russian River, are best classified according to the State Water Resources
Control Board and the California Department of Forestry Stream Classification system as Class III
streams (watercourses that have the capability of transporting sediment downstream to Class I or II
waters and where no aquatic life is present). Recommended setbacks for these streams are 25 feet
(for slopes less than 30 percent) and 50 feet (when slopes exceed 30 percent). As slopes on the
project site range between 5 and 30 percent, the proposed setback of 50 feet where possible from
potential wetlands and drainages is sufficient and justified. The 50 feet “where possible” language is
included in the Final EA because there are certain circumstances in which such a setback is not
feasible. For example, situations that involve a water pipe crossing, underground utilities, and
bridges typically require exceptions to the applicable setback standards. The Tribe will comply with
all applicable permit requirements if and when such situations are identified during the preconstruction phase of the Project. Refer to Response to Comments 4-19 and 4-68 regarding
enforcement of mitigation measures.
The commenter states that the initial EA incorrectly implied that habitat for listed salmonids does not
exist in the unnamed perennial portion of the tributary to the Russian River. As a result, an EIS is
required to fully analyze and mitigate all potential impacts, including effects on spawning, nursery,
and rearing habitat for steelhead. The commenter notes that the Final EA concedes that “water both
upstream and downstream of [the project site] are designated critical habitat,” but does not include
information sufficient to justify its claims that no project impacts may be significant. As stated on
page 3-31 of Section 3.2 of the Final EA (Volume I), within the project site the unnamed stream
tributary to Windsor Creek, which flows into Mark West Creek and eventually into the Russian River,
does not provide the threshold habitat requirements (flow volume and duration, substrates, instream
habitat complexity, dissolved oxygen, benthic diversity or temperature) for spawning, rearing or a
migration corridor for salmonids (Biological Assessment: Appendix E; Stream Characterization:
Appendix L to Final EA). As stated on page 3-30 of Section 3.2 of the Final EA (Volume I),
Appendix E included a discussion and evaluation of critical habitats and states that the overall water
quality conditions of the unnamed stream lack the variety of high quality habitats needed to support a
diversity of aquatic species. In addition, the following regulations apply to all listed salmonids in the
Russian River Watershed, as published in the Federal Register on Sept. 2, 2005 (70FR52488 52627):
§ 226.211 (d) Exclusion of Indian lands. Critical habitat does not include
occupied habitat areas on Indian lands. The Indian lands specifically
excluded from critical habitat are those defined in the Secretarial Order,
including: (1) Lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of
any Indian tribe; (2) Land held in trust by the United States for any
June 2012
47
Indian Tribe or individual subject to restrictions by the United States
against alienation; (3) Fee lands, either within or outside the reservation
boundaries, owned by the tribal government; and (4) Fee lands within the
reservation boundaries owned by individual Indians.
The commenter states that the initial EA failed to address the potential to impact migratory corridors,
in particular for foothill yellow legged frog and western pond turtle. Please refer to Response to
Comment 4-36 for responses relating to habitat corridors. As noted in Appendix E of the Final EA,
foothill yellow legged frog and western pond turtle are species of concern but are not listed as special
status species by the Federal government. The nearest occurrence of foothill yellow legged frog is
approximately three miles southwest of the project site, in a drainage on the opposite side of the
Russian River (Figure 6 in Appendix E). This species is associated with perennial aquatic streams
year round. Western pond turtle occurrences have been recorded within 1.5 miles of the project site
in Windsor Creek, which does have a nexus to the unnamed tributary on the project site. This species
requires permanent bodies of water for year-round residency. Western pond turtles may travel over a
thousand meters when dispersing along temporary drainages. The streams on the project site are
ephemeral and not suitable for foothill yellow legged frog or western pond turtle residency. As noted
in Section 3.4.4 of the Final EA, there is a stockwatering pond on the parcel north of Windsor River
Road that is permanent but does not have connectivity to any direct tributaries to the Russian River.
The drainages around the pond are connected through roadside ditches and piping to the unnamed
intermittent tributary to Windsor Creek. This area is well over 1,000 meters from any know habitat
for the Western pond turtle and would require turtle dispersal over upland and built-out areas. As
well, Windsor River Road itself provides a barrier that would need to be crossed for the turtle to be
present in the pond. During all the surveys of this portion of the Proposed Project, no foothill yellow
legged frog or pond turtles were observed in the one isolated stockwatering pond. Refer to Response
to Comment 4-62 for responses relating to setback distances from waters of the U.S.
The commenter states that the Final EA declines to address public comments requesting additional
analysis of cumulative impacts, and that the Final EA states that identifying and analyzing other
cumulative projects would be extremely lengthy and would add little value to the NEPA analysis
process. The commenter states that they are not aware of any authority for the proposition that NEPA
requirements may be disregarded if compliance would be extremely lengthy. Additionally, the
commenter states that it is not fair to assume that analyzing cumulative projects would add little value
to the document without undertaking at least some analysis to confirm. Comments regarding
cumulative issues and analysis were responded to in General Response 3.1.14 of the Final EA.
Section 4.5 of the EA contains analysis of potential cumulative impacts from development of the
Proposed Project.
June 2012
48
Section 4.5 of the Final EA provides adequate analysis in accordance with the standards for analysis
established by the CEQ in Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy
Act. As both the initial and Final EA were circulated for public review and comment, the public has
had adequate opportunity and time to help the BIA determine what other “past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions” should be considered in the cumulative impact analysis, and
help ensure that any collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time were analyzed
in the EA.
The existence of Sonoma County and Town of Windsor land use planning also supports the
conclusion that the cumulative impacts of the project will not be significant. Past actions in the
vicinity of the project have been in compliance with County and Town land use regulations;
therefore, the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project will not cause significant impacts.
The commenter cites NEPA as requiring “a catalog of past projects and… discussion of how those
projects (and differences between them) have harmed the environment.” The commenter states that
NEPA further requires the BIA provide “hard data” regarding past and potential future project
impacts. Additionally, the commenter states that the BIA should direct the preparation of an EIS that
discloses all applicable past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, and fully analyzes and
mitigates resulting cumulative impacts. The commenter states that this analysis should include
reasonably foreseeable development on other parcels recently purchased by the Tribe. As stated in
Response to Comment 4-65, Section 4.5 of the Final EA provides adequate analysis in accordance
with the standards for analysis established by the CEQ in Considering Cumulative Effects Under the
National Environmental Policy Act. Refer to Response to Comments 2-1 and 4-10 regarding other
parcels purchased by the Tribe and for a description of the Proposed Project. Refer to Response to
Comment 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS.
The commenter states that the Final EA fails to respond to comments given for the initial EA, and that
approach is contrary to NEPA, and therefore the BIA should initiate the preparation of an EIS or
otherwise direct the Tribe and its consultants to address all the comments received on both the initial
and Final EA. The Final EA did respond to all comments appropriately and in a manner consistent
with NEPA. Specifically, Volume 1 of the Final EA responded to all comments. To the extent that
Sonoma County or other commenters believed that such responses did not adequately address their
comments, and therefore restated their comments, such comments were responded to in this Response
to Comments on the Final EA. General comments about the project and issues that were raised by
multiple commenters on the initial EA were responded to in Section 3.1 (General Responses) of the
Final EA (Volume 1). Numerous comments received on the initial EA were answered in this manner
because such comments could be answered by one of these general responses. There were also
numerous comments that were similar. Such comments were often responded to in a single response,
June 2012
49
with the response to subsequent similar responses referring to the first response on each such
comment. Refer to Response to Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS.
The commenter states that the BIA NEPA Handbook explicitly states that mitigation measures may
only support a FONSI if they are enforceable, and that the Final EA identifies and includes mitigation
measures and protective measures. The commenter notes that the Final EA included new language
stating that certain measures will be enforced by the Tribe because they will be “required by Federal
law and/or required by agreements between the Tribe and local agencies” to do so. The commenter
requests that the Final EA should be revised to specifically require the Tribe to enter agreements with
local agencies to enforce all protective measures and allow mitigation measures not otherwise
compelled by Federal law. The commenter also requests that the BIA should commit to mitigation
monitoring and other recommendations by CEQ’s memorandum regarding Appropriate Use of
Mitigation and Monitoring and Clarifying the Appropriate Use of Mitigated Findings of No
Significant Impact.
The Ninth Circuit has expressly stated that mitigation measures in an EA are not required to be
enforceable. National Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of Transp., 222 F.3d 677,
681 n4 (9th Cir. 2000), stated “a mitigation plan need not be legally enforceable, funded or even in
final form to comply with NEPA’s procedural requirements”. In any event, as stated in Response to
Comment 4-19 and Final EA Section 5.0, the Tribe shall pass a resolution requiring full compliance
with all mitigation measures. All mitigation that is necessary to reduce significant impacts to a lessthan-significant level will be binding on the Tribe because it would be subject to a Tribal resolution,
intrinsic to the project, and required by federal law. In addition, a Mitigation, Monitoring, and
Enforcement Plan (MMEP) will facilitate the implementation of mitigation and monitoring.
The commenter states that the BIA should commit to mitigation monitoring while identifying the
resources available to ensure mitigation performance. Refer to Final EA Section 5.0 and Response to
Comments 4-19 and 4-68 for comments and responses relating to enforcement of mitigation
measures by both the Tribe and the BIA.
The commenter states that the County’s fundamental interest remains the full and fair disclosure of all
environmental impacts before the final action is taken on the project, and that interest requires the
preparation of an EIS that discloses and limits all the future uses of project components, evaluates and
mitigates all the project’s impacts, and analyzes a range of alternatives, including one in compliance
with local zoning. Refer to Response to Comments 2-6, 2-7, 3-24, 3-25, 3-3, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-10, 419, and 4-68 regarding these issues.
COMMENT LETTER 5 – BRYAN LONDO
June 2012
50
The commenter states that the letter is intended to express concern over the Proposed Project.
Comment noted.
The commenter states that he has seen firsthand the negative effects Rancherias have on the
surrounding neighborhoods and community. The commenter states that the increase in crime, traffic,
noise, damage to the environment, and inevitable decrease in the value of neighboring homes would
be too much to endure. Potential impacts to traffic, noise, biological resources, and socioeconomic
conditions, including crime, are fully described in Section 4.0 of the Final EA. With mitigation
described in Section 5.0 of the Final EA, potential impacts of the Proposed Project would be lessthan-significant. Refer to Response to Comment 4-23 for responses related to decreases in property
values.
The commenter states that he is opposed to unregulated and privileged development in the
neighborhood and requests preparation of an EIS for the Proposed Project. Refer to Response to
Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS.
COMMENT LETTER 6 – DOUGLAS DEFORS
The commenter expresses concern over the Proposed Project, and requests an EIS be prepared. Refer
to Response to Comments 2-7, and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS.
The commenter states that they have seen the development plan as well as the EA. The commenter
believes that the EA addresses potential impacts of the project too casually. The commenter
expresses a belief that the “4.5-acre proposal” is only the beginning of the Tribe’s long-term
expansion and development plans. The commenter suggests that all 124.12-acres be examined in
greater detail. The Final EA fully describes the potential effect of transferring 124.12-acres into trust
for the Tribe by the Federal government, as well as the development proposed at the site. As
described in Table 4.7 in Section 4.0 of the Final EA, the total acreage proposed for development
under Alternative A is 41.49 acres. No further development within the project site has been proposed
or is reasonably foreseeable; as such, no further analysis is warranted. Refer to Response to
Comments 3-3, 4-6 and 4-7 for responses regarding future uses of the site.
June 2012
51
The commenter states that Windsor River Road is a narrow two-lane thoroughfare that services as
many bicycles as cars between East Side Road and the old downtown. The commenter doubts that
the road could accommodate the increase in vehicles from the Proposed Project, let alone the burden
of heavy equipment during construction. Existing conditions and potential impacts to traffic are fully
discussed in Sections 3.1.7 and 4.1.7 of the Final EA. The Traffic Impact Study (Abrams Associates,
2010; Appendix G of the Final EA) was conducted for both existing and cumulative conditions.
Since traffic generated by the Proposed Project would not greatly deteriorate the LOS at current
intersections in the vicinity of the project site to unacceptable Sonoma County or Town of Windsor
standards, a less-than-significant impact to local intersections would result. The project’s cumulative
impacts were analyzed in Final EA Section 4.5.7; it was determined that the intersection of Windsor
River Road and Bell Road is expected to operate at LOS F in the Cumulative scenario by the year
2030. The addition of project traffic to this intersection would exacerbate the already unacceptable
operating conditions, and this would be considered a significant impact. As stated in Response to
Comment 3-7, mitigation measures for the Cumulative Plus project traffic conditions are detailed
Section 5.7. The delivery and removal of heavy equipment to the site would happen only a few times
during the construction duration, as large construction vehicles would stay on-site during the grading
phase of construction. When transport of these vehicles occurs, all trucks would comply with
applicable Department of Transportation load limits to reduce potential road degradation. Therefore,
due to the temporary nature of construction traffic, the limited number of trips expected, and the
timing of these trips, construction trips on study intersections or roadways would result in a less-thansignificant traffic impact.
The commenter implies that an EIS is required to consider the full impact of the Proposed Project on
the Town of Windsor. Refer to Response to Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS.
COMMENT LETTER 7 – PAUL HANDLEY
The commenter expresses a concern that the Tribe would receive the benefits of being near the Town
of Windsor, but not be required to meet any of the requirements that the other landowners or
developers must deal with. Comments noted.
The commenter is concerned that once the property is transferred into trust, the Tribe can decide to
build a casino, etc. and Sonoma County and Town of Windsor will have no say in the matter. Refer
to Response to Comments 3-3, 4-6 and 4-7 regarding this issue.
The commenter states that if the Proposed Project is approved, it should be required that the Tribe
compensate the Town of Windsor and Sonoma County for water, sewer treatment, schooling, road
June 2012
52
maintenance, additional law enforcement, and fire protection. The commenter also suggests that
there should be a limit on the number of people allowed to access the site at any one time to prevent
future development of a casino. Potential impacts of the Proposed Project to public services are fully
discussed in Section 4.1.9 of the Final EA. With the implementation of the protective measures and
mitigation measures described in Section 2.1.9 and Section 5.9 of the Final EA, respectively, impacts
to public services would be less-than-significant. Refer to Response to Comments 3-3, 4-6 and 4-7
regarding the construction of a casino on-site.
The commenter states that a properly planned project that conforms to local urban plans could be a
welcome addition to the area, but unrestricted growth or a casino or overdevelopment would be a
disaster. The commenter requests preparation of an EIS and to make sure that a casino is not allowed
without the vote of all the residents of Windsor or Sonoma. Refer to Response to Comments 3-3, 46 and 4-7 regarding the construction of a casino on-site. Refer to Response to Comments 2-6, 2-7,
4-3, and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS and the completeness of the Final EA.
COMMENT LETTER 8 – VALERIE HOLBROOK
The commenter questions why the Tribe has “accumulated’ 168 acres of Windsor Land. As stated
above in Response to Comment 4-10, Alternative A (Proposed Project) consists of placing a 124.12acre site (14 parcels) into Federal trust status for the Tribe, and construction of 147 residential units
and associated facilities. As stated in Section 1.3 of the Final EA, a principal goal of the Fee-to-Trust
transfer is to provide central tribal housing as a home base for tribal members, which would reverse
the current geographic dispersion of Tribal members. Additionally, taking the property into trust
would allow the Tribe to foster its cultural identity, spiritual values, and traditional practices through
construction of the roundhouse, retreat and community center. Refer to Response to Comment 2-1
regarding other parcels owned by the Tribe.
The commenter states that she was born and raised in Windsor, and currently lives on the property of
the Graham Court subdivision, which was owned by her grandfather until he subdivided it to give
each of his grandchildren a piece of the property. The commenter states that her grandfather had
cattle roaming in the field where the commenter now lives, and that he rented the field that is
currently proposed for development under the Proposed Project. The commenter states that this is
heartbreaking. Comments noted.
The commenter states that the Proposed Project site could become a huge circus tent, gambling hall,
or a sewage treatment lake. The commenter states that she was told that the land behind her property
was zoned as agricultural land and that it could never be used for other purposes. The commenter
June 2012
53
states that it is unfair that the land can be rezoned based upon whom it is purchased by. Refer to
Response to Comments 3-3, 4-6 and 4-7 regarding the construction of a casino on-site. A casino,
circus tent, or sewage treatment lake are not proposed for development under the Proposed Project.
There are no current plans proposed for the project site other than what is described in the Final EA.
Speculation of potential future projects that may occur within the project site, but that are not
reasonably forseable, is not a requirement under NEPA. Refer to Response to Comments 3-24 and
3-25 for discussion relating to land use impacts and applicable zoning regulations.
The commenter requests that the newly purchased properties be included in the study and that the
Tribe discloses what type of development is proposed for the site. As stated in Response to
Comment 2-1, subsequent to the public comment period for the initial EA, the Tribe purchased an
additional 32.12 acres (seven parcels) discussed in further detail in Section 1.2 of the Final EA.
These seven parcels were added to the Fee-to-Trust application and housing project site plan
alternatives. Therefore, Alternative A (Proposed Project) consists of placing a 124.12-acre site (14
parcels) into Federal trust status for the Tribe, and constructing 147 residential units and associated
community facilities. Subsequent to submitting its Fee-to-Trust application to the BIA, the Tribe has
purchased several additional parcels in the vicinity of the Proposed Project site and elsewhere. These
parcels are not part of the Tribe’s Fee-to-Trust application and have no proposed changes in land use;
therefore there are no potential direct or indirect impacts to be evaluated in the EA. Refer to
Response to Comments 2-1, 3-3, 4-6 and 4-7 for additional information regarding these issues.
COMMENT LETTER 9 – ROBERT & SUSAN FOSTER
The commenter requests that the letter be accepted on behalf of the Deer Creek Residents in Windsor,
California. Comment noted.
The commenter states that many of the concerns raised by government entities, citizens, and
legislators during the comment period for the initial EA were not allayed, and that some of the
pertinent issues were responded to with “comment noted.” The commenter also notes that the 2011
EA amends the original EA to include additional acreage subsequently acquired; however, not all of
the land the Tribe has acquired is included in the application. The commenter states that it is
impossible for the EA alone to provide the BIA with the type of comprehensive data necessary to
assess and evaluate the validity of the Fee-to-Trust application and make a decision on the matter.
Therefore, the commenter states that it is essential that an EIS be prepared. To warrant a response in
the Final EA, comments must fulfill two minimum requirements: 1) the comments must raise a
substantive environmental issue, and 2) they must be related to either the decisions to be made by the
Lead Agency based on the EA, or to the expected result of these decisions. Responses are not
June 2012
54
required for comments failing to raise substantive environmental issues, such as comments merely
expressing an opinion. In accordance with CEQ guidance, an agency is not under any obligation to
issue a lengthy reiteration of its methodology for any portion of its analysis if the only comment
addressing the methodology is a simple complaint that the methodology is inadequate (46 Federal
Register 18026 [1981]). Without concrete statements of concern, a detailed response cannot be
provided to the commenter; in these circumstances a response of “comment noted” is appropriate.
Any land outside of the 124.12-acre site is not proposed as part of the Proposed Project site. Refer to
Response to Comment 2-1 regarding other parcels owned by the Tribe. Refer to Response to
Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS.
The commenter states that the amended EA fails to adequately address the elements that will have a
significant impact on the environment including: the community, traffic, schools, and water and
sewer. The commenter states that the EA skirts around the environmental impacts of the project and
merely states that they would preserve the environment or comply with current regulations “to the
maximum extent feasible.” Potential impacts of the Proposed Project have been fully discussed in
Section 4.0 of the Final EA. With the mitigation measures presented in Section 5.0, the Proposed
Project would not have significant environmental impacts. Refer to Response to Comment 2-1
regarding the completeness of the Final EA.
The commenter states that one of the main issues that will affect all residents of the Town of Windsor
is the Tribe’s request to use the Town of Windsor’s water and sewer systems. The commenter states
that while it appears the Tribe is willing to pay for the hookups, what is not clear is who will be
responsible for infrastructure repairs, improvements, and upgrades. The commenter notes that both
systems will be impacted not only by the residential units but also by the community center. The
commenter states that the EA proposes there be one water meter located at the connection-site, which
would be on the Town of Windsor’s land. The commenter asks how the Tribe will be charged, if it
will pay the same fees as other Windsor residents and public facilities, and if the Tribe’s fees are
subject to increase if the land is in trust. The commenter states that, according to the EA, the sewer
hookup will require a pumping station to transport the sewage to the Town’s sewer station, which
would be located on the Town’s land. The commenter asks who will be responsible for maintaining
the pumping station, if the Tribe will be required to make financial contributions when infrastructure
improvements are needed. The commenter states that if the Tribe is unable to have water and sewer
needs supplied by the Town of Windsor, the proposed wells and sewer systems will be unregulated if
the land is taken into trust, and as such the wells would have environmental impacts greater than
those stated in the EA. As stated in Response to Comments 3-11, 3-16 and 3-17 and General
Response 3.1.2, potential impacts to water quality resulting from all project alternatives, including
Alternative A (Proposed Project), were fully described in Sections 4.1.2, 4.2.2, and 4.3.2 with
proposed mitigation plan in Section 5.2. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.1.9, the Proposed
June 2012
55
Project would not result in significant impacts to local governments for public services, including
water supply and wastewater service. If the Tribe receives water and sewer service from the Town, it
will pay the same fees and initial charges that would be paid by other developers, residents, or public
facilities, including payment for the cost of infrastructure, maintenance, and ongoing operations. The
Tribe would be subject to future fee increases similar to other Windsor residents. The exact terms of
water and sewer service would be the subject of a comprehensive water/sewer service agreement. If
Alternative B or C is chosen, the Tribe will incorporate mitigation measures (detailed in Section 5.2
of the Final EA) to mitigate any impacts relating to groundwater withdrawals and the proposed
storage tanks/effluent ponds.
The commenter is concerned about the Tribe’s need for fire and police services. The EA states the
Tribe will have a contract with CAL FIRE, but the closest CAL FIRE Station in winter months is in
Cloverdale; which is too far for service. Additionally, the commenter states that CAL FIRE is only
responsible for land and not residential units. The commenter states that the Windsor Fire
Department will be expected to respond to calls on the Tribe’s land, which would create additional
assessments and fees for Windsor residents. The commenter states that the Windsor Police
Department would be required to respond to calls on the Tribe’s land and asks if Windsor residents
would be expected to pay increased fees for police services provided for the project. The commenter
asks if in the future any additional fees and assessments would be passed on to Windsor residents.
The project site is located in a State Responsibility Area; as such, CAL FIRE would be responsible
for providing emergency fire services to the site as addressed in Section 4.1.9 of the Final EA. CAL
FIRE would be reimbursed for wildland protection services as specified in the Statewide Annual
Operating Plan between the BIA and CAL FIRE, as provided for in the Cooperative Wildland Fire
Management and Stafford Act Response Agreement (Appendix I of the Final EIR). During periods
of higher fire danger, normally occurring in the region during the summer months, the Healdsburg
CAL FIRE station, located approximately 5.5 miles north of the project site would be staffed and
would provide fire protection services as required. Increased emergency calls to 911 and increased
use of law enforcement services as a result of the Proposed Project are addressed in Section 4.1.9 of
the Final EA. As stated in General Response 3.1.13 in the Final EA (Volume I), with the
implementation of the protective measures and mitigation measures described in Section 5.9 of the
Final EA potential impacts to fire protection, emergency medical services, and law enforcement
would be less-than-significant.
The commenter states that with approximately 147 housing units, there would be a minimum of
approximately 300 vehicles. The commenter believes that the ingress onto Windsor River Road and
intersections leading east to Highway 101 would be significant. The commenter states that no
information has been provided regarding who would use the community facility, how often it would
be used, what times of the day the events might occur, or any other useful information. Refer to
June 2012
56
Response to Comments 3-3 and 4-25 regarding who will use the Proposed Project’s facilities.
Potential impacts to traffic are fully discussed in Section 4.1.7 of the Final EA. The Traffic Impact
Study (Abrams Associates, 2010; Appendix G of the Final EA) was conducted for both existing and
cumulative conditions based on the standards in the Caltrans’ Guide to the Preparation of Traffic
Impact Studies. Since traffic generated by the Proposed Project would not reduce the LOS at current
intersections in the vicinity of the project site to unacceptable levels, a less-than-significant impact to
local intersections would result. Refer to Response to Comments 3-7 and 6-3 regarding cumulative
impacts due to traffic.
The commenter states that the Tribe’s reason for not installing sidewalks is that it is “a long walk to
any likely destinations.” The commenter asserts that schools, shopping, and the Town Green are all
within one mile of the Proposed Project. It is expected that the potential minor increase in pedestrian
traffic along Windsor River Road would not justify creation of a sidewalk on the south side of
Windsor River Road given that the existing sidewalk on the north side of Windsor River Road could
be utilized. Pedestrians and bicycles alike can legally cross at any nearby intersection on Windsor
River Road.
The commenter states that in early legal cases, the Tribe had stated that all they wanted was the
original fifty acres that they had in Alexander Valley. The commenter states that the history
surrounding that land indicates that it was given to them and they sold it for a profit. The commenter
states that the current application for Fee-to-Trust is for nearly three times the amount of land as the
original fifty acres and the 2009 application. The commenter asks what the necessity is for this great
amount of land for fewer than 300 tribal members. The commenter cites the Final EA which states
the “principal goal… is to provide central tribal housing as a home base for Tribal members, which
would reverse the current geographic dispersion. Additionally, taking the property into trust would
allow the Tribe to foster its cultural identity, spiritual values, and traditional religion through
construction of the roundhouse, retreat and community center.” The commenter notes that the land
would not be used solely by tribal members, and asks what will be the actual impact of more than 300
people would be on the nearby population. The commenter asks who will be allowed to live on the
land. As stated in response to Comment 10-25 on the initial EA, the design occupancy estimated in
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 in the EA Appendix B is 636 for Alternatives A and B, and 246 for Alternative
C. As such, approximately 636 occupants are anticipated under the Proposed Project and have been
evaluated in the Final EA. The purpose and the need for the project is clearly described in Section
1.3 of the Final EA, and reiterated in Response to Comment 4-10. Refer to Response to Comments
3-3, 4-6 and 4-7 regarding land use designations. No additional housing or rental units are currently
proposed for development on the project site.
June 2012
57
The commenter states that the Tribe’s reasoning for insisting that there are no plans for a casino is
weak. The commenter states that the site is well suited for commercial uses, and implies that the
Tribe is planning to construct a casino on-site. Refer to Response to Comments 3-03, 4-6 and 4-7
regarding limitation of casino use on-site.
The commenter states that once the land is taken into trust, the Tribe will not have to comply with any
of the mitigation measures in the EA. The commenter states that the EA is merely a hypothetical
proposition meant to show that the Tribe is aware of the concerns of the public, the governing bodies,
and the elected officials. The commenter states that the EA is duplicitous considering none of the
conditions will have to be enforced once the land is taken into trust. The commenter’s claim that the
Tribe will not be mandated to comply with the EA after the proposed land is taken into trust is
incorrect. Refer to Response to Comment 3-24 regarding compliance with County and State
regulations. Refer to Response to Comments 4-19 and 4-68 for information regarding the
enforcement of mitigation.
The commenter states that the EA is not sufficient in describing the true impact of the Proposed
Project and requests preparation of an EIS. Refer to Response to Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding
the need for an EIS.
COMMENT LETTER 10 – ROBERT BATTLES
The commenter states that the Proposed Project will have a significant impact on residents of
Windsor, mainly in the areas of congestion, water and sewage, and law enforcement. Potential
impacts of the Proposed Project are fully discussed in Section 4.0 of the Final EA. With mitigation
as described in Section 5.0 of the Final EA, potential impacts to traffic, water and sewer, and law
enforcement would be less-than-significant. The commenter does not provide detailed information
regarding specific impacts and therefore a more detailed response cannot be provided.
The commenter states that there is an underlying apprehension for current residents of the Town of
Windsor due to the way the project has been described, handled, and presented by the Tribe and the
BIA. The commenter states that the tone of the project has been secrecy. The commenter states that
the facility will overtax the Windsor utilities and infrastructure and that the local government is not
capable of supporting it as outlined. The commenter states that they have not been told why the
project has been handled as a Fee-to-Trust application. The commenter states that once the legal
status is established, the residents of Windsor will have no say in any of the subsequent planning
regardless of its local impact. The commenter states that they have not been told when or if the
project will be built, or whether the water treatment facility will be built. The commenter expresses
June 2012
58
concern for living downwind of a new sewage disposal plant if one is built. The commenter suggests
better communication to make wishes and objectives clearer and more transparent in projects like this
in order to avoid ill-will and dissention among parties involved.
The initial EA was released for public review, as required by NEPA, in July 2009. As stated in
General Response 3.1.1, the public comment period for the EA was open for 30 days, beginning on
July 30, 2009 and ending on August 31, 2009. Subsequently, 28 comment letters were received. The
Final EA was released in May 2011. The three volumes that comprise the Final EA include all
comment letters on the initial EA and their appropriate responses as Volume I; a revised EA based on
public comments and recommendations as Volume II; and revised Appendices based on public
review and recommendations as Volume III. Refer to Response to Comments 4-18 and 4-24
regarding impacts on public services. As stated in General Response 3.1.5 and in Section 2.1.1 of
the Final EA, and reiterated in Response to Comment 4-10, the Proposed Project consists of the fee
conveyance of approximately 124.14 acres into Federal trust status for the benefit of the Tribe. This
action would provide central tribal housing as a home base for Tribal members and would allow the
Tribe to foster its cultural identity, spiritual values in a community atmosphere. As stated in
Response to Comment 3-24 above, once the project site is brought into Federal trust neither Sonoma
County nor the Town of Windsor would have jurisdiction over the project site. Once the BIA has
completed the environmental review under NEPA, the timeline for construction of the Proposed
Project will be determined. If Alternative B is chosen, then the WTRF will be built during the
construction phase. Refer to Response to Comments 3-17 and 3-29 regarding impacts and
mitigation related to the WTRF. Refer to Response to Comment 4-23 for responses related to
decreases in property values.
LETTER 11 – JOHN P. DENNIS
The commenter states that the small planned community of Windsor and the Tribe are not a good
match, and encourages his senators and congressmen to oppose the Proposed Action. The commenter
is against the Proposed Project and requests the preparation of an EIS. Refer to Response to
Comment 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS.
The commenter states that the Tribe has a history of altering land use plans after the land is put into
trust. The commenter remarks that they are not trustful that the Tribe will not build a casino on the
project site. The commenter requests a full EIS. Refer to Response to Comments 3-3, 4-6, and 4-7
for responses regarding future uses of the site. Refer to Response to Comment 2-7 and 4-5
COMMENT LETTER 12 – JANE WILDER
June 2012
59
The commenter states that she has learned of the comment period, and understands that the BIA will
decide whether to reach a FONSI, direct further work on the EA, or initiate the preparation of an EIS.
Comments noted.
The commenter references a local flyer stating that the Tribe has very recently purchased 20 acres at
one end of their property, and another parcel of 24 acres, which are not being included in the EA.
The commenter states that the use of this piece of property would directly affect the commenter’s
environment. The commenter states that since the Tribe owns the parcel, it needs to be reviewed
under NEPA. The commenter states that the Tribe is not going to let the newly-acquired parcel
remain undeveloped. Refer to Response to Comments 2-1 and 4-10 regarding the Proposed Project
and parcels not included in the EA.
The commenter insists that a FONSI is not reached and requests that the BIA proceed with a full EIS
to include the newly purchased property. Refer to Response to Comments 2-1, 2-7, and 4-5
regarding these issues.
LETTER 13 – CARL HAILEY
The commenter states that the Final EA did not address traffic concerns at the intersection of Windsor
River Road and Windsor Road when Windsor High School is in session, traffic congestion along
Starr Road, and the use of Windsor River Road for services such as shopping, schools, and freeway
access. Individual traffic impacts have been analyzed both for the near term and cumulative
conditions in Sections 4.1.7, 4.2.7, and 4.3.7 of the Final EA, including the intersection of Windsor
River Road and Windsor Road, and Starr Road. As noted in Appendix G of the EA, ten intersections
were analyzed for AM peak hour (7:30 – 8:30) and PM commute peak hour (5:00 – 6:00). These
intersections were selected for analysis based on their proximity to the site, Caltrans guidelines, and
potential for impact by the project Traffic counts were collected by Abrams & Associates in
September 2008, and were supplemented by traffic counts provided by the Town of Windsor. The
intersections studied are listed in Section 3.7.1 of the Final EA. As stated in Section 3.7.1,
intersections were selected for analysis (Appendix G) based on their proximity to the site, the Town
of Windsor, Sonoma County, Caltrans guidelines, and their potential for impact by the proposed
project. As stated in Section 4.1.7 of the Final EA, based on standards in the California Department
of Transportation’s (CalTrans) Guide to the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, it was determined
that additional analysis of roadway segments and freeway facilities was not required. Caltrans
requirements state that an environmental review should include any State Highway facility where
more than 100 trips would be added or any State Highway facility operating at LOS C or LOS D
June 2012
60
where more than 50 trips would be added. Based on the trip generation for the Proposed Project, the
project would add fewer than 50 trips to any one freeway segment, and therefore does not need to be
included in an environmental review.
The commenter stated that the impact on potable water and wastewater services was likely to be
significant, and that the drawdown on the water table would likely be significant. As well, the
commenter stated that because the groundwater tested high for levels of arsenic and manganese, water
will have to be treated in an on-site treatment facility and that the Town of Windsor does not have the
capacity to deal with additional sewage that would come from the treatment of groundwater. The
commenter also notes that the roundhouse does not have plumbing and requests to know what
bathroom facilities the Tribe will use. Refer to Response to Comment 3-10, 3-11, 3-14, 3-16,
regarding specific comments and responses relating to potable water/wastewater treatment and
conveyance. Refer to the Response to Comments 2-3, 3-2 and 9-4 concerning approval of municipal
service connections. Refer to Response to Comment 3-9 regarding specific comments and
responses relating to impacts to local groundwater levels. While the roundhouse does not have indoor
plumbing, its proposed location within the Proposed Project site is close to both residences and the
community center, both of which will have indoor plumbing and bathroom facilities.
The commenter observes that there may still be some sensitive species that remain undiscovered on
the project site and is concerned that oak tree replacement will take many decades. Refer to Response
to Comments 10-15 through 10-19 on pages 3-29 through 3-31 in the Final EA (Volume I), and
Response to Comments 4-36 through 4-41 and 4-62 through 4-64 above regarding impacts to
biological resources due to the Proposed Project.
The commenter states that the Proposed Project is adjacent to two small creeks on the eastern side
that eventually flow into the Russian River, and requests clarification as to whether the Tribe will be
mandated to contain runoff from those creeks, or does the Final EA note whether runoff will enter the
streams which would impact the Russian River. Impacts to all surface waters, groundwater, and
species habitat, including waters of the state, are considered in EA Sections 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 4.2.2, 4.2.4,
4.3.2, and 4.3.4. In addition, Section 401 of the CWA is a Federal requirement and would continue to
apply on trust land. Federal laws equivalent to all state would also continue to apply on trust land.
These include NEPA and stormwater permitting under the Federal CWA. Refer to General
Response 3.1.2 in the Final EA regarding USEPA concurrence with the Proposed Project. Refer to
Response to Comment 8-03 in the Final EA (Volume I) regarding enforceability and monitoring of
mitigation. Refer to Response to Comments 4-19 and 4-68 regarding the enforceability of
mitigation.
June 2012
61
The commenter requests clarification whether the fire protection proposed is adequate considering the
Tribe is proposing to contract with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL
FIRE) for their fire protection, but the nearest CAL FIRE facility is in either Santa Rosa or
Healdsburg, and as such the Windsor Fire Department will have to attend fire emergencies due to
their close proximity. As stated in General Response 3.1.13, Appendix I of the EA included the
agreement between the BIA and CAL FIRE to provide services on tribal land. Section 3.9.6 of the
Final EA states that the nearest CAL FIRE station is located at 1745 Redwood Drive in Healdsburg,
approximately 5.5 miles north of the project site. This seasonal fire station would provide wildfire
protection to the project site during the summer months, when regional wild land fires most
commonly occur. Section 3.9.6 of the Final EA has been clarified to state that a year-round staffed
CAL FIRE station is located north on Highway 101 in the City of Cloverdale. Refer to Response to
The commenter states that they should not be subjected to congested roadways, water shortages, rude
behavior, foul odors, and depreciated home values due to the Proposed Project, and that it is unfair
that the Tribe is not held to the same state and local laws and regulations that control the commenter
and his neighbors. Please see the analysis of socioeconomic and land use impacts for each alternative
in Sections 4.1.6 and 4.1.8 of the EA. Refer to Response to Comment 4-23 for responses related to
decreases in property values. With regards to the concept of Tribal sovereignty, NEPA does not
require detailed analysis of this concept within the context of the EA and is therefore not included.
The commenter remarks that while he is happy the Tribe has profited from their gaming activities and
has invested in land, he does not believe that purchasing and buying land in Windsor is a good idea.
The commenter notes that he and his neighbors do not want the Proposed Project to be built and will
take legal action if necessary. Comment noted.
LETTER 14 – MARIAN DOMENIGONI
The commenter states that they are against the Tribe’s proposed development of the land west of
Windsor by the Tribe. Comment noted.
The commenter states that there will be many issues with the WTRF including the fact that the
irrigation fields are sprayed. The proposed wastewater system under Alternatives B and C are
described in Section 2.2.3 of the Final EA. Refer to Response to Comment 3-10, 3-11 and 3-16
regarding specific comments and responses relating to wastewater treatment and effluent discharge.
June 2012
62
Sections 2.2.6 and 5.2 of the Final EA have been revised to include appropriate measures to control
irrigation spray.
The commenter remarks that groundwater levels are low and unsafe and that the Town of Windsor
probably will not want to hook up to the Proposed Project. As previously mentioned in Response to
Comment 3-11 above, as well as in the Final EA, existing conditions for the project site with regards
to water resources, including groundwater, and connection to the Town of Windsor were fully
described in Section 3.2 with impacts fully described in Section 4.1.2 and proposed mitigation in
Section 5.2 of the Final EA. Refer to Response to Comments 3-16 and 3-29 regarding impacts
associated with the WTRF. Additionally, a water/wastewater feasibility analysis for each alternative
was provided as Appendix B in the EA. Detailed information regarding the result of pump tests and
groundwater level trends is contained in the water/wastewater feasibility and hydrogeologic studies
(Appendices B and C of the EA and Final EA). Impacts to Windsor water and wastewater systems
are also addressed in Response to Comments 2-3, 3-2 and 9-4.
The commenter states that traffic is already terrible and this project will put more congestion on their
roads. Please see Response to Comments 3-7, 6-3, 9-6 and 13-1 regarding traffic impacts due to the
Proposed Project.
The commenter states that the Final EA notes that 2000 trees could be cut down, and asks if the oak
ordinance applies to the Tribe. Refer to Response to Comment 4-36 regarding impacts to oak
woodlands.
The commenter requests that the Final EA address her concerns as stated in her previous comments,
including issues with the WRTF, traffic, groundwater resources, and oak trees. As stated in
Response to Comments 2-6 and 4-3, the Final EA complies with the provisions of NEPA and
guidance provided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the BIA’s NEPA Handbook
and does address impacts to oak woodlands, traffic, potable water, wastewater, and groundwater.
LETTER 15 – JOHN & KAREN HOLTMAN
The commenter expresses concerns about the Proposed Project’s wastewater lake, increased traffic
and noise as well as depreciation of home values. Refer to General Responses 3.1.2, 3.1.4, Response
to Comment 16-3 in the Final EA (Volume I), and Response to Comments 3-7, 3-16, 3-11, 3-29, 423, 4-53, 6-3, 9-6, and 13-01 above regarding these issues.
June 2012
63
LETTER 16 – JEFF EDENS
The commenter remarks that the Proposed Property may eventually be turned from rural land into a
casino, and that he is against unregulated and privileged development in his neighborhood. Refer to
General Responses 3.1.5 and 3.1.9 in the Final EA (Volume I) as well as Response to Comments 324, 3-3, 4-6, and 4-7 above regarding land use designations and impacts.
The commenter requests that an EIS be prepared and the Tribe’s most recent purchase of 44
additional acres be included in the study. The commenter requests disclosure of what type of
development is proposed for these parcels. Please see Response to Comments 2-1, 2-7, 3-3, 4-5, 46, and 4-7 regarding land use designations and impacts, other parcels purchased by the tribe, and the
preparation of an EIS.
LETTER 17 – BOB & TERI FINN
The commenter remarks that they wish to comment on the Final EA. Comment noted.
The commenter stated that the initial EA was prepared for 92 acres in July of 2009, but an additional
32 acres have since been added to the project. Due to the large scope and lack of conformance with
the Sonoma County General Plan and the Town of Windsor General Plan, the Final EA is inadequate
to determine the validity of the project and an EIS is required. Refer to General Responses 3.1.5,
3.1.12 in the Final EA (Volume I), and Response to Comments 2-1, 2-6, 2-7, 3-24, 3-25, 4-3, 4-5
and 4-10 above regarding project description, land use designations and impacts, conformance with
the Sonoma County General Plan and Windsor General Plan, and the preparation of an EIS.
The commenter states that the proposed water supply lacks a thorough analysis and conveyance and
disposal of wastewater depend on the use of Windsor’s sewer system. The commenter states that city
statues prohibit the Town of Windsor from providing water and sewer services outside city limits, and
that the proposed sewage lake is inconsistent with zoning and land use. The commenter states that an
EIS is needed. Refer to General Response 3.1.2 in the Final EA (Volume I), and Response to
Comments 2-3, 2-7, 3-11, 3-14, 3-16, 3-24, 3-29, and 9-4 regarding impacts to water resources,
conveyance of wastewater, zoning regulations once the property is brought into trust on behalf of the
Tribe, and the need for an EIS.
June 2012
64
The commenter states that the Final EA does not support its conclusion that schools will not be
impacted; if the Tribe is a sovereign nation, the commenter inquires if the Tribe will pay taxes to
support the schools. Please see Response to Comment 4-17, General Responses 3.1.6 and 3.1.13,
and Sections 4.1.6 and 4.1.9 of the Final EA regarding impacts to taxation and schools.
The commenter states that the Final EA projects a low number of daily trips for the Proposed Project,
and this low number seems to be used to avoid the requirement of a more detailed analysis. As stated
in Section 4.1.7 of the Final EA, a TIS (Abrams Associates, 2010; Appendix G) was conducted for
both existing and cumulative conditions based on information published in Trip Generation (Institute
of Transportation Engineers, 2008). Table 4-9 on page 4-17 of the Final EA summarizes the
estimated a.m. and p.m. peak-hour trip generation of the Proposed Project based on this guidance.
Refer to General Response 3.1.4 in the Final EA (Volume I), and Response to Comments 3-7, 6-3,
9-6 and 13-1 regarding traffic impacts and methodology.
The commenter states that the Final EA is inadequate and requests an EIS so that an informed
decision can be made regarding the merits of this project and to ensure its compatibility with the
community in which it is being placed. Refer to General Responses 3.1.12 in the Final EA (Volume
I), and Response to Comments 2-7, 3-3, 3-24, 3-25, , 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7 above regarding land use
designations, impacts, and the preparation of an EIS.
The commenter remarks that the Secretary of the Interior may be prohibited from taking any land into
Trust, citing a 2009 letter from the California Office of the Governor to the BIA. The commenter
states that once the lands are taken into Trust, there is no requirement that the Tribe has to comply
with the project as proposed, and instead they will be free to develop the parcels without regulations.
Refer Section ES.2 of the Final EA regarding the stipulated judgment restoring the Lytton Rancheria
as a tribe in 1991; subsequently, the Tribe was listed on the Federal Register as an Indian entity and
eligible to receive services from the BIA. Refer to General Response 3.1.12 in the Final EA
(Volume I) regarding the BIA’s discretion to acquire land in trust on behalf of recognized tribes.
Refer to Response to Comment 2-8 regarding the Tribe’s ability to apply for noncontiguous land to
be brought into trust. Refer to General Responses 3.1.1 and 3.1.11 in the Final EA (Volume I) and
Response to Comments 4-3 and 4-10 above regarding the purpose and need of the Proposed Action
and a description of the Proposed Project. Additionally, Federal laws, including NEPA and
stormwater permitting under the Federal CWA, would continue to apply on trust land. Refer to
Response to Comments 4-19 and 4-68 regarding enforcement of mitigation measures.
LETTER 18 – WILLIAM V. MCCORMICK
June 2012
65
The commenter states that the Tribe has purchased an additional 44 contiguous acres which are not
included in the Final EA, nor does the Tribe indicate what these parcels will be used for, and as such
the Final EA cannot be considered complete and should be denied. Refer to Response to Comments
2-1, 2-6, and 4-3 regarding the completeness of the EA and the issue of the additional 44-acre parcels
purchased by the Tribe.
The commenter states that his property is completely surrounded by Lytton Property and that these
purchases have significantly impacted his way of life and his property, and that because these
properties may be taken into trust and may not subject to local development guidelines his property is
devalued. Refer to Response to Comments 4-23 regarding this issue.
The commenter remarks that although the Final EA states that the Proposed Project will not have
significant impacts, it will impact his views, tranquility, lighting, property value, and noise. Refer to
Response to Comment 4-58 regarding impact to visual resources. All lighting at roadway
intersections and in parking lots for the community center/roundhouse would be downcast and
shielded, in accordance with “dark sky” principles. As described by the protective measures in
Section 2.1.9, light poles would be no more than 18 feet high and will be required to have cut-off
lenses. As the commenter is a sensitive receptor to the Proposed Project, noise and air pollution
during construction is a concern. However, the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined
in Section 5.0 in the Final EA would ensure less-than-significant noise and air pollution impacts
during construction. Refer to Response to Comment 4-23 for responses related to decreases in
property values. Refer to Response to Comments 3-24 and 3-25 for discussion relating to land use
impacts and applicable zoning regulations.
The commenter notes that the Final EA indirectly refers to his property as the closest sensitive
receptor and incorrectly states that his residence is 50 feet away when in fact it is only 10 feet away.
The commenter states that the Final EA also makes no mention or assessment of the changing
character of the surrounding property from rural resident to urban resident, nor considers long-term
changes to noise post-construction. As stated in Section 3.3.6 of the Final EA, the nearest sensitive
receptor was calculated to be approximately 50 feet north of APN 066-191-016 and approximately
100 feet west of APN 066-191-019. These calculations were completed using aerial photographs and
GIS. Refer to Response to Comment 4-58 regarding impacts to visual resources and the Proposed
Project’s general conformance with Sonoma County’s Rural Design guidelines. As stated in Section
4.1.10 of the Final EA, the primary source of noise in the area is generated by traffic. Refer to
Response to Comment 4-53 regarding noise impacts.
June 2012
66
The commenter states that AES was incorrect in its assessment and did not consider the true impacts
of the Proposed Project. The commenter requests that the application be denied or an EIS should be
required prior to taking any lands into trust status. Refer to Response to Comments 2-7 and 4-5
regarding this issue.
The commenter states that the Final EA misstates the Proposed Project’s effect on their property
value. Refer to Response to Comments 4-23 regarding this issue.
The commenter states that the Tribe has systematically purchased surrounding neighbors’ properties
and that the Chairperson has a personal vendetta against him, is purposefully trying to devalue his
property and damage him financially. The commenter states that no U.S. government agency should
take part or support such efforts. Refer to Response to Comment 4-23 for responses related to
decreases in property values. Refer to General Response 3.1.16 in the Final EA regarding comments
that express an opinion without providing substantive information or data indicating a need for
additional analysis.
The commenter states that the Proposed Project should not be approved, referencing a letter from the
California Office of the Governor dated October 8, 2009, which states that the Tribe lacks proper
Federal recognition. Therefore, the commenter believes the Secretary of the Interior lacks the
authority to take the Tribe’s land into trust. Additionally, the letter notes that the Tribe already has a
10-acre reservation in San Pablo and so the commenter believes the Tribe’s location should be
considered Contra Costa County rather than Sonoma County. Refer to General Response 3.1.12 in
the Final EA (Volume I), as well as Section ES.2 in the Final EA, and Response to Comments 4-3,
4-10, and 17-7 regarding a project description, a description of the Proposed Action, and information
regarding the issue of eligibility for receiving services from the BIA. Refer to Response to Comment
2-8 regarding the Tribe’s land in the City of San Pablo and their ability to apply for noncontiguous
land to be brought into trust.
The commenter remarks that if the land is taken into trust, the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment
between Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Sugar Bowl Rancheria and the United States
dated March 22, 1991, specifically provides that the Secretary of the Interior may not accept land into
trust for the Tribe for any use that is not consistent with the Sonoma County General Plan, and that
none of the proposed projects are consistent with the General Plan. Please see General Response
3.1.12 of the Final EA regarding this issue. Please see Response to Comments 3-3, 4-6, 4-7, and 410 regarding land use designations and impacts, compliance with the Sonoma County General Plan,
June 2012
67
and the range of alternatives.
LETTER 19 – WILLIAM V. MCCORMICK, SPOKESPERSON/WINDSOR WEST
RESIDENTS
The commenter states that the Windsor West Residents group and Concerned Citizens of Sonoma
County have reviewed the Final EA and state that it is functionally and technically flawed and does
not accurately characterize the site conditions or the long-term effects on the site, and as such a full
EIS must be completed. Refer to Response to Comments 2-6, 2-7, 4-3, and 4-5 regarding the
completeness of the Final EA and the need for an EIS.
The commenter states that the Windsor West Residents group is a grassroots organization of Sonoma
County citizens that are concerned with the Proposed Project, and have collected over 1600 petition
signatures throughout the community in opposition to the project. The commenter states that they
will demand that the County aggressively pursue legal action on their behalf against any nonconforming project. Comment noted. Please refer to General Response 3.1.16 in the Final EA
regarding comments that express an opinion without providing substantive information or data
indicating a need for additional analysis.
The commenter states his professional background and his familiarity with providing critical review
for components of EA studies, noting that in general components of the EA have critical flaws and
present inaccurate characterization or mischaracterization of the actual site conditions in a manner
that promotes the Proposed Project for the benefit of the applicant. The commenter remarks that the
Final EA does not adequately address long-term effects and that the desires of the Tribe do not reflect
the desires of Sonoma County. As stated in the Final EA, long-term, cumulative impacts are analyzed
in Section 4.5 of the EA. The purpose and need statement in Section 1.3 of the EA notes the need for
a long-term, viable, and sustainable solution to the Tribe’s lack of a land base.
The commenter notes that the Final EA contains over 2,000 pages of documents in support of four
Alternatives: A, B, C, and D but states that these alternatives represent a limited variety of options.
The commenter states that Alternative C could not meet the project objectives and is therefore not a
viable alternative and should not be included. The commenter suggests that the EA include more
varied alternatives, including one in accordance with the Sonoma County General Plan. Although
Alternative C will not fully meet the project objectives, it is still a viable alternative because it takes
the 124.12-acre property into Federal trust status for the benefit of the Tribe while also allowing for
the development of 55 residential units, a community center, roundhouse, and retreat facilities. Refer
June 2012
68
to Response to Comments 2-6, 4-3, and 4-10 regarding the completeness of the Final EA, NEPA
guidelines, and viable alternatives. Refer to Response to Comments 3-24 and 3-25 regarding land
use designations, the applicability of the Town of Windsor General Plan and the Sonoma County
General Plan, and scope of the Proposed Project.
The commenter states that the Final EA was modified to include land purchased after the initial EA
was submitted in 2009 totaling approximately 124-acres. However, the commenter notes that the
Tribe has purchased an additional 44 more contiguous acres which are not included in the Final EA.
The commenter wants to know why these parcels were not included. The commenter remarks that
any EA that does not include all existing contiguous parcels cannot be considered complete and the
Fee-to-Trust application must be denied. Refer to Response to Comments 2-6 and 4-3 regarding to
the completeness of the Final EA. Refer to Response to Comment 2-1 regarding other parcels owned
by the Tribe.
The commenter states that the Final EA lacks any substantial improvement to the original initial EA.
The commenter states that the project should be either denied or a comprehensive EIS should be
performed. Refer to Response to Comments 2-6, 2-7, 4-3, and 4-5 regarding the completeness of the
Final EA and the need for an EIS.
The commenter notes that the Final EA provides additional information regarding re-assessment of
potentially significant impacts and suggests mitigation measures. However, the commenter states that
the document falls short of being complete as each condition is “assessed” as possible to mitigate to
achieve “less-than-significant” levels. The commenter believes the recommended mitigation fails to
demonstrate enforceability throughout the lifetime of the project or post-construction. Refer to
Response to Comments 2-6, and 4-3 for responses related to the completeness of the Final EA and
NEPA guidelines. As stated in response to Comment 8-03 in the Final EA (Volume I), and noted
above in Response to Comment 4-68, the Final EA clarifies that the Tribe will pass a Tribal
Resolution requiring compliance with all mitigation measures set forth. This resolution, by tribal law,
would bind the tribe to ensure mitigation measures, “intrinsic to the project, required by Federal law,
and/or required by agreements between the Tribe and local agencies” transpire (Section 5.1 of the
Final EA).
The commenter states that the geology report prepared by RGH Consultants (Appendix M) is
incomplete, due to the fact that only 62-acres of the proposed 124-acres were studied. The
commenter also states that the recently purchased 44-acres were also omitted. The commenter states
that additional geologic/geotechnical work has been completed by Miller Pacific/Joyce Associates
June 2012
69
earlier this year, and asks why this was not included in the Final EA. The commenter states that as
this study is not included in the EA, the Final EA is not complete. . As noted in response to
Comment 16-19 of the Final EA (Volume I), Section 3.1 of the EA included a geologic/geotechnical
investigation and report. RGH Consultants utilized published geologic papers, stereo-aerial
photographs, and conducted a surficial site reconnaissance. This report was conducted on the 62-acre
upland portion of the site, which was subjected to more detailed geotechnical review due to the varied
topography and proposed housing and road alignments. The Tribe and its contractors may have
ordered the preparation of studies and/or reports that are not cited in the initial EA and Final EA. The
EA and Final EA have not relied upon such reports. Only those reports that pertain to the subject
matter of the EA and Final EA have been cited in the EA and Final EA. Refer to Response to
Comment 2-1 regarding other parcels owned by the Tribe.
The commenter states that the Final EA makes no mention of the proposed development’s impacts on
the surrounding rural residential properties, such as decreased property values resulting from low
density rural residential and agricultural properties surrounding high-density residential properties.
Refer to Response to Comments 3-24 and 3-25 regarding land use designations, and refer to
Response to Comment 4-23 for responses relating to decreases in property values.
The commenter remarks that the removal of over 2,000 trees from the existing 4,000 is not an
insignificant impact. The commenter states that this is one of the last stands of oak woodland forest,
considered Sensitive Biological Community by the State and County, and therefore should be
protected. Refer to Response to Comments 4-36 through 4-41 regarding impacts on the Oak
Woodlands.
The commenter states that the Final EA provides no assessment of visual impacts to neighbors after
construction which would change the environment from a rural setting to a high density residential
with street lights, vehicle lights from project traffic, removal of trees and visual impacts of buildings,
night lighting of buildings, and other alternations. Refer to Response to Comment 4-58 for
responses related to visual impacts. As stated in Response to Comments 2-7 and 4-3 above, the
Final EA complies with the provisions of NEPA and guidance provided by CEQ and the BIA’s
NEPA Handbook in addressing environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project,
including the removal of oak trees, traffic, and nighttime illumination. Refer to Response to
Comment 18-3 regarding nighttime illumination.
The commenter states that there will be discharge of wastewater into roadside ditches or the offsite
quarry or into the Windsor Creek tributary and will ultimately discharge into the sensitive Russian
June 2012
70
River. The commenter remarks that there will be no input from governing agencies that protect
resources such as the Department of Fish and Game or the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The commenter states that that Alternative B is outrageous and should not be considered as a viable
option. Refer to Response to Comments 3-16, 3-29, and 13-4 regarding to the discharge of
wastewater and impacts to the Russian River.
The commenter states that the on-site water treatment facility would involve the storage of hazardous
chemicals and would be an environmental hazard to the community. As noted in the Final EA,
Sections 4.2.11 and 4.3.11 analyze potential impacts from on-site hazardous materials storage.
Mitigation measures in Section 5.11 of the EA would ensure a less-than-significant impact.
The commenter references the statement in the Final EA that implies that the Proposed Project is
compatible with the surrounding land use and density. The commenter states this is false given the
surrounding parcels are low density (1 house per 5 acres) rural residential and agricultural and not
similar to the proposed housing units for this project. Refer to Response to Comments 3-24 and 325 regarding land use designations and density once the land is brought into trust.
The commenter states that the section of the Final EA which discusses visual impacts from
development alternatives does not sufficiently or accurately address impacts to sensitive receptors.
Refer to Response to Comments 4-58 regarding visual impacts.
The commenter notes the Final EA’s statement regarding the already impacted surface water quality,
and therefore asserts that the Proposed Development will further impact surface water quality. Refer
to Response to Comments 3-11 and 3-16 regarding impacts to surface water quality and resources.
The commenter states that the test water well was found to have high levels of arsenic and
magnesium that do not meet California or Federal drinking water standards. The commenter remarks
that this project will pump and eventually discharge tainted water to the surface. As stated in
Response to Comments 3-11 and 3-16 potential impacts of the Proposed Project resulting from these
issue areas were fully described in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.9 with proposed mitigation in Sections 5.2
and 5.9.
The commenter states that California tiger salamanders have the potential to occur on the project site,
yet no studies were performed to determine presence or absence. The analysis of impacts in the BA
June 2012
71
fully addresses the requirements outlined in the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy (SRPCS).
According to the SRPCS, the project site is located outside the known range of California Tiger
Salamander (Ambystoma californiense - CTS) and outside of the proposed critical habitat for the
species. Additionally, surveys have been conducted on the project site to determine whether suitable
habitat exists for CTS. Thus far, all surveys have yielded negative results. On April 24, 2012, the
USFWS issued a letter of concurrence to the BIA supporting a finding of Not Likely to Adversely
Affect any listed species, including the CTS.
The commenter states that under Section 7 of FESA, Federal agencies are required to ensure that a
project will not jeopardize the continued existence of a Federally listed species. The commenter
states that this project will eliminate listed species habitat. Comprehensive biological surveys were
conducted on the project site over several years under a variety of environmental conditions. Extra
attention was paid to special status species that have the potential to occur. Having the potential to
occur on a site does not imply the site is listed species habitat unless Critical Habitat has been
designated or viable habitat has been identified in that area. The NEPA process for the Proposed
Action is being carried out by the BIA in full compliance with Section 7 of FESA. Please refer to
Response to Comment 19-18 regarding survey results and USFWS concurrence.
The commenter states that CNPS listed species exist on the project site and are not protected on
Indian Trust Land. The commenter states further that no one should allow the destruction of
biological species. Two CNPS-ranked species were found on the project site: Harlequin lotus (Lotus
formosissimus) and Lobb’s aquatic buttercup (Ranunculus lobbii) as described in Section 3.4.4 of the
Final EA. Both species are CNPS List 4.2 species, which are of limited distribution in some areas or
infrequent throughout a broader area in California, but are not considered "rare" from a statewide
perspective. CNPS List 3 and 4 plants do not fit the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native
Plant Protection Act) or Secs. 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California
Department of Fish and Game Code, and are not eligible for state listing. Nonetheless, they are
considered in the Final EA because they may become rare in the future or may be rare in a local
region (if that knowledge is available from local experts).
Both of these species were found within wetland buffers that will be avoided by project design. All
other CNPS-listed species with the potential to occur were surveyed over several years during the
appropriate periods of identification. No special status species are present on the project site.
The commenter states that there is no mention of aquatic fish species in the perennial creek channel,
presumably the unnamed tributary to Windsor Creek thence Mark West Creek thence the Russian
River which runs parallel to the eastern edge of the project site. As noted in Response to Comment
June 2012
72
4-63, all potential wetlands are thoroughly discussed and evaluated in the Stream Characterization
Report (Appendix L) conducted for the project site. All wetlands on-site are seasonal or intermittent
in nature and the majority of potential waters identified were ephemeral drainages. It was these
wetlands, referred to in the Final EA Section 3.4.4, in which no fish and very few aquatic
invertebrates were found. The documented natural limit to anadromy is just above the Trenton
Healdsburg Bridge crossing on Mark West Creek; migratory fish species have no potential to occur
on or within the vicinity of project site. However, there may be small, non-anadromous fish
(centrarchids (i.e. sunfish, bluegill etc), minnows (i.e. roach, hitch) and gambusia (mosquitoe fish))
present in the unnamed tributary at various times of the year that have no special status. The
commenter also notes that there is no mention of listed bat species of being present on the site, yet he
has seen one. As stated in Section 4.1.4 of the Final EA, the pallid bat does have the potential to
occur within the project site. However, the project site provides only foraging habitat for the pallid
bat, primarily over waters and wetlands, that will be avoided by project design.
The commenter repeats concerns about the protection of special status species. As described in
Section 4.0 of the EA, potential impacts to biological resources on the project site including sensitive
habitats, potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S., native trees, riparian habitat, special-status
species, and migratory birds will be reduced to a less-than-significant level through measures
incorporated into project construction and design (Section 2.1.9 of the EA) and mitigation (Section
5.4 of the EA). Refer to Response to Comment 6-02 of the Final EA, for further discussion regarding
impacts to Federally listed plant and animal species.
The commenter remarks that the Final EA claims there are no prehistoric or historic cultural resources
on-site. The commenter states that as the Native American Consultation indicates there is no
knowledge of resources on-site, there is no cultural basis for the Lyttons to claim their purchased
parcels for trust-sovereign nation status. As the Final EA clearly states, the principal goal of the Feeto-Trust transfer and the residential development is to provide central tribal housing as a home base
for tribal members, which would reverse the current geographic dispersion of Tribal members.
Taking the property into trust will allow the Tribe to foster its cultural identity, spiritual values, and
traditional religion while creating a solution to the Tribe’s lack of a land base and providing a place to
congregate for governmental, cultural, and social purposes. Final EA Section 3.5 is intended to
evaluate whether the Proposed Project would impact paleontological, archeological, or cultural
resources, not to determine whether the Tribe has a cultural affiliation with the land in question.
The commenter notes that the site is mapped as “Farmland of Local Importance” in accordance with
the Farmland Protection Act of 1981. The commenter states that this act was enacted to minimize the
impact of Federal programs on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to
June 2012
73
nonagricultural uses and granting trust status of the proposed development is unnecessary and will
violate this Federal act. As stated in Section 4.1.8 of the Final EA, development of the project site
would result in a loss of agricultural grazing land and farmland of local importance, as defined by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). However, this
land is currently wooded, non-irrigated, and not in agricultural production. As noted in Section 3.8.3,
the project site did not receive a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (FCIR) of 160 or above
(Appendix H). The impact to agriculture would be less-than-significant.
The commenter states that as no local site assessment was done, the FCIR calculations are flawed. As
stated in the Final EA, the FCIR form (Appendix H of the EA) was used to evaluate the impact of the
Proposed Action on farmland. The lack of a local site assessment does not invalidate the results of
the rating. The updated rating form, including the additional seven parcels totaling 124.12 acres, was
provided in Appendix H of the Final EA.
The commenter states that no assessment of long-term noise resulting from post-development was
performed. The commenter believes drastic and irreversible changes will result from transforming
existing low density rural use into high-density residential use, including noise from the proposed
ceremonial performances. The commenter remarks that the noise component of the Final EA is
flawed because it does not consider these changes to the existing community. Please see Section
4.5.10 of the EA for an analysis of cumulative noise impacts. The noise generated on-site would not
significantly increase in the future. Please see Section 4.1.10 of the EA for an analysis of expected
on-site noise generation. Refer to Response to Comments 4-53 and 4-54 regarding noise impacts.
The commenter remarks that the western 17.5 acres of the site are located within the “Eastside Road
Scenic Landscape Unit” of the Sonoma County General Plan, which requires preservation
requirements, and that the Proposed Project would ignore and violate these County requirements and
change the scenic appearance of the protected area. Refer to Response to Comment 4-58 regarding
impacts to visual resources. The Proposed Project, and specifically proposed improvements in the
vicinity of the Eastside Road Scenic Landscape Unit, have been configured to reduce impacts to
visual resources and to preserve scenic resources. To reduce impacts to visual resources, houses and
facilities will be constructed away from Eastside Road to ensure a visual buffer. Refer to Response
to Comments 3-24 and 3-25 for discussion relating to land use impacts and applicable zoning
regulations.
The commenter references the statement in the Final EA that “surrounding areas will have a limited
view of the project site,” and asserts that this is false due to the proximity of sensitive receptors whose
June 2012
74
properties surround the site. Refer to Response to Comments 4-58 regarding impacts to visual
resources.
The commenter notes that the Final EA states that there will be no significant impact on schools. The
commenter remarks that they doubt this claim since the chairperson of the tribe lives in a distant
county and the local school superintendent has voiced concerns on the potential impacts on school
budgets. Refer to Response to Comment 4-17 and General Response 3.1.13 and Section 4.1.9 of
the Final EA regarding impacts to schools.
The commenter references the hydrogeologic study’s indication that the construction of wells for the
Proposed Project will cause drawdown in neighboring wells and long-term water testing should be
conducted to adequately characterize the effects of proposed water supply on neighboring properties.
The commenter states that no drawdown on neighboring wells of any kind should be allowed from
this project. Refer to Response to Comments 3-9 and 3-11 regarding this issue.
The commenter references the Final EA’s statement that discharge from the WTRF is proposed for a
roadside drainage ditch or into the perennial creek channel. The commenter requests that a full EIS
be completed before considering these options viable. Refer to Response to Comment 3-16 and 1303 regarding discharge of wastewater. Refer to Response to Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the
need for an EIS.
The commenter remarks that the wastewater treatment plant will have the potential to emit odors.
The commenter states that this should not be allowed. Final EA Sections 4.2.3 and 4.3.3 include an
analysis of odor impacts from the proposed wastewater treatment facility, which concludes that the
proposed use of an odor control system would ensure minimal release of odors. As stated in
Response to Comment 3-29, the odor control system would incorporate a packaged biofilter with an
active carbon absorption unit, as described in Section 2.6. In general, the odor control system will
vacuum air off the headworks and pass it through the biofilter and carbon absorption unit before
exhausting the treated air (refer to Wastewater Feasibility Study, Appendix B). This active odor
control system would ensure minimal release of odors and a less-than-significant impact.
The commenter states that solid waste from the wastewater treatment plant would be spread on-site or
trucked out, which would increase health hazards on neighboring properties and/or from spillage.
The commenter is incorrect in his statement that solid waste would be spread on-site. As stated in
Appendix B, a centrifuge or belt filter press will be installed on-site to dewater waste solids from the
June 2012
75
proposed wastewater treatment facility’s tertiary membrane bioreactor. Once separated, effluent will
be UV disinfected to reduce the need to handle, transport, and store toxic or corrosive chemicals such
as chlorine. Dewatered biosolids will be hauled off-site in a safe manner for ultimate disposal.
The commenter references the wastewater study’s statement that “the actual chemical numbered
quality of the effluent will not be known until the project is built and occupied.” The commenter
states that this is an unacceptable approach for assessing impacts of potential hazards on the
community. As stated in Appendix B, the mineralogical and chemical composition of the effluent
will depend primarily on 1) the mineral and chemical makeup of the potable water supply, 2) the
types of potable water supply piping used, and 3) the mineral and chemical use practices of future
residents. Prematurely determining the precise chemical make-up of the future effluent is not
possible at this stage, nor is it a necessary element of a thorough and appropriate NEPA analysis.
The commenter remarks that the Proposed Project site is located within a designated “High Wildland
Fire Zone.” The commenter states that development of the site will increase the potential for
wildfires, which will increase the demand for emergency services and cause irreversible damage to
neighboring properties. Refer to Response to Comments 4-24, 4-28, and 9-5 regarding fire
protection and emergency services.
The commenter states that the traffic study is flawed because it does not include mention of how
many total car trips per day will result from this project and how that will affect the serenity of the
sensitive receptor neighbors surrounding the project. The commenter also remarks that peak traffic
trips are too low and that the proposed addition of 3 stop sign entrances to the site will create
increased road hazard potential due to their location, the number of trips per day, their proximity to
other connectors and residential driveways, and the number of expected traffic trips per day. Final
EA Sections 4.1.7 and 4.1.10 state that the total increase in amount of car trips during peak hours will
be 148 cars per peak hour on local roadways. As stated in Section 4.1.10 of the Final EA, no audible
increase in the ambient noise level would occur. Please see Response to Comments 3-7, 6-3, 9-6
and 13-1, and Appendix G regarding traffic impacts due to the Proposed Project.
The commenter states that the Final EA is flawed, inaccurate, incomplete, and does not take into
account all Lytton properties and/or all potential development that may be planned for the Project
Site. The commenter remarks that the Final EA provides no assessment of long-term impacts on the
community or how mitigation measures will be enforced in the future. The commenter requests the
project be denied or that a full EIS be commissioned. If an EIS is not commissioned, the commenter
insists that only Alternative D should be considered feasible at this time. The commenter urges the
June 2012
76
BIA to consider the negative effects the Proposed Project would have on the surrounding properties
and community and assist the Lyttons in their search for a more appropriate site to meet their needs.
Refer to Response to Comments 2-6, 2-7, 4-3 and 4-5 regarding the completeness of the Final EA
and the need for an EIS.
Refer to Response to Comments 4-19 and 4-68 regarding enforcement of mitigation measures.
LETTER 20 – DOUGLAS DEFORS & FAMILY
The commenter remarks that there is no guarantee that the Proposed Project would be reasonable or
beneficial to the community. The commenter states that given the modest size of the existing plan,
only an EA was required for the proposed 50 acre development. However the commenter is
concerned that the tribe could cease to follow through with this plan as described, could institute
another plan on the entire 124 acres without additional oversight by the Town of Windsor or the
County of Sonoma, or could alter the plan without any regard for Windsor’s Town Plan or zoning.
The commenter requests that a full EIS be completed to evaluate the entire 124 acre potential
development area and to protect the citizens of Windsor from unbridled development. Refer to
Response to Comments 2-6, 2-7, 4-3 and 4-5 regarding the completeness of the Final EA, NEPA
guidelines, and scope of the Proposed Project. Refer to Response to Comments 3-3, 3-24, 4-6, and
4-7 regarding land use designations and the applicability of the Town of Windsor General Plan and
the Sonoma County General Plan once the land is taken into trust.
LETTER 21 – AMBER MCCULLOUGH
The commenter states that the Final EA does not adequately analyze potential environmental impacts
and therefore an EIS is necessary to sufficiently determine the impacts. Refer to Response to
Comments 2-6, 2-7, 4-3 and 4-5 regarding the completeness of the Final EA and the need for an EIS.
The commenter notes that the majority of the project is located outside the Town of Windsor growth
boundary, and is in a rural area with substantial environmental sensitivity. The commenter remarks
that this type of proposal directly opposes established planning theory, sensible environmental
stewardship, reasonable expectation of adjacent development, as well as land use goals and policies in
the 2020 Sonoma County General Plan. Refer to Response to Comments 3-24 and 3-25 regarding
land use designations and the applicability of the Town of Windsor General Plan and the Sonoma
County General Plan.
June 2012
77
The commenter notes that the Final EA does not specify how many acres of land will be disturbed by
the construction of each alternative, which would allow for a quantitative comparison of disturbance.
Final EA Sections 4.1.4, 4.2.4, and 4.3.4 state the total acreage affected by the proposed alternatives.
As well, Final EA Section 2.1, Table 2-1 (Revised) lists a summary of square footage for
Alternatives A, B, and C.
The commenter states that six special status species have the potential to occur on-site and two CNPS
List 4 species are present on the site. The commenter remarks that the proposed levels of
development are inappropriate for such an ecologically sensitive area when the project proposes a
density well above the maximum density described in the Sonoma County and Windsor General
Plans. As stated in Response to Comment 6-02 of the Final EA and described in Section 4.1.4,
several federally listed plant species have potential to occur with the project site; however, none have
actually been identified on the property despite years of repeated surveys. Two CNPS List 4 species
were identified during focused botanical surveys within the project site. As described in Attachment
E of Appendix E, these two species will be avoided in their wetland habitats to ensure that no
impacts will occur. Refer to Response to Comments 4-36, 4-41, 4-36, 19-18, 19-19, and 19-20
regarding impacts to biological resources, including CNPS List 4 species. Refer to Response to
regulations.
The commenter states that while the alternatives proposed in response to Comments on the initial EA
regarding wastewater treatment may provide treatment options, they create additional impact. The
commenter also remarks that odors associated with the open top effluent storage basin, proposed for
Alternative B, have not been adequately evaluated in the Final EA, as the analysis proposed odor
elimination mitigation measures without discussing the likely success. Refer to Response to
Comments 3-14, 3-16, 4-52, and 3-29 regarding these issues.
The commenter states that the Proposed Project includes 147 residences on 124 acres for a density of
0.84 residents per acre, which is greater than the existing Sonoma County General Plan allows for this
area. Refer to Response to Comments 3-24 and 3-25 regarding this issue.
The commenter states that when analyzing the potential significant impacts for multiple resource
areas an EIS is the appropriate tool. Refer to Response to Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the need
for an EIS.
LETTER 22 – DARRYL ROBERTS
June 2012
78
The commenter requests that a housing development not be constructed. Comment noted.
LETTER 23 – DOUGLAS DEFORS
The commenter expressed his concern that the Tribe would develop the entire 124 acres rather than
the 50 acres proposed in prior project plans. Refer to Response to Comments 4-3 and 4-10 for a
description of the Proposed Action and Proposed Project.
LETTER 24 – WILLIAM SCHOLL
The commenter expressed concern that a casino would be constructed and operated on the project
site. The commenter also expressed concern regarding the odor that could occur as a result of
Alternatives B and C which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility. Concerns regarding the
further use of the project site for gaming purposes were sufficiently addressed within General
Response 3.1.9. Please refer to Response to Comments 3-3, 4-6 and 4-7 for specific responses
relating land use designations and impacts. An analysis of odor impacts from the proposed WTRF
was included within Sections 4.2.3 and 4.3.3 of the Final EA, which concluded that the proposed use
of an odor control system would ensure minimal release of odors. Please refer to Response to
Comment 3-29 relating to potential odors from the proposed WTRF.
The commenter states that the increase in traffic, noise, water use, and odor would reduce the value of
their home. The commenter questions whether the EA is an EIS. Please see Response to Comments
3-7, 6-3, 9-6 and 13-1 regarding traffic impacts due to the Proposed Project. Refer to Response to
Comments 3-9, 3-11, 3-14, and 3-16 regarding impacts to water resources. Refer to Response to
Comment 3-29 regarding impacts due to odors. Refer to Response to Comment 4-23 for responses
related to decreases in property values due to the Proposed Project. An EA is not an EIS. Refer to
Response to Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS.
The commenter expressed their opposition to the Proposed Project and similar developments.
Comment noted.
LETTER 25 – PATRICK SERATT
June 2012
79
site. The commenter states that the Proposed Project would reduce the value of their home. The
commenter states that the Proposed Project would result in less natural habitat, increased water use,
increased traffic, and negative impacts on air quality. The commenter also expressed concern that the
Proposed Project could possibly increase the likelihood of drunk driving. Concerns regarding the
further use of the project site for gaming purposes were sufficiently addressed within General
Response 3.1.9 of the Final EA. Refer to Response to Comments 3-03, 4-6 and 4-7 for responses
related to land use designations and impacts. Refer to Response to Comment 4-23 for responses
related to decreases in property values. Refer to Response to Comments 3-7, 3-11, 4-36, 4-43, 4-44,
4-59, 6-3, 9-6, and 13-1 regarding impacts to natural habitats, water resources, traffic, and air quality.
The Proposed Project would result in a primarily residential development. No commercial or
entertainment venues that would serve alcoholic beverages are proposed.
The commenter expressed their opposition to the Proposed Project. Comment noted.
The commenter stated that the casino in Hopland was supposed to help the Indian tribes and that they
are still waiting. Comment noted.
LETTER 26 – GARRY GAY
The commenter requested that an EIS be completed instead of an EA. The commenter expressed
concern regarding the potential effects on traffic that would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
As noted in Response to Comment 2-6 and 4-3, the Final EA is of appropriate level of detail to
allow the BIA to determine whether the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to the
environment, thereby not warranting the development of an EIS. Refer to Response to Comments 37, 6-3, 9-6 and 13-1 regarding impacts to traffic. The commenter also expressed their opinion that the
new tribal area will be very taxing to the City of Windsor. Comment noted. Please refer to General
Response 3.1.16 in the Final EA regarding comments that express an opinion without providing
substantive information or data indicating a need for additional analysis.
site. Concerns regarding the further use of the project site for gaming purposes were sufficiently
addressed within General Response 3.1.9 in the Final EA. Please refer to Response to Comment 33, 4-6 and 4-7 regarding land use designations and impacts.
June 2012
80
The commenter reiterated his request to have a full EIS completed to analyze the Proposed Project.
Refer to Response to Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS.
LETTER 27 – BRENT & ANNA GUYER
The commenter states that the Proposed Project would add too many houses to the area. Refer to
General Response 3.1.12 and Response to Comment 3-25 for responses relating to this issue.
The commenter states that the community center is too big. Comment noted. The proposed
community center was sized to serve the proposed residential community and, as discussed in
General Response 3.1.7 of the Final EA, was designed to complement the local community
character and be meet LEED or equivalent certification standards standards.
The commenter states that the proposed wells under Alternative B would improperly draw on the
Russian River aquifer. Potential impacts to groundwater aquifers from the development of the
Proposed Project were fully described in Sections 4.1.2, 4.2.2, and 4.3.2 and within General
Response 3.1.10 of the Final EA. Detailed information regarding the results of pump tests and
groundwater level trends is provided in the water/wastewater feasibility and hydrogeologic studies.
Refer to Appendices B and C in the Final EA.
The commenter states that the wastewater plans for the Proposed Project are unacceptable. The
commenter does not specify which plan, either the connection to the City of Windsor (Alternative A)
or the development of an on-site wastewater treatment plant (Alternative B and C) is unacceptable or
their reasons for drawing this conclusion. Please refer to General Response 3.1.16 in the Final EA
The commenter states that the Proposed Project would impact local resources including police, fire,
medical, schools, garbage, etc. Please refer to Response to Comments 4-18, 4-24, 4-28, 9-5
regarding impacts to public resources.
The commenter states that the Proposed Project would pose a chemical risk to the community. Final
EA Sections 4.2.11 and 4.3.11 analyze potential impacts from on-site hazardous materials storage.
Mitigation measures in Final EA Section 5.11 would ensure a less-than-significant impact.
June 2012
81
The commenter states that there would likely be impacts to air quality from event parking. As
discussed in Final EA General Response 3.1.5 and response to Comment 10-43 on page 3-35 in the
Final EA, the use of on-site facilities for tribal gatherings and events would not be a frequent
occurrence. When such gatherings occur, a large portion of the attendees would travel only a short
distance from their residences on-site, or from other locations within the County. Therefore the
impacts to air quality, specifically as a result of driving to and parking at special events, are minimal.
Refer to Response to Comment 4-43, 4-44, and 4-59 regarding impacts to air quality.
The commenter states that the proposed wastewater treatment system under Alternatives B and C
could increase rodent and insect problems. As described within the Final EA, the effluent storage
basin would be constantly filled with tertiary treated effluent during the winter and emptied for
landscape irrigation during the summer. The water in the basin would be fully treated and would not
be allowed to become stagnant during mosquito breeding season. The potential for rodent and insect
problems on the project site would be minimal.
The commenter states that wastewater releases under Alternatives B and C could cause water quality
issues. As noted in Section 4.2.2 and Appendix B of the Final EA, the on-site WTRF effluent would
be treated to meet or exceed Title 22 standards. Furthermore, as stated in Section 5.2 of the EA, the
Tribe would be required to obtain an NPDES permit under the Federal CWA for the proposed
discharge of tertiary treated wastewater to one of two drainage locations (described in further detail in
Section 2.2.3 of the Final EA) under the surface water discharge option for Alternative B. The US
EPA acts as the regulatory authority under the CWA for any discharge on tribal trust lands. Finally,
as discussed in Response to Comment 3-16, the analysis within Section 4.2.2 in Volume II of the
Final EA and subsequent supporting documentation in Appendix B of Volume III of the Final EA
provides adequate detail to conclude that discharge of treated wastewater under Alternatives B and C
would not significantly impact water resources.
The commenter states that the Proposed Project would result in permanent property value losses.
Refer to Response to Comment 4-23 for responses related to decreases in property values.
The commenter states that the Proposed Project would violate local open space laws. As discussed
within Response to Comments 3-24 and Section 2.1.1 of the EA, once the project site is brought into
Federal trust, local laws, policies and standards would no longer apply to the site; this includes any
locally approved open space ordinances.
June 2012
82
The commenter states that the Proposed Project would abuse natural resources and endangered
species. As described in Section 4.1.4 of the EA, potential impacts to biological resources on the
project site, including sensitive habitats, potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S., native trees,
riparian habitat, special-status species, and migratory birds will be reduced to a less-than-significant
level through measures incorporated into project construction and design (Section 2.1.9 of the EA)
and mitigation (Section 5.4 of the EA). Refer to response to Comment 6-02 on page 3-21 of the Final
EA (Volume I) for further discussion regarding impacts to Federally listed plant and animal species.
Refer to Response to Comments 4-36, 4-41, 4-63, 4-64, 19-18, 19-19, and 19-20 regarding impacts
to biological resources due to the Proposed Project.
The commenter states that there will be noise pollution from events, traffic, and sewer and water
plants. Please see Sections 4.1.10, 4.2.10, and 4.3.10 of the Final EA for a thorough analysis of noise
impacts. As discussed therein, a less-than-significant impact resulting from noise during construction
and operation of the Proposed Project would occur following implementation of mitigation measures
and protective measures outlined in the Final EA.
The commenter states that the EA did not address traffic impacts to local intersections, including the
intersection of Windsor River Road and Windsor Road, specifically when school is in session. Refer
to Response to Comments 3-7, 6-3, 9-6 and 13-1 for a detailed response regarding potential traffic
impacts within the EA.
The commenter states that the Town of Windsor is unlikely to approve a hookup to the Town’s water
system. In anticipation that the Town of Windsor may not approve a hookup to the Town’s water
system, on-site groundwater production wells with a small groundwater treatment plant are proposed
under Alternatives B and C, and thoroughly analyzed within the Final EA. The commenter also
stated that the EA did not address the annual drawdown of the water table during the grape harvest
and crush. The commenter expresses concern regarding the chemicals that would potentially be
required to treat groundwater. Refer to Response to Comments 3-11 and 3-29 and Section 4.1.2 and
General Response 3.1.2 in the Final EA regarding impacts to groundwater resources. Refer to
Response to Comment 9-4 regarding conveyance to the Town of Windsor’s water and wastewater
system.
The commenter expressed concern that the Town of Windsor’s sewer system does not have the
capacity to accommodate Alternative A. The commenter expressed concern regarding the odor that
June 2012
83
could occur as a result of Alternatives B and C which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility.
The commenter also states that the Proposed Project would pose a chemical risk to the neighborhood.
As discussed within General Response 3.1.2 of the Final EA, and reiterated in Response to
Comment 3-14, the WWTRDF has sufficient capacity to serve the Proposed Project. Please refer to
Response to Comments 3-29 and 19-32 for regarding potential odors from the proposed WTRF.
Final EA Sections 4.2.11 and 4.3.11 analyze potential impacts from on-site hazardous materials
storage. Mitigation measures in Section 5.11 of the EA would ensure a less-than-significant impact.
The commenter reiterated his concern that the proposed wastewater treatment system under
Alternatives B and C could increase rodent and insect problems. Refer to Response to Comment 278 regarding rodent and insect impacts.
The commenter states that the Proposed Project is adjacent to two small creeks on the eastern side
that eventually flow into the Russian River, and requests clarification as to whether the Tribe will be
mandated to contain runoff from those creeks. Refer to Response to Comments 13-4 regarding this
issue.
The commenter requests clarification as to whether the proposed fire protection is adequate. The
commenter states that the Tribe proposes to contract with CAL FIRE for its fire protection, but the
nearest CAL FIRE facility is in either Santa Rosa or Healdsburg, and as such the Windsor Fire
Department will have to attend fire emergencies due to their close proximity. Refer to Response to
The commenter observes sensitive species may remain undiscovered on the project site and expresses
concern that oak tree replacement will take many decades. Please see Response to Comments 10-15
through 10-19 in the Final EA (Volume I), and Response to Comments 4-36 and 4-41 regarding
impacts to biological resources.
The commenter remarks that the past treatment of American Indians is deplorable. However, the
commenter states that they should not be subjected to congested roadways, water shortages, rude
behavior, foul odors, and depreciated home values due to the Proposed Project. The commenter also
believes that it is unfair that the Tribe is not limited by same state and local laws and regulations that
control the commenter and his neighbors. Refer to Response to Comments 3-7, 3-11, 4-23, 6-3, 9-6,
13-1, and 25-1 regarding these issues. The commenter remarks that while he is happy the Tribe has
profited from their gaming activities and has invested in land, he does not believe that purchasing and
buying land in Windsor is a good idea. The commenter notes that he and his neighbors do not want
the Proposed Project to be developed and will take legal action if necessary. Comment noted.
June 2012
84
LETTER 28 – BEN & DEBBY BAINBRIDGE
The commenters express their opposition to the Proposed Project. Comment noted.
LETTER 29 – SUZETTE WARD
The commenter requests that an EIS be completed instead of an EA. The commenter states her
concern that additional land has been purchased that may not need to abide by Windsor City zoning.
Refer to Response to Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS. Refer to Response to
Comment 3-24 and 3-25 regarding land use zonings and the Proposed Project. Refer to Response to
Comment 2-1 regarding additional acreage added to the Final EA.
The commenter expressed a concern over impacts to traffic. Refer to Final EA General Response
3.1.4 and Response to Comments 3-7, 6-3, 9-6 and 13-1 regarding this issue.
The commenter expresses concern over sewer/wastewater treatment including the location of the onsite wastewater treatment facility under Alternatives B and C. Please refer to Final EA General
Response 3.1.2 and Response to Comments 2-3, 3-11, 3-14, 3-16, 3-29, and 9-4 regarding
water/wastewater issues.
The commenter expresses concern over the potential impacts to the Windsor school system. Refer to
Response to Comments 4-17, 7-3, and Final EA General Response 3.1.6 regarding this issue.
The commenter expresses concern over the potential impacts on Winsor public services including
fire, police, and water. Refer to Final EA General Response 3.1.13 and Response to Comments 418, 4-24, and 9-5 regarding impacts to public services. Refer to Response to Comment 3-11
regarding impacts to water resources.
The commenter expresses concern as to whether the Tribe is eligible/recognized to undertake the
Proposed Project. As discussed in Response to Comment 17-7, in 1991 the Lytton Rancheria was
restored as a tribe through a stipulated judgment, and listed with the Federal Register as an Indian
entity which is recognized and eligible to receive services from the BIA, including taking land into
June 2012
85
Federal trust.
The commenter states that there are too many “unknowns” for this project to proceed without more
public and Town of Windsor discussions and information. With the discussion of impacts to
environmental resources and public services contained within the three volumes that constitute the
Final EA, the Proposed Project meets the requirements for environmental review under NEPA. The
commenter does not specify what additional information is needed. Comment noted. Please refer to
General Response 3.1.16 regarding comments that express an opinion without providing substantive
information or data indicating a need for additional analysis.
LETTER 30 – RICH BURRIS
The commenter states that he disagrees with the findings of the EA and expresses his opinion that
traffic and other environmental impacts from the Proposed Project have not been adequately
addressed by the EA. Comment noted. The commenter does not specify how the analysis was
inadequate or how it can be improved. Refer to Final EA General Response 3.1.4 for a response to
comments regarding traffic issues. Please refer to Final EA General Response 3.1.16 regarding
comments that express an opinion without providing substantive information or data indicating a need
for additional analysis.
The commenter requests that a complete EIS be prepared to analyze the Proposed Project. Refer to
Response to Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS.
LETTER 31 – JOAN GRAVELL & JUNE DAVIES
The commenters express their opposition to the proposed site being taken into trust by the Federal
government as this would remove the subject parcels from the tax rolls and make them exempt from
County zoning regulations. The commenters expressed concern that a casino would be constructed
and operated on the project site. Refer to Response to Comment 4-18 above and Final EA General
Response 3.1.13 for a discussion of the potential impact from removing the parcels from local tax
rolls and Final EA General Response 3.1.12 and Response to Comments 3-24 and 3-25 for
responses relating to the proposed land uses and the Proposed Project’s compatibility with the Town
of Windsor General Plan and the Sonoma County General Plan. Concerns regarding the further use
of the project site for gaming purposes were sufficiently addressed within Final EA General
Response 3.1.9. Please refer to Response to Comment 3-3, 4-6 and 4-7 for regarding land use
designations and impacts. The commenters noted that they are not generally against Indian casinos.
June 2012
86
Comment noted.
LETTER 32 – MIKE & GINGER MURNER
The commenters state that they are writing to express their concerns with the Proposed Project, as this
development could negatively impact the value of their home and others nearby. Refer to Response
to Comment 4-23 regarding potential effects to real estate values.
The commenters state that they are concerned about the possible traffic impacts around the
subdivision, the Windsor 101, and the intersection of Old Redwood Highway and Windsor River
Road. Refer to Response to Comments 3-7, 6-3, 9-6 and 13-1 regarding these issues.
The commenters state that they are concerned about the construction of the proposed sewage lake that
would be adjacent to their home, about the water, sewer, and wastewater treatment, and how the
proposed project will impact the wildlife and natural landscape. As stated within, no “sewage lake” is
proposed: only a storage pond for highly treated effluent. Refer to Response to Comment 3-9, 3-11,
3-14, 3-16, 3-29, and 9-4 for responses relating to water resources. Please see Responses to
Comments 10-15 through 10-19 in the Final EA (Volume I), and Response to Comments 4-36, 4-41,
4-63 and 4-64 regarding impacts to biological resources due to the Proposed Project.
The commenters state they are concerned about what will happen if the property is taken into trust,
and ask whether the property will be subject to local or state environmental zoning or development
laws. The commenters state that the Proposed Project will affect the Town of Windsor as well as local
property values. As noted in Response to Comments 3-24 and 3-25 and Section 4.1.8 of the Final
EA, local land use and zoning designations, including the Sonoma County General Plan and the Town
of Windsor General Plan, would no longer apply after the land is taken into trust. Refer to Response
to Comment 4-23 for responses related to decreases in property values.
The commenters state that the most recently purchased properties by the Tribe are not in the Final
EA, and request that a comprehensive study be completed that would include these properties. Refer
to Response to Comment 2-1 regarding this issue.
LETTER 33 – CHRISTINE KEEL
June 2012
87
The commenter states that they are a long-time resident of Windsor and opposed to the Proposed
Project, noting that if the Tribe is granted the trust it will not be under the same rules and regulations
as the commenter. The commenter notes that once the land is in trust, the Tribe will be able to build
whatever they want on the property. The commenter also expresses concern regarding impacts on
roads, water, and sewage. Please see Response to Comments 3-3, 3-24, 3-25, 4-6, 4-7, 4-19, and 468 regarding land use designations use of the site, and enforcement of mitigation. Refer to Response
to Comments 3-7, 3-11, 3-12, 3-14, 3-16, 3-29, 6-3, 9-6 and 13-1 regarding impacts on roads, water,
and sewage. Refer to Response to Comments 2-6 and 4-3 regarding the completeness of the Final
EA.
LETTER 34 – RAY F. WARD
The commenter requests that a full EIS be completed, not just an EA, and that the EIS should include
all acquired acreage. Please see Response to Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS.
Refer to Response to Comment 2-1 regarding other properties owned by the Tribe.
The commenter states that by not having a comprehensive idea for what is planned, mitigation
measures for the future impact to Windsor and the surrounding area cannot be accurately determined.
As stated in General Responses 3.1.1 and 3.1.5, and reiterated in Response to Comments 4-3 and 410, Alternative A (Proposed Project) consists of placing 124.12-acres into Federal trust status for the
Tribe and the construction of 147 residential units and associated facilities. The Final EA complies
with the provisions of NEPA; impacts and mitigation measures were adequately identified in the
Final EA. Refer to Response to Comments 4-19 and 4-68 regarding mitigation measures.
The commenter expresses concern regarding impacts to traffic, and asserts that only one primary and
two secondary roads can service the Proposed Project site. As stated in Response to Comments 3-7,
6-3, 9-6 and 13-1 above, traffic impacts have been analyzed both for the near term and cumulative
conditions in Sections 4.1.7, 4.2.7, and 4.3.7 of the EA. All traffic impacts will be mitigated as
specified.
The commenter expresses concern regarding sewer/wastewater treatment, and notes that without
complete knowledge of anticipated plans, solutions to the Tribe’s water treatment cannot be assessed.
Details regarding the WTRF process can be found in Final EA Section 2.2.3 and Appendix B. Refer
to Response to Comment 3-14, 3-16, and 3-29 regarding the proposed WTRF and its potential
impacts.
June 2012
88
The commenter expresses concern regarding impacts to schools and asks if the Tribe will send
students to the Windsor school system. The commenter asks if additional facilities need to be
incorporated or if the Tribe is going to build its own school. Refer to Response to Comment 4-17
regarding impacts to schools.
The commenter expresses concern regarding the impacts on Windsor public services including fire,
police, and water. The commenter asks if more police or fire protection services will be needed.
Refer to General Response 3.1.13 and Response to Comments 4-18, 4-24, and 9-5 regarding
impacts to public and county services, including police and fire. Refer to Response to Comment 311 regarding impacts to water resources.
The commenter states that there are too many unknowns with this project to proceed without more
public and Town of Windsor discussions and information. Comment noted. Refer to Response to
Comment 29-7 regarding these issues.
LETTER 35 – GRETCHEN A. PEMBERTON
The commenter states that they live on the edge of the Town of Windsor and they strongly oppose the
Proposed Project, stating that the development will ruin the area. The commenter states that the trees,
wildlife, and rural ambiance will be destroyed. The commenter states that no one should be allowed
to destroy the on-site oak grove and build 130 housing units there. The commenter is incorrect
regarding the number of housing units proposed for the project site; as detailed General Response
3.1.1 and in Section 1.2 of the Final EA, and Response to Comments 3-25 and 4-15, Alternative A
(Proposed Project) consists of placing a 124.12-acre site into Federal trust status for the Tribe and
constructing 147 residential units and associated facilities, not 130. With regards to impacts to oak
trees, please see General Response 3.1.3 in the Final EA (Volume 1) and Response to Comments 436 through 4-42 above.
The commenter states that Windsor River Road will not accommodate an increase in traffic, as they
already face congestion problems on that road during peak hours. The commenter states that Windsor
schools, local law enforcement, and the Windsor infrastructure cannot accommodate the Proposed
Project. As stated in Response to Comments 3-7, 6-3, 9-6 and 13-1, traffic impacts have been
analyzed both for immediate and cumulative conditions in Sections 4.1.7, 4.2.7, and 4.3.7 of the Final
EA. Please see Response to Comment 4-17 above, Final EA General Response 3.1.13, and Section
4.1.9 of the Final EA regarding impacts to schools. Refer to Final EA General Response 3.1.13 and
June 2012
89
Response to Comments 4-18, 4-24, and 9-5 regarding impacts to public and county services,
including police and fire.
The commenter expresses their displeasure with the Proposed Project, and questions how the
Proposed Project will affect the value of their home. The commenter also states that the Tribe refuses
to promise to not build a casino. Refer to Response to Comment 4-23 for responses related to
decreases in property values. Refer to Response to Comments 4-6 and 4-7 regarding the
construction of a casino on-site.
LETTER 36 – SUZETTE WARD
The commenter requests that a full EIS be completed, not just an EA, and that the EIS should include
all acquired acreage. The commenter states that recent purchases have been increasingly close to
housing developments, but that they may not need to follow city zoning codes. Refer to Response to
Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS. Refer to Response to Comment 2-1
regarding other properties owned by the Tribe. While is it true that the Tribe would not follow city
zoning codes once the site is placed into trust, the Proposed Project’s site plan is generally compatible
with both Sonoma County and Town of Windsor land use designations and zoning. Refer to
Response to Comment 3-24 and 3-25 regarding land use zonings and impacts.
The commenter expresses concern regarding impacts to traffic, given that Windsor is a small town
with limited road options. Refer to Response to Comments 3-7, 6-3, 9-6 and 13-1 for responses
related to traffic impacts. As stated in Section 2.1.7 of the Final EA, the Proposed Project would
install three stop signs at project access driveways, and signage would be provided for new roadways.
The commenter states that they have concerns regarding the impacts of the sewer/wastewater
treatment and distaste for the potential construction of a wastewater treatment plant directly behind
the Deer Creek housing development. The commenter states that her property value has already
declined drastically and the construction of a wastewater treatment plant nearby will further reduce its
value. The commenter states that the Tribe should have a wastewater treatment facility in a remote
quadrant. Refer to Final EA Section 2.2.3 and Response to Comment 3-14, 3-16, and 3-29
regarding the proposed wastewater treatment facility, the effluent storage basin, and potential
impacts. Refer to Response to Comment 4-23 regarding real estate values.
The commenter expresses concern regarding impacts to schools, and asks what the plan is for the
June 2012
90
influx of children. Refer to Response to Comments 4-17 and 17-4, Final EA General Response
3.1.13 and Final EA Section 4.1.6 regarding impacts to taxation and schools.
The commenter expresses concern regarding impacts on Windsor Public services including fire,
police, and water. The commenter also states that the validity of the tribe is questionable, and would
like to see this resolved before moving forward. Refer to Final EA General Response 3.1.13 and
Response to Comments 4-18, 4-24, and 9-5 regarding impacts to fire and police services. Refer to
Response to Comment 3-11 regarding impacts to water resources. Refer to Response to Comment
17-7 regarding the stipulated judgment restoring the Lytton Rancheria as a tribe in 1991 and their
eligibility for receiving services from the BIA.
The commenter states that there are too many unknowns with this project to proceed without more
public and Town of Windsor discussions and information. Comment noted. Refer to Response to
Comment 29-7 regarding these issues.
LETTER 37 – GRETCHEN A. PEMBERTON
The commenter states that they live on the edge of the Town of Windsor and they strongly oppose the
Proposed Project, stating that the development will ruin the area. The commenter states that the trees,
wildlife, and rural ambiance will be destroyed. The commenter states that no one should be allowed
to destroy the on-site oak grove and build 130 housing units there. The commenter notes it’s a special
place and has seen deer, rabbits and maybe even a fox on the property. Refer to response to
Comments 10-15 through 10-19 in the Final EA (Volume I), and Response to Comments 4-36, 4-41,
4-63, 4-64, 19-18, 19-19, and 19-20 regarding impacts to biological resources due to the Proposed
Project. The commenter is incorrect regarding the number of housing units proposed for the project
site; as detailed General Response 3.1.1 and in Section 1.2 of the Final EA, and Response to
Comments 3-25 and 4-15, Alternative A (Proposed Project) consists of placing a 124.12-acre site
into Federal trust status for the Tribe and constructing 147 residential units and associated facilities,
not 130.
The commenter states that Windsor River Road will not accommodate an increase in traffic, as they
already face congestion problems on that road during peak hours. The commenter states that Windsor
schools, local law enforcement, and the Windsor infrastructure cannot accommodate the Proposed
Project. As stated in Response to Comments 3-7, 6-3, 9-6 and 13-1, traffic impacts have been
analyzed both for immediate and cumulative conditions in Sections 4.1.7, 4.2.7, and 4.3.7 of the Final
EA. Please see Response to Comment 4-17 above, Final EA General Response 3.1.13, and Section
June 2012
91
4.1.9 of the Final EA regarding impacts to schools. Refer to Final EA General Response 3.1.13 and
Response to Comments 4-18, 4-24, and 9-5 regarding impacts to public and county services,
including police and fire.
The commenter expresses their displeasure with the Proposed Project, and questions how the
Proposed Project will affect the value of their home. The commenter also states that the Tribe refuses
to promise to not build a casino. Refer to Response to Comment 4-23 for responses related to
decreases in property values. Refer to Response to Comments 3-3, 4-6 and 4-7 regarding the
construction of a casino on-site.
LETTER 38 – BRAD BLODOW
The commenter states that a full EIS must be completed for all acquired land. Refer to Response to
Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS. Refer to Response to Comment 2-1
regarding other parcels owned by the Tribe.
The commenter expresses concern regarding impacts to traffic. Refer to Response to Comments 3-7,
6-3, 9-6 and 13-1 for responses relating to impacts to traffic.
The commenter states he has concerns regarding water and wastewater treatment. Refer to Response
to Comments 3-11, 3-14, 3-16, and 3-29 for regarding impacts to water resources due to the
proposed treatment plant.
The commenter expresses concern regarding impacts to schools including overcrowding, traffic, after
school activities, and wonders if financial support will be given by the Tribe. The commenter also
expresses concern regarding impacts to public services. Refer to Response to Comments 4-17
regarding impacts to schools and related issues. Refer to Response to Comments 4-18, 4-24 and 9-5
regarding impacts to public services. Please see Response to Comments 3-7, 6-3, 9-6, and 13-1
regarding traffic impacts due to the Proposed Project.
The commenter asks if taking the land into trust is legal. The commenter asks why the Tribe should
get preferential treatment. Refer to Response to Comment 4-10 regarding this issue.
June 2012
92
The commenter states that there are too many unknowns, and that there needs to be a stop to urban
sprawl because it promotes urban decay. The commenter does not specify what additional
information is needed. Comment noted. Please refer to Final EA General Response 3.1.16
LETTER 39 – BOB & JAN SMITS
The commenters state their opposition that the Tribe has completed an EA instead of an EIS. The
commenters state that the EA doesn’t include all the property owned by the Tribe. Refer to Response
to Comments 2-1, 2-7 and 4-5 regarding other parcels owned by the Tribe and the need for an EIS.
The commenters state that they would like to see a full EIS completed. The commenters state the
Proposed Project will impact hundreds of trees and will displace wildlife. The commenters remark
that the Tribe will likely construct a casino. Refer to Response to Comments 2-7, 3-3, 4-5, 4-6, and
4-7 regarding the construction of a casino on-site and the need for an EIS. Refer to Final EA General
Response 3.1.3, Appendix E in the Final EA (Volume III), and Response to Comments 4-36, 4-41,
4-63, 4-64, 19-18, 19-19, and 19-20 regarding impacts to biological resources due to the Proposed
Project.
The commenters express concern regarding impacts to traffic. Please see Response to Comments 37, 6-3, 9-6 and 13-1 regarding traffic impacts due to the Proposed Project.
The commenters note that a 4.5-acre wastewater lake is proposed to be developed behind their
neighborhood, and expresses concern regarding odor and questions what the recourse will be. Please
see Sections 2.2.6, 4.2.3, and 4.3.3 of the EA for an analysis of odor impacts from the proposed
WTRF. As stated in Response to Comment 3-29, the use of an odor control system would ensure
the minimal release of odors.
The commenters state that once the property becomes a sovereign nation, the Tribe can do whatever it
wants without abiding by the same rules and regulations as their neighbors. Please see Response to
Comment 3-24, 3-25, 4-3, 4-6, 4-7, 4-10, 4-19, and 4-68 for specific responses relating land use
designations, project alternatives, impacts to resources, and enforcement of mitigation measures.
LETTER 40 – JAN MACINNIS
June 2012
93
The commenter states that limited water supply is an issue in the area and that they are consistently
told to restrict water usage. The commenter asks why water is not a concern when determining if this
development should be allowed. Refer to Final EA Sections 4.1.2, and 4.2.2 and Response to
Comments 3-9, 3-11, 3-12, 3-14, and 3-16 regarding impacts to water resources.
The commenter remarks that the Proposed Project will impact roads and there is insufficient money
for road improvement. Refer to Response to Comments 3-7, 6-3, 9-6 and 13-1 regarding traffic
impacts. As stated in Final EA Section 5.7, the Tribe shall pay a proportionate share for necessary
intersection improvements due to potential impacts for the Cumulative Plus project traffic conditions
in the Year 2030.
The commenter states that sewage is a huge impact. Refer to Final EA Sections 4.1.2, and 4.2.2
Response to Comments 2-3, 3-14, 3-16, 3-29, and 9-4 regarding impacts to water resources and the
conveyance of wastewater should the Proposed Project connect to the Town of Windsor. The
commenter also notes that the Town of Windsor will be impacted due to the proximity of the
Proposed Project. Comment noted. Please refer to Final EA General Response 3.1.16 regarding
comments that express an opinion without providing substantive information or data indicating a need
for additional analysis.
The commenter states that impacts of the Proposed Project will be greater if the Tribe is exempted
from following local laws and paying taxes. The commenter states that a future casino has no place
in the area. The commenter states that the Tribe used money from its casino to purchase the parcels
for the Proposed Project with the intention of building another casino. Please see Response to
Comments 4-17, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, and 4-24 regarding impacts to taxes. Refer to Response to
Comment 3-24 regarding compliance with local and state laws. Refer to Final EA General
Response 3.1.9 and Response to Comments 3-3, 4-6 and 4-7 regarding the construction of a casino
on-site.
The commenter requests clarification regarding development on the entire 168 acres, and why the
purchase of additional acreage was necessary. As stated in Final EA General Response 3.1.1, Final
EA Section 1.1, and Response to Comment 4-10, the Proposed Project is the taking of 124.12 acres
into trust on behalf of the Tribe. Refer to Response to Comment 2-1 regarding other parcels owned
by the Tribe.
June 2012
94
The commenter requests a complete EIS. The commenter does not want the land in trust and the
Tribe exempted from taxes and inspections. The commenter states that the residents of Windsor
demand to have the Proposed Project regulated according to California and local laws. Refer to
Response to Comments 2-7 and 4-5 regarding the need for an EIS. Refer to Response to
regulations. Please see Response to Comments 4-17, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, and 4-24 regarding impacts
to taxes. Refer to Response to Comments 4-19 and 4-68 regarding enforcement of mitigation
measures.
LETTER 41 – KENNETH GENZ
The commenter expresses concerns regarding groundwater impacts. Refer to Response to
Comments 3-9 and 3-11 regarding specific responses relating to impacts to groundwater resources.
The commenter expresses concerns regarding wastewater treatment and disposal, odor from the
Proposed Project, and the destruction of his personal views. The commenter states that roads,
pipelines, and access to the storage pond have not been addressed, and would like to know the volume
of water expected to be stored in the pond. The commenter appreciates that recycled water will be
used to irrigate the property, but hopes the larger trees will not be harmed during construction of the
Proposed Project. The commenter asks what the area south of the pond will be used for, and states
that most of the land would not be suitable for irrigation due to impacts on winter creeks in that area.
The commenter is also concerned about the drainage that runs from his property into these winter
creeks, and wonders whether they will be blocked or used to discharge wastewater in the winter.
Refer to Response to Comment 3-14, 3-16, and 3-29 regarding the proposed wastewater treatment
facility, the capacity of the effluent pond, impacts to water resources, and odor mitigation. The area
below the effluent pond has no proposed plans. Refer to Response to Comment 13-4 regarding
effluent discharge to surface water. Refer to Response to Comments 4-47 and 4-48 regarding pipe
design and capacity. As stated in Final EA Sections 2.2 and 2.1.7, rural roadways would be
constructed to provide access to on-site residences and facilities. These rural roadways would be 24feet wide, two lane asphalt travel ways, with gravel shoulders consistent with Sonoma County
Subdivision and Fire safe Standards. Refer to Response to Comment 4-36 regarding impacts to oak
trees on the project site. There are no plans to block drainage onto the project site. Refer to
Response to Comment 4-58 regarding impacts to visual resources and the Proposed Project’s general
conformance with Sonoma County’s Rural Design guidelines.
The commenter expresses concern regarding impacts to trees and wildlife. Refer to Sections 4.1.4 and
4.2.4 and Response to Comments 4-36, 4-41, 4-63, 4-64, 19-18, 19-19, and 19-20 regarding impacts
June 2012
95
to biological resources due to the Proposed Project.
The commenter states that if the Proposed Project is accepted, the Tribe would not abide by the same
laws and regulations he does. The commenter requests clarification or additional information
regarding expansion plans, housing density, and resident Tribal density. The commenter states that
impacts to traffic will also occur. As stated in Response to Comments 3-24 and 3-25, once the land
is taken into trust, local land use and zoning designations will no longer apply. Refer to Response to
Comments 4-19 and 4-68 regarding enforcement of mitigation measures. Refer to Response to
Comments 4-3 and 4-10 regarding the purpose and need of the Proposed Action and a description of
the Proposed Project. There are no plans at this time for development beyond what is described in the
Final EA. Please see Response to Comments 3-7, 6-3, 9-6 and 13-1 regarding traffic impacts due to
the Proposed Project.
The commenter expresses concern regarding the proposed sewer and water systems included in
Alternatives B and C. The commenter is also concerned about the effect Alternative A will have on
the Town’s water and sewer systems. The commenter asks what is planned for development north of
Windsor River Road below the effluent pond. The commenter asks about future occupants of the
property, and whether noise will be regulated. Refer to Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.2 and Response to
Comments 3-10, 3-14, 3-16, 3-29 and 9-4 regarding water and wastewater conveyance for
Alternatives A, B, and C. Refer to Response to Comment 41-2 regarding land use below the
effluent pond. Refer to Response to Comment 4-53 regarding noise impacts due to the Proposed
Project.
COMMENT LETTER 42 – HOLLY JORDAN & TIMOTHY AUER
The commenters express concern regarding the project’s location in a designated rural scenic
viewshed adjacent to the Russian River. The commenter states that an EIS must be prepared. As
stated in Section 3.12, APNs 066-300-028 and 066-300-033 are located within the Eastside Road
Scenic Landscape Unit. Refer to Response to Comment 4-58 regarding impacts to visual resources
and Response to Comment 19-27 regarding impacts to visual resources within the Eastside Road
Scenic Landscape Unit. Refer to Response to Comments 3-24 and 3-25 for discussion related to
land use impacts and applicable zoning regulations. Refer to Response to Comments 2-7 and 4-5
The commenters ask what the traffic impacts will result from the Proposed Project. Please see Final
EA Sections 4.1.7 and 4.2.7 and Response to Comments 3-7, 6-3, 9-6 and 13-1 regarding the
June 2012
96
Proposed Project’s impacts on traffic.
The commenters ask what impact the proposed sewage lake will have on groundwater quality, the
Russian River and its habitat due to the frequent flooding that occurs with regulatory in the area.
Refer to Final EA General Response 3.1.2, Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.2, and Response to Comments 316 and 4-52 regarding these issues. The effluent pond will have no impact on flooding due to its
distant proximity to the Russian River.
The commenters ask what impacts would result from the project runoff. Refer to Response to
The commenters ask how the project will impact local wildlife. Refer to Final EA Sections 4.1.4 and
4.2.4 and Response to Comments 4-36, 4-41, 4-63, 4-64, 19-18, 19-19, and 19-20 regarding impacts
to biological resources resulting from the Proposed Project.
The commenters state that the Tribe has not consented to sign a binding document agreeing to never
develop the land for a casino. The commenter requests that this agreement be included in the trust
acquisition. Please see Final EA General Response 3.1.9, and Response to Comments 3-3, 4-6 and
4-7 regarding land use and the construction of an on-site casino.
COMMENT LETTER 43 – STEPHEN MOORHOUSE
The commenter expresses concern regarding the Proposed Project. The commenter remarks that
changes to zoning and laws were used to rob Native Americans of land and rights in the nineteenth
century, and now revenue generated by casinos is enabling Native Americans to do the same. The
commenter encourages the BIA to consider the fact that the City of Windsor, the County, and the
former governor of California oppose the project. The commenter also states that the five acre
minimum for building in the County was established by a County vote. Comments noted. Refer to
Response to Comments 3-24 and 3-25 regarding land use impacts, applicable zoning regulations,
and conformance with the Sonoma County General Plan.
The commenter requests preparation of an EIS to address the issues of water and sewage. The
commenter notes that attorneys representing the Tribe expressed the idea that water shortages for
nearby neighbors following construction of the groundwater well was “not their problem.” Refer to
Final EA Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.2, and Response to Comments 3-9 and 3-11 regarding impacts to
June 2012
97
water resources, including groundwater. Refer to Final EA General Response 3.1.2 and Response
to Comments 3-14, 3-16, 3-29, and 9-4 regarding water and wastewater conveyance and treatment
for Alternatives A, B, and C.
COMMENT LETTER 44 – STEPHEN RIOS & ELIZABETH ACOSTA
The commenters express concern regarding the Proposed Project’s negative impact on the
environment and Town resources. The commenter states that the site is currently zoned for “estate
residential” which allows less development than what the project proposes. The commenters are
concerned that the local and County governments would not be able to regulate future developments
on the project site after the property is taken into trust. The commenters state that the Town of
Windsor was developed in order to achieve the greatest environmental, social, economic, and
aesthetic benefit for all citizens. The commenters state that if land is taken into Federal trust, the
Town of Windsor would have no control over future structures being built in accordance with Town
plans. The commenters state that the impacts to schools, roads, traffic, Town water, police, and fire
services would be significant. The commenters are concerned that a casino or other establishment
will be built later without disclosing the information or seeking approval. Refer to Final EA General
Response 3.1.12, Final EA Section 4.1.8, and Response to Comments 3-24 and 3-25 regarding land
use impacts, applicable zoning regulations, and conformance with the Sonoma County General Plan
and the Town of Windsor General Plan. Refer to Final EA General Response 3.1.6, Final EA
Sections 4.1.9 and 4.2.9, and Response to Comment 4-17 regarding impacts to schools. Please see
Final EA General Response 3.1.4, Final EA Section 4.1.7, and Response to Comments 3-7, 6-3, 96 and 13-1 regarding traffic impacts resulting from the Proposed Project. Refer to Final EA General
Response 3.1.2, Final EA Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.2, and Response to Comments 3-9, 3-11, 3-14, 316, and 3-17 regarding impacts to water resources. Refer to Final EA General Response 3.1.13,
Final EA Sections 4.1.9 and 4.2.9, and Response to Comments 4-18, 4-24, 4-28, and 9-5 regarding
impacts to public and county services, including police and fire. Refer to Final EA General
Responses 3.1.5 and 3.1.9, and Response to Comments 3-3, 4-6 and 4-7 regarding the construction
of an on-site casino.
The commenter states that the size and scope of the Proposed Project would create a burden for the
local government and community. The commenter believes the EA is inadequate and incomplete,
and requests that the Proposed Project be rejected. Refer to Response to Comments 2-6, 4-3, and 4-5
regarding the completeness of the EA and the need for further documentation. Refer to Response to
Comment 44-1 for responses regarding specific impacts due to the Proposed Project, including
public services. All impacts due to the Proposed Project were thoroughly analyzed in the Final EA.
No significant effects would occur after the implementation of mitigation measures stated in Final EA
Section 5.0.
June 2012
98
COMMENT LETTER 45 – DONNA ARNSTEIN
The commenter states that she is opposed to the Proposed Project because it would remove parcels
from County tax rolls. Please see Response to Comments 4-17, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, and 4-24 regarding
impacts to taxes.
June 2012
99
References
AASHTO, 2004. "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2004 ( 5th Ed. )"
Amer Assn of State Hwy
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2009. Technical Noise Supplement. Available
online at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/. Viewed on August 26, 2011.
Hilty J., and A. Merenlender. 2002. Vineyard Landscape, Wildlife Activity Along Creek Corridors.
Available online at: http://www.practicalwinery.com/novdec02/novdec02p6.htm.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2008. Trip Generation, 8th edition. Institute of Traffic
Engineers (ITE), 2008.
Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibians and Reptiles of Special Concern. California
Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division.
Kringen-Henein, K., and G. Merriam. 1990. The elements of connectivity where corridor quality is
variable. Landscape Ecology 4: 157-170.
Rathbun, G.B., N.J. Scott, Jr., and T.G. Murphey. 2002. Terrestrial habitat use by Pacific pond
turtles in a Mediterranean climate. The Southwestern Naturalist 47: 225-235.
Reese, D.A. and H.H. Welsh. 1997. Use of terrestrial habitat by western pond turtles, Clemmys
marmorata: Implications for management. Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and
Management of Tortoises and Turtles. An International Conference: 352-357.
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evans, 2009. A manual of California vegetation. Second
Edition. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California.
Sonoma County. 2008. Sonoma County General Plan 2020; updated December 2009. Available at:
http://www.sonoma-county.org/prmd/gp2020/index.html. Accessed October, 2011.
Tewksbury, J.J., Levey, D.J., Haddad, N.M., Sargent, S., Orrock, J.L., Weldon, A., Danielson, B.J.,
Brinkerhoff, J., Damschen, E.I., and Townsend, P. 2002. Corridors affect plants, animals,
and their interactions in fragmented landscapes. PNAS, 99: 12,923 – 12,926.
U.S. Environmental Protection Services (EPA), 2011. Afforestation and Reforestation sequestration
emission factors. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/rates.html. Viewed
on August 25, 2011.
June 2012
100
ATTACHMENTS TO EXHIBIT B
ATTACHMENT A
REVISED SYNCHRO LOS CALCULATIONS
Queues
8: Windsor River Rd. & US-101 SB Ramps
Lane Group
Lane Group Flow (vph)
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Background AM Volumes
9/14/2011
EBT
698
0.42
19.4
0.0
19.4
154
221
598
EBR WBL
449
290
0.46 0.84
3.5 39.4
0.0
0.0
3.5 39.4
0
146
58 m191
WBT
1069
0.71
6.9
0.0
6.9
82
98
928
SBL
126
0.38
39.3
0.0
39.3
74
133
SBT
167
0.39
8.6
0.0
8.6
1
58
712
1659
0
0
0
0.42
981
0
0
0
0.46
1524
0
0
0
0.70
328
0
0
0
0.38
428
0
0
0
0.39
451
0
0
0
0.64
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Movement
EBL
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
0
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
9/14/2011
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
642
0.92
698
0
698
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
413
0.92
449
238
211
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
458
0.92
498
0
290
Prot
3
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3358
0.60
2047
792
0.92
861
0
1069
1900
1900
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.85
1.00
1506
1.00
1506
1
0.92
1
134
33
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
116
0.92
126
0
126
Prot
1
21.6
21.6
0.22
4.0
3.0
348
c0.18
72.5
72.5
0.72
4.0
3.0
1767
0.13
c0.31
0.60
6.7
0.90
0.4
6.5
A
12.8
B
19.5
19.5
0.20
4.0
3.0
328
c0.07
19.5
19.5
0.20
4.0
3.0
294
0.02
0.38
35.0
1.00
0.8
35.8
D
0.11
33.1
1.00
0.2
33.3
C
34.4
C
4
46.9
46.9
0.47
4.0
3.0
1660
0.20
0.42
17.6
1.00
0.2
17.7
B
17.2
B
4
46.9
46.9
0.47
4.0
3.0
742
0.13
0.28
16.3
1.00
0.2
16.5
B
16.9
0.60
100.0
67.0%
15
0.83
37.5
0.67
11.0
36.1
D
8
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
0.0
A
153
0.92
166
0
0
6
B
8.0
C
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
Queues
9: Windsor River Rd. & US-101 NB Ramps
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
9/14/2011
EBL
386
0.81
42.7
0.0
42.7
126
#178
EBT
450
0.51
11.5
0.0
11.5
207
326
928
WBT
779
0.74
35.6
0.0
35.6
229
303
1416
NBL
277
0.85
62.7
0.0
62.7
169
#294
NBT
314
0.48
34.4
0.0
34.4
82
124
1192
SBL
326
0.85
58.1
0.0
58.1
197
#334
SBR
820
0.68
8.9
0.0
8.9
189
316
489
0
0
0
0.79
890
0
0
0
0.51
1049
0
0
0
0.74
354
0
0
0
0.78
712
0
0
0
0.44
407
0
0
0
0.80
1228
0
0
0
0.67
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
Movement
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
9/14/2011
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
355
0.92
386
0
386
Prot
1
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
414
0.92
450
0
450
1900
1900
1900
1900
4.0
0.95
0.97
1.00
3417
1.00
3417
223
0.92
242
29
285
6
2
7
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
300
0.92
326
0
326
Prot
8
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
255
0.92
277
0
277
Split
7
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.96
1.00
3395
1.00
3395
523
0.92
568
37
742
13.9
13.9
0.14
4.0
3.0
477
c0.11
47.7
47.7
0.48
4.0
3.0
889
0.24
29.8
29.8
0.30
4.0
3.0
1012
0.22
18.5
18.5
0.18
4.0
3.0
327
c0.16
18.5
18.5
0.18
4.0
3.0
632
0.08
21.8
21.8
0.22
4.0
3.0
386
c0.18
0.81
41.8
0.69
9.1
38.1
D
0.51
18.0
0.50
0.4
9.4
A
22.6
C
0.73
31.5
1.00
4.7
36.2
D
36.2
D
0.85
39.4
1.00
18.0
57.4
E
0.45
36.2
1.00
0.5
36.8
D
46.4
D
0.84
37.5
1.00
15.4
52.9
D
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
29.8
0.77
100.0
91.5%
15
194
0.92
211
0
0
66
0.92
72
0
0
SBR
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0
754
0.92 0.92
0
820
0
54
0
766
custom
8
6
69.5
69.5
0.70
4.0
3.0
1164
c0.14
0.34
0.66
8.6
1.00
1.4
9.9
A
22.2
C
C
12.0
F
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Background PM Volumes
9/14/2011
EBT
938
0.49
15.8
0.0
15.8
196
250
598
EBR WBL
372
237
0.36 0.82
2.4 49.8
0.0
0.0
2.4 49.8
0
138
43 m176
WBT
1157
0.76
4.1
0.0
4.1
28
m31
928
SBL
173
0.64
51.4
0.0
51.4
109
#189
SBT
228
0.65
28.4
0.0
28.4
66
153
712
1916
0
0
0
0.49
1028
0
0
0
0.36
1517
0
0
0
0.76
269
0
0
0
0.64
349
0
0
0
0.65
322
0
0
0
0.74
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
Movement
EBL
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
0
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
9/14/2011
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
863
0.92
938
0
938
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
342
0.92
372
171
201
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
333
0.92
362
0
237
Prot
3
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3372
0.66
2242
949
0.92
1032
0
1157
1900
1900
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.89
0.99
1554
0.99
1554
1
0.92
1
101
127
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
213
0.92
232
0
173
Prot
1
17.9
17.9
0.18
4.0
3.0
288
c0.15
76.0
76.0
0.76
4.0
3.0
1906
0.11
c0.35
0.61
5.3
0.48
0.3
2.8
A
10.2
B
16.0
16.0
0.16
4.0
3.0
269
c0.10
16.0
16.0
0.16
4.0
3.0
249
0.08
0.64
39.3
1.00
5.2
44.5
D
0.51
38.4
1.00
1.8
40.2
D
42.1
D
4
54.1
54.1
0.54
4.0
3.0
1915
0.27
0.49
14.3
1.00
0.2
14.5
B
13.9
B
4
54.1
54.1
0.54
4.0
3.0
856
0.13
0.24
12.1
1.00
0.1
12.2
B
15.8
0.65
100.0
70.8%
15
0.82
39.5
0.92
9.6
46.0
D
8
0.0
A
155
0.92
168
0
0
6
B
8.0
C
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
9/14/2011
EBL
485
1.09
99.8
0.0
99.8
~181
#272
EBT
605
0.77
23.5
0.0
23.5
174
221
928
WBT
1011
1.06
78.1
0.0
78.1
~331
#462
1416
NBL
466
0.53
19.7
0.0
19.7
193
285
NBT SBL
773
461
0.99 1.08
69.6 105.9
0.0
0.0
69.6 105.9
252 ~332
#383 #525
1192
SBR
843
0.85
20.8
0.0
20.8
253
#556
446
0
0
0
1.09
782
0
0
0
0.77
953
0
0
0
1.06
885
0
0
0
0.53
777
0
0
0
0.99
993
0
0
0
0.85
425
0
0
0
1.08
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
Movement
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
9/14/2011
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
446
0.92
485
0
485
Prot
7
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
557
0.92
605
0
605
1900
1900
1900
1900
4.0
0.95
0.97
1.00
3434
1.00
3434
570
0.92
620
22
751
4
8
2
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
424
0.92
461
0
461
Prot
1
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
429
0.92
466
0
466
Prot
6
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.94
1.00
3323
1.00
3323
552
0.92
600
122
889
13.0
13.0
0.13
4.0
3.0
446
c0.14
42.0
42.0
0.42
4.0
3.0
782
0.32
25.0
25.0
0.25
4.0
3.0
831
c0.27
50.0 22.0
50.0 22.0
0.50 0.22
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
885
755
0.26 c0.22
24.0
24.0
0.24
4.0
3.0
425
c0.26
1.09
43.5
0.78
65.5
99.2
F
0.77
24.9
0.66
4.2
20.6
C
55.6
E
1.07
37.5
1.00
51.5
89.0
F
89.0
F
0.53
17.0
1.00
0.6
17.5
B
1.08
38.0
1.00
68.4
106.4
F
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
61.4
1.06
100.0
109.2%
15
378
0.92
411
0
0
141
0.92
153
0
0
0.99
38.9
1.00
31.5
70.5
E
50.6
D
SBR
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0
776
0.92 0.92
0
843
0
201
0
642
custom
6
50.0
50.0
0.50
4.0
3.0
792
0.41
0.81
21.0
1.00
6.3
27.3
C
55.3
E
E
16.0
H
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Background +Project AM Volumes
9/14/2011
EBT
713
0.42
18.4
0.0
18.4
148
217
598
EBR WBL WBT
473
291 1112
0.47 0.84 0.72
3.4 44.0
9.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4 44.0
9.0
0
172
102
57 m218 m197
928
SBL
126
0.42
41.2
0.0
41.2
75
135
SBT
190
0.45
9.1
0.0
9.1
1
62
712
1717
0
0
0
0.42
1011
0
0
0
0.47
303
0
0
0
0.42
426
0
0
0
0.45
435
0
0
0
0.67
1541
0
0
0
0.72
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
Movement
EBL
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
0
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
9/14/2011
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
656
0.92
713
0
713
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
435
0.92
473
244
229
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
458
0.92
498
0
291
Prot
3
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3359
0.61
2057
833
0.92
905
0
1112
1900
1900
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.85
1.00
1506
1.00
1506
1
0.92
1
155
35
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
116
0.92
126
0
126
Prot
1
21.5
21.5
0.22
4.0
3.0
346
c0.18
74.0
74.0
0.74
4.0
3.0
1802
0.13
c0.32
0.62
6.2
1.39
0.4
9.0
A
15.7
B
18.0
18.0
0.18
4.0
3.0
303
c0.07
18.0
18.0
0.18
4.0
3.0
271
0.02
0.42
36.3
1.00
0.9
37.3
D
0.13
34.4
1.00
0.2
34.6
C
35.7
D
4
48.5
48.5
0.48
4.0
3.0
1716
0.20
0.42
16.6
1.00
0.2
16.8
B
16.4
B
4
48.5
48.5
0.48
4.0
3.0
768
0.14
0.30
15.5
1.00
0.2
15.7
B
18.1
0.62
100.0
69.7%
15
0.84
37.6
0.79
11.3
41.1
D
8
0.0
A
174
0.92
189
0
0
6
B
8.0
C
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
9/14/2011
EBL
388
0.81
57.1
0.0
57.1
138
#203
EBT
450
0.52
21.7
0.0
21.7
251
350
928
WBT
779
0.77
36.8
0.0
36.8
229
303
1416
NBL
320
0.40
19.8
0.0
19.8
127
195
NBT
314
0.44
33.3
0.0
33.3
82
124
1192
SBL
326
0.87
61.5
0.0
61.5
197
#334
SBR
823
0.87
23.3
0.0
23.3
241
#532
481
0
0
0
0.81
872
0
0
0
0.52
1015
0
0
0
0.77
832
0
0
0
0.38
712
0
0
0
0.44
407
0
0
0
0.80
964
0
0
0
0.85
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
Movement
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
9/14/2011
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
357
0.92
388
0
388
Prot
7
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
414
0.92
450
0
450
1900
1900
1900
1900
4.0
0.95
0.97
1.00
3417
1.00
3417
223
0.92
242
28
286
4
8
2
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
300
0.92
326
0
326
Prot
1
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
294
0.92
320
0
320
Prot
6
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.96
1.00
3395
1.00
3395
523
0.92
568
37
742
14.0
14.0
0.14
4.0
3.0
481
c0.11
46.8
46.8
0.47
4.0
3.0
872
0.24
28.8
28.8
0.29
4.0
3.0
978
c0.22
45.2
45.2
0.45
4.0
3.0
800
0.18
20.0
20.0
0.20
4.0
3.0
683
0.08
21.2
21.2
0.21
4.0
3.0
375
0.18
0.81
41.7
1.05
8.9
52.7
D
0.52
18.7
1.00
2.0
20.7
C
35.5
D
0.76
32.4
1.00
5.5
37.9
D
37.9
D
0.40
18.3
1.00
0.3
18.7
B
0.42
34.9
1.00
1.9
36.8
D
27.6
C
0.87
38.1
1.00
18.8
56.8
E
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
35.8
0.80
100.0
93.8%
15
194
0.92
211
0
0
66
0.92
72
0
0
SBR
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0
757
0.92 0.92
0
823
0
228
0
595
custom
6
45.2
45.2
0.45
4.0
3.0
716
c0.38
0.83
24.0
1.00
8.1
32.2
C
39.2
D
D
12.0
F
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Background +Project PM Volumes
9/14/2011
EBT
953
0.52
17.4
0.0
17.4
210
267
598
EBR WBL
396
249
0.39 0.86
2.7 55.7
0.0
0.0
2.7 55.7
0
141
46 m192
WBT
1189
0.80
5.6
0.0
5.6
56
m60
928
SBL
184
0.61
47.3
0.0
47.3
114
191
SBT
239
0.57
17.2
0.0
17.2
36
118
712
1843
0
0
0
0.52
1015
0
0
0
0.39
1487
0
0
0
0.80
303
0
0
0
0.61
421
0
0
0
0.57
322
0
0
0
0.77
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
Movement
EBL
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
0
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
9/14/2011
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
877
0.92
953
0
953
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
364
0.92
396
190
206
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
333
0.92
362
0
249
Prot
3
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
1.00
3374
0.68
2297
990
0.92
1076
0
1189
1900
1900
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.88
0.99
1542
0.99
1542
0
0.92
0
144
96
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
213
0.92
232
0
184
Prot
1
17.9
17.9
0.18
4.0
3.0
288
c0.15
74.0
74.0
0.74
4.0
3.0
1893
0.11
c0.35
0.63
6.3
0.61
0.3
4.2
A
12.5
B
18.0
18.0
0.18
4.0
3.0
303
c0.11
18.0
18.0
0.18
4.0
3.0
278
0.06
0.61
37.7
1.00
3.4
41.2
D
0.34
35.8
1.00
0.7
36.6
D
38.6
D
4
52.1
52.1
0.52
4.0
3.0
1844
0.27
0.52
15.7
1.00
1.0
16.7
B
15.9
B
4
52.1
52.1
0.52
4.0
3.0
825
0.13
0.25
13.2
1.00
0.7
13.9
B
17.4
0.66
100.0
72.9%
15
0.86
39.9
0.99
13.1
52.4
D
8
0.0
A
176
0.92
191
0
0
6
B
8.0
C
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
Queues
Lane Group
EBL
487
v/c Ratio
1.09
Control Delay
100.8
Queue Delay
0.0
Total Delay
100.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~182
Queue Length 95th (ft) #284
Base Capacity (vph)
446
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
1.09
EBT
605
0.74
19.7
0.0
19.7
152
193
928
WBT
1011
0.99
57.4
0.0
57.4
291
#437
1416
NBL
509
0.60
22.7
0.0
22.7
228
336
820
0
0
0
0.74
1020
0
0
0
0.99
850
0
0
0
0.60
9/14/2011
NBT SBL
773
461
1.09 1.08
99.0 105.9
0.0
0.0
99.0 105.9
~287 ~332
#408 #525
1192
708
0
0
0
1.09
425
0
0
0
1.08
SBR
847
0.88
24.4
0.0
24.4
278
#579
964
0
0
0
0.88
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
Movement
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
9/14/2011
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
448
0.92
487
0
487
Prot
7
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
557
0.92
605
0
605
1900
1900
1900
1900
4.0
0.95
0.97
1.00
3434
1.00
3434
570
0.92
620
22
751
4
8
2
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
424
0.92
461
0
461
Prot
1
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
468
0.92
509
0
509
Prot
6
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.94
1.00
3323
1.00
3323
552
0.92
600
123
888
13.0
13.0
0.13
4.0
3.0
446
c0.14
44.0
44.0
0.44
4.0
3.0
820
0.32
27.0
27.0
0.27
4.0
3.0
897
c0.27
48.0 20.0
48.0 20.0
0.48 0.20
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
850
687
0.29 c0.22
24.0
24.0
0.24
4.0
3.0
425
c0.26
1.09
43.5
0.77
66.8
100.2
F
0.74
23.2
0.61
5.1
19.3
B
55.4
E
0.99
36.4
1.00
27.8
64.2
E
64.2
E
0.60 1.09
19.0 40.0
1.00 1.00
1.1 62.7
20.1 102.7
C
F
69.9
E
1.08
38.0
1.00
68.4
106.4
F
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
61.9
1.06
100.0
111.5%
15
378
0.92
411
0
0
141
0.92
153
0
0
SBR
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0
779
0.92 0.92
0
847
0
204
0
643
custom
6
48.0
48.0
0.48
4.0
3.0
760
0.41
0.85
22.8
1.00
8.6
31.4
C
57.8
E
E
16.0
H
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Cumulative AM Volumes
9/14/2011
EBT
745
0.47
21.0
0.0
21.0
175
233
598
EBR WBL
736
369
0.77 0.89
15.4 47.0
0.0
0.0
15.4 47.0
155
182
339 m248
WBT
1355
0.84
6.9
0.1
7.0
36
m75
928
SBL
153
0.53
45.2
0.0
45.2
94
164
SBT
226
0.53
12.5
0.0
12.5
14
87
712
1588
0
0
0
0.47
958
0
0
0
0.77
1625
0
14
0
0.84
290
0
0
0
0.53
430
0
2
0
0.53
467
0
0
0
0.79
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
Movement
EBL
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
0
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
9/14/2011
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
685
0.92
745
0
745
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
677
0.92
736
247
489
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
668
0.92
726
0
369
Prot
3
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3346
0.56
1901
918
0.92
998
0
1355
1900
1900
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.87
0.99
1525
0.99
1525
1
0.92
1
166
60
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
163
0.92
177
0
153
Prot
1
25.9
25.9
0.26
4.0
3.0
417
c0.23
74.8
74.8
0.75
4.0
3.0
1796
0.20
c0.37
0.75
7.3
0.66
1.0
5.9
A
14.1
B
17.2
17.2
0.17
4.0
3.0
289
c0.09
17.2
17.2
0.17
4.0
3.0
262
0.04
0.53
37.7
1.00
1.8
39.5
D
0.23
35.7
1.00
0.4
36.1
D
37.5
D
4
44.9
44.9
0.45
4.0
3.0
1589
0.21
0.47
19.2
1.00
0.2
19.4
B
22.1
C
4
44.9
44.9
0.45
4.0
3.0
711
0.31
0.69
22.0
1.00
2.8
24.7
C
19.9
0.74
100.0
92.0%
15
0.88
35.6
0.90
12.1
44.2
D
8
0.0
A
185
0.92
201
0
0
6
B
8.0
F
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
9/14/2011
EBL
382
0.86
48.6
0.0
48.6
114
#189
EBT
535
0.64
15.2
0.0
15.2
260
399
928
WBT
874
0.88
46.1
0.0
46.1
280
#388
1416
WBR
242
0.39
5.8
0.0
5.8
0
56
NBL
371
0.45
19.9
0.0
19.9
153
231
NBT SBL
455
339
0.43 1.27
18.9 186.2
0.0
0.0
18.9 186.2
73 ~275
119 #449
1192
SBR
839
0.90
28.1
0.0
28.1
305
#600
446
0
0
0
0.86
838
0
0
0
0.64
992
0
0
0
0.88
618
0
0
0
0.39
832
0
0
0
0.45
1057
0
0
0
0.43
933
0
0
0
0.90
266
0
0
0
1.27
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
Movement
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
9/14/2011
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
351
0.92
382
0
382
Prot
7
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
492
0.92
535
0
535
1900
1900
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
341
0.92
371
0
371
Prot
6
1900
4.0
0.95
0.94
1.00
3320
1.00
3320
246
0.92
267
127
328
2
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
312
0.92
339
0
339
Prot
1
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
223
0.92
242
174
68
Perm
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
804
0.92
874
0
874
47.0
47.0
0.47
4.0
3.0
832
0.21
28.0
28.0
0.28
4.0
3.0
930
0.10
15.0
15.0
0.15
4.0
3.0
266
c0.19
0.45
17.8
1.00
0.4
18.2
B
0.35
28.8
1.00
1.0
29.8
C
24.6
C
1.27
42.5
1.00
149.5
192.0
F
4
8
13.0
13.0
0.13
4.0
3.0
446
c0.11
45.0
45.0
0.45
4.0
3.0
838
0.29
28.0
28.0
0.28
4.0
3.0
991
c0.25
0.86
42.6
0.70
13.5
43.5
D
0.64
21.2
0.55
3.3
14.9
B
26.8
C
0.88
34.4
1.00
11.2
45.6
D
41.8
D
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
46.0
0.96
100.0
98.9%
15
8
28.0
28.0
0.28
4.0
3.0
443
0.04
0.15
27.1
1.00
0.7
27.8
C
173
0.92
188
0
0
SBR
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0
772
0.92 0.92
0
839
0
189
0
650
custom
6
47.0
47.0
0.47
4.0
3.0
744
c0.41
0.87
23.8
1.00
11.1
35.0
C
80.1
F
D
16.0
F
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Cumulative PM Volumes
9/14/2011
EBT
1062
0.65
23.9
0.0
23.9
283
358
598
EBR WBL
641
363
0.65 0.92
8.7 52.5
0.0
0.0
8.7 52.5
61
190
187 m259
WBT
1366
0.85
7.8
1.8
9.5
54
m96
928
SBL
235
0.80
61.6
0.0
61.6
153
#286
SBT
266
0.73
34.9
1.7
36.6
96
#217
712
1629
0
0
0
0.65
990
0
0
0
0.65
1617
0
123
0
0.91
293
0
0
0
0.80
366
0
27
0
0.78
451
0
0
0
0.80
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
Movement
EBL
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
0
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
9/14/2011
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
977
0.92
1062
0
1062
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
590
0.92
641
262
379
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
514
0.92
559
0
363
Prot
3
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3366
0.53
1781
1076
0.92
1170
0
1366
1900
1900
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.89
0.99
1556
0.99
1556
0
0.92
0
95
171
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
283
0.92
308
0
235
Prot
1
24.6
24.6
0.25
4.0
3.0
396
c0.23
74.6
74.6
0.75
4.0
3.0
1719
0.20
c0.40
0.79
7.9
0.83
1.3
7.9
A
16.8
B
17.4
17.4
0.17
4.0
3.0
292
c0.14
17.4
17.4
0.17
4.0
3.0
271
0.11
0.80
39.7
1.00
14.8
54.5
D
0.63
38.3
1.00
4.7
43.0
D
48.4
D
4
46.0
46.0
0.46
4.0
3.0
1628
0.30
0.65
20.8
1.00
0.9
21.8
C
21.1
C
4
46.0
46.0
0.46
4.0
3.0
728
0.24
0.52
19.2
1.00
0.7
19.8
B
22.7
0.82
100.0
89.6%
15
0.92
36.7
0.98
14.7
50.5
D
8
0.0
A
178
0.92
193
0
0
6
C
8.0
E
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
Queues
Lane Group
EBL
477
v/c Ratio
0.88
Control Delay
49.3
Queue Delay
0.0
Total Delay
49.3
113
Queue Length 95th (ft) m#228
Base Capacity (vph)
549
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.87
EBT
712
0.78
17.6
0.0
17.6
378
545
928
WBT
912
0.88
45.4
0.0
45.4
291
#404
1416
WBR
439
0.63
12.5
0.0
12.5
53
157
913
0
0
0
0.78
1032
0
0
0
0.88
695
0
0
0
0.63
9/14/2011
NBL NBT SBL
592 1018
501
0.78 1.23 1.77
33.0 145.0 388.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.0 145.0 388.8
315 ~405 ~480
461 #536 #678
1192
SBR
818
0.90
28.3
0.0
28.3
275
#561
761
0
0
0
0.78
907
0
0
0
0.90
830
0
0
0
1.23
283
0
0
0
1.77
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
Movement
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
9/14/2011
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
439
0.92
477
0
477
Prot
7
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
655
0.92
712
0
712
1900
1900
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
545
0.92
592
0
592
Prot
6
1900
4.0
0.95
0.95
1.00
3370
1.00
3370
638
0.92
693
55
963
2
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
461
0.92
501
0
501
Prot
1
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
404
0.92
439
234
205
Perm
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
839
0.92
912
0
912
43.0 23.0
43.0 23.0
0.43 0.23
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
761
775
0.33 c0.29
16.0
16.0
0.16
4.0
3.0
283
c0.28
0.78 1.24
24.4 38.5
1.00 1.00
5.0 119.7
29.4 158.2
C
F
110.9
F
1.77
42.0
1.00
360.7
402.7
F
4
8
15.8
15.8
0.16
4.0
3.0
542
c0.14
49.0
49.0
0.49
4.0
3.0
913
0.38
29.2
29.2
0.29
4.0
3.0
1033
c0.26
0.88
41.2
0.84
11.7
46.2
D
0.78
21.0
0.58
4.8
17.0
B
28.7
C
0.88
33.8
1.00
10.9
44.7
D
40.5
D
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
91.4
1.15
100.0
110.0%
15
8
29.2
29.2
0.29
4.0
3.0
462
0.13
0.44
28.8
1.00
3.1
31.9
C
299
0.92
325
0
0
SBR
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0
753
0.92 0.92
0
818
0
226
0
592
custom
6
43.0
43.0
0.43
4.0
3.0
681
0.37
0.87
25.9
1.00
11.4
37.3
D
176.1
F
F
16.0
H
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Cumulative +Project AM Volumes
9/14/2011
EBT
760
0.47
20.7
0.0
20.7
180
234
598
EBR WBL WBT
760
371 1397
0.79 0.90 0.86
16.2 51.8 11.6
0.0
0.0
2.4
16.2 51.8 14.0
172
214
156
361 m254 m171
928
SBL
160
0.56
46.5
0.0
46.5
100
170
SBT
242
0.56
12.9
0.5
13.5
15
92
712
1610
0
0
0
0.47
967
0
0
0
0.79
286
0
0
0
0.56
436
0
38
0
0.61
451
0
0
0
0.82
1619
0
124
0
0.93
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
Movement
EBL
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
0
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
9/14/2011
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
699
0.92
760
0
760
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
699
0.92
760
247
513
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
668
0.92
726
0
371
Prot
3
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3348
0.56
1901
959
0.92
1042
0
1397
1900
1900
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.86
1.00
1519
1.00
1519
1
0.92
1
178
64
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
163
0.92
177
0
160
Prot
1
25.5
25.5
0.26
4.0
3.0
411
c0.23
75.0
75.0
0.75
4.0
3.0
1795
0.20
c0.39
0.78
7.5
1.40
1.0
11.5
B
19.5
B
17.0
17.0
0.17
4.0
3.0
286
c0.10
17.0
17.0
0.17
4.0
3.0
258
0.04
0.56
38.1
1.00
2.4
40.4
D
0.25
36.0
1.00
0.5
36.5
D
38.1
D
4
45.5
45.5
0.46
4.0
3.0
1610
0.21
0.47
18.9
1.00
0.2
19.1
B
22.2
C
4
45.5
45.5
0.46
4.0
3.0
720
0.32
0.71
22.0
1.00
3.3
25.3
C
22.6
0.76
100.0
94.8%
15
0.90
36.0
1.05
11.7
49.7
D
8
0.0
A
206
0.92
224
0
0
6
C
8.0
F
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
9/14/2011
EBL
384
0.93
62.5
0.0
62.5
128
#218
EBT
535
0.57
13.4
0.0
13.4
103
134
928
WBT
1116
0.94
46.7
0.0
46.7
349
#488
1416
NBL
413
0.56
25.5
0.0
25.5
195
291
NBT SBL
455
339
0.47 1.47
21.4 268.6
0.0
0.0
21.4 268.6
78 ~299
127 #472
1192
SBR
842
1.00
49.9
0.0
49.9
383
#671
412
0
0
0
0.93
932
0
0
0
0.57
1189
0
0
0
0.94
743
0
0
0
0.56
958
0
0
0
0.47
845
0
0
0
1.00
230
0
0
0
1.47
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
Movement
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
9/14/2011
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
353
0.92
384
0
384
Prot
7
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
492
0.92
535
0
535
1900
1900
1900
1900
4.0
0.95
0.94
1.00
3320
1.00
3320
246
0.92
267
128
328
4
8
2
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
312
0.92
339
0
339
Prot
1
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
380
0.92
413
0
413
Prot
6
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.97
1.00
3424
1.00
3424
804
0.92
874
25
1091
12.0
12.0
0.12
4.0
3.0
412
c0.11
50.0
50.0
0.50
4.0
3.0
932
0.29
34.0
34.0
0.34
4.0
3.0
1164
c0.32
42.0
42.0
0.42
4.0
3.0
743
0.23
25.0
25.0
0.25
4.0
3.0
830
0.10
13.0
13.0
0.13
4.0
3.0
230
c0.19
0.93
43.6
0.75
25.6
58.2
E
0.57
17.5
0.62
2.3
13.1
B
32.0
C
0.94
32.0
1.00
15.1
47.0
D
47.0
D
0.56
21.9
1.00
0.9
22.8
C
0.39
31.2
1.00
1.4
32.6
C
28.0
C
1.47
43.5
1.00
235.3
278.8
F
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
62.0
1.05
100.0
108.4%
15
223
0.92
242
0
0
173
0.92
188
0
0
SBR
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0
775
0.92 0.92
0
842
0
180
0
662
custom
6
42.0
42.0
0.42
4.0
3.0
665
c0.42
1.00
28.9
1.00
33.6
62.5
E
124.6
F
E
16.0
G
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Cumulative +Project PM Volumes
9/14/2011
EBT
1077
0.67
24.5
0.0
24.5
288
365
598
EBR WBL WBT
665
372 1401
0.68 0.91 0.86
9.7 50.1
8.7
0.0
0.0
2.3
9.7 50.1 10.9
76
200
73
214 m262 m115
928
SBL
238
0.83
65.2
0.0
65.2
155
#292
SBT
286
0.76
35.4
3.0
38.4
97
#229
712
1610
0
0
0
0.67
984
0
0
0
0.68
286
0
0
0
0.83
375
0
34
0
0.84
451
0
0
0
0.82
1634
0
127
0
0.93
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
Movement
EBL
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
0
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
9/14/2011
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
991
0.92
1077
0
1077
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
612
0.92
665
264
401
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
514
0.92
559
0
372
Prot
3
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3368
0.53
1788
1117
0.92
1214
0
1401
1900
1900
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.89
0.99
1550
0.99
1550
0
0.92
0
111
175
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
283
0.92
308
0
238
Prot
1
25.5
25.5
0.26
4.0
3.0
411
c0.23
75.0
75.0
0.75
4.0
3.0
1744
0.20
c0.40
0.80
7.9
0.95
1.3
8.7
A
16.9
B
17.0
17.0
0.17
4.0
3.0
286
c0.14
17.0
17.0
0.17
4.0
3.0
264
0.11
0.83
40.1
1.00
18.3
58.4
E
0.66
38.8
1.00
6.1
44.9
D
51.1
D
4
45.5
45.5
0.46
4.0
3.0
1610
0.30
0.67
21.3
1.00
1.1
22.4
C
21.8
C
4
45.5
45.5
0.46
4.0
3.0
720
0.25
0.56
19.9
1.00
0.9
20.8
C
23.4
0.82
100.0
92.7%
15
0.91
36.1
0.98
12.3
47.7
D
8
0.0
A
199
0.92
216
0
0
6
C
8.0
F
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
Queues
Lane Group
EBL EBT
479
712
v/c Ratio
0.88 0.78
Control Delay
48.4 16.8
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
48.4 16.8
115
376
Queue Length 95th (ft) m#227 m538
928
Base Capacity (vph)
549
913
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.87 0.78
WBT
912
0.88
45.4
0.0
45.4
291
#404
1416
WBR
439
0.62
11.2
0.0
11.2
44
144
1032
0
0
0
0.88
708
0
0
0
0.62
9/14/2011
NBL NBT SBL
635 1018
501
0.83 1.28 1.66
36.9 166.4 342.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.9 166.4 342.7
351 ~417 ~468
#554 #548 #666
1192
SBR
822
0.91
28.9
0.0
28.9
279
#568
761
0
0
0
0.83
907
0
0
0
0.91
797
0
0
0
1.28
301
0
0
0
1.66
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
Movement
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
9/14/2011
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
441
0.92
479
0
479
Prot
7
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
655
0.92
712
0
712
1900
1900
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
584
0.92
635
0
635
Prot
6
1900
4.0
0.95
0.95
1.00
3370
1.00
3370
638
0.92
693
55
963
2
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
461
0.92
501
0
501
Prot
1
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
404
0.92
439
246
193
Perm
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
839
0.92
912
0
912
43.0 22.0
43.0 22.0
0.43 0.22
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
761
741
0.36 c0.29
17.0
17.0
0.17
4.0
3.0
301
c0.28
0.83 1.30
25.3 39.0
1.00 1.00
7.9 144.4
33.2 183.4
C
F
125.7
F
1.66
41.5
1.00
313.3
354.8
F
4
8
15.8
15.8
0.16
4.0
3.0
542
c0.14
49.0
49.0
0.49
4.0
3.0
913
0.38
29.2
29.2
0.29
4.0
3.0
1033
c0.26
0.88
41.2
0.82
11.7
45.3
D
0.78
21.0
0.55
4.7
16.3
B
28.0
C
0.88
33.8
1.00
10.9
44.7
D
40.3
D
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
91.5
1.15
100.0
112.4%
15
8
29.2
29.2
0.29
4.0
3.0
462
0.12
0.42
28.5
1.00
2.8
31.3
C
299
0.92
325
0
0
SBR
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0
756
0.92 0.92
0
822
0
226
0
596
custom
6
43.0
43.0
0.43
4.0
3.0
681
0.38
0.87
26.0
1.00
12.0
38.1
D
158.0
F
F
16.0
H
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Background +Project PM (with Town's Mitigation)
9/14/2011
EBT
698
0.42
19.2
0.0
19.2
149
221
598
EBR
449
0.46
3.5
0.0
3.5
0
58
WBL
290
0.83
45.9
0.0
45.9
193
250
WBT
1069
0.70
8.8
0.0
8.8
219
142
928
SBL
126
0.39
39.8
0.0
39.8
74
133
SBT
167
0.40
8.8
0.0
8.8
1
58
712
1674
0
0
0
0.42
986
0
0
0
0.46
451
0
0
0
0.64
1527
0
0
0
0.70
319
0
0
0
0.39
421
0
0
0
0.40
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
9/14/2011
Movement
EBL
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
0
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
642
0.92
698
0
698
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
413
0.92
449
237
212
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
458
0.92
498
0
290
Prot
3
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3358
0.60
2050
792
0.92
861
0
1069
1900
1900
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.85
1.00
1506
1.00
1506
1
0.92
1
134
33
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
116
0.92
126
0
126
Prot
1
21.7
21.7
0.22
4.0
3.0
349
c0.18
73.0
73.0
0.73
4.0
3.0
1780
0.13
c0.31
0.60
6.5
1.17
0.5
8.1
A
15.4
B
19.0
19.0
0.19
4.0
3.0
319
c0.07
19.0
19.0
0.19
4.0
3.0
286
0.02
0.39
35.5
1.00
0.8
36.3
D
0.11
33.5
1.00
0.2
33.7
C
34.8
C
4
47.3
47.3
0.47
4.0
3.0
1674
0.20
0.42
17.3
1.00
0.2
17.5
B
17.0
B
4
47.3
47.3
0.47
4.0
3.0
749
0.13
0.28
16.0
1.00
0.2
16.2
B
18.1
0.60
100.0
67.0%
15
0.83
37.4
0.75
14.1
42.2
D
8
0.0
A
153
0.92
166
0
0
6
B
8.0
C
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
9/14/2011
EBL
386
0.65
31.4
0.0
31.4
51
#178
EBT
450
0.44
6.7
0.0
6.7
10
326
928
WBT
568
0.48
29.5
0.0
29.5
155
222
1416
WBR
211
0.31
5.5
0.0
5.5
0
54
NBL
167
0.65
51.5
0.0
51.5
112
180
NBT
352
0.67
45.6
0.0
45.6
117
159
1192
NBR
72
0.23
10.3
0.0
10.3
0
37
SBL
326
0.56
41.0
0.0
41.0
98
132
SBR
820
0.37
3.0
0.0
3.0
43
80
597
0
0
0
0.65
1026
0
0
0
0.44
1193
0
0
0
0.48
673
0
0
0
0.31
322
0
0
0
0.52
668
0
0
0
0.53
374
0
0
0
0.19
790
0
0
0
0.41
2343
0
0
0
0.35
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
9/14/2011
Movement
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
355
0.92
386
0
386
Prot
1
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
414
0.92
450
0
450
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
194
0.92
211
140
71
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
255
0.92
277
0
167
Split
7
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.98
3338
0.98
3338
223
0.92
242
0
352
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
66
0.92
72
61
11
Perm
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
300
0.92
326
0
326
Prot
8
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
523
0.92
568
0
568
2
17.4
17.4
0.17
4.0
3.0
597
c0.11
55.1
55.1
0.55
4.0
3.0
1027
0.24
33.7
33.7
0.34
4.0
3.0
1193
c0.16
0.65
38.4
0.66
2.2
27.5
C
0.44
13.3
0.35
0.3
4.9
A
15.4
B
0.48
26.2
1.00
1.4
27.5
C
26.5
C
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
6
22.6
0.56
100.0
59.9%
15
2
33.7
33.7
0.34
4.0
3.0
533
0.04
0.13
23.0
1.00
0.5
23.5
C
7
15.8 15.8
15.8 15.8
0.16 0.16
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
254
527
0.10 c0.11
0.66
39.6
1.00
6.0
45.6
D
0.67
39.6
1.00
3.2
42.8
D
42.7
D
7
15.8
15.8
0.16
4.0
3.0
250
0.01
0.05
35.7
1.00
0.1
35.8
D
17.1
17.1
0.17
4.0
3.0
587
c0.09
0.56
38.0
1.00
1.1
39.1
D
SBR
1900
4.0
0.88
0.85
1.00
2787
1.00
2787
0
754
0.92 0.92
0
820
0
87
0
733
custom
8
6
72.2
72.2
0.72
4.0
3.0
2124
0.06
0.20
0.35
5.1
1.00
0.1
5.2
A
14.9
B
C
16.0
B
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
9/14/2011
EBT
938
0.49
15.9
0.0
15.9
196
250
598
EBR WBL
372
237
0.36 0.81
2.4 56.1
0.0
0.0
2.4 56.1
0
153
43 m#263
WBT
1157
0.76
9.1
0.0
9.1
51
198
928
SBL
177
0.66
52.3
0.0
52.3
112
#200
SBT
224
0.63
25.6
0.0
25.6
57
143
712
1910
0
0
0
0.49
1026
0
0
0
0.36
1520
0
0
0
0.76
269
0
0
0
0.66
357
0
0
0
0.63
322
0
0
0
0.74
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
9/14/2011
Movement
EBL
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
0
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
863
0.92
938
0
938
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
342
0.92
372
171
201
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
333
0.92
362
0
237
Prot
3
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3372
0.66
2241
949
0.92
1032
0
1157
1900
1900
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.89
0.99
1551
0.99
1551
1
0.92
1
108
116
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
213
0.92
232
0
177
Prot
1
18.0
18.0
0.18
4.0
3.0
290
c0.15
76.0
76.0
0.76
4.0
3.0
1907
0.11
c0.35
0.61
5.3
1.35
0.5
7.7
A
15.0
B
16.0
16.0
0.16
4.0
3.0
269
c0.11
16.0
16.0
0.16
4.0
3.0
248
0.07
0.66
39.4
1.00
5.7
45.1
D
0.47
38.1
1.00
1.4
39.5
D
42.0
D
4
54.0
54.0
0.54
4.0
3.0
1911
0.27
0.49
14.4
1.00
0.2
14.6
B
13.9
B
4
54.0
54.0
0.54
4.0
3.0
855
0.13
0.23
12.1
1.00
0.1
12.3
B
18.1
0.65
100.0
70.8%
15
0.82
39.4
0.94
13.7
50.9
D
8
0.0
A
155
0.92
168
0
0
6
B
8.0
C
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
9/14/2011
EBL
485
0.74
38.7
0.0
38.7
112
#272
EBT
605
0.70
19.6
0.0
19.6
172
221
928
WBT
600
0.73
40.7
0.0
40.7
184
243
1416
WBR
411
0.82
35.3
0.0
35.3
148
#297
NBL
350
0.48
21.2
0.0
21.2
170
230
NBT
736
0.48
19.9
0.0
19.9
179
207
1192
NBR
153
0.32
9.9
0.0
9.9
10
61
SBL
461
0.73
45.3
0.0
45.3
144
184
SBR
843
0.51
4.0
0.0
4.0
28
60
653
0
0
0
0.74
864
0
0
0
0.70
912
0
0
0
0.66
534
0
0
0
0.77
805
0
0
0
0.43
1535
0
0
0
0.48
471
0
0
0
0.32
824
0
0
0
0.56
1747
0
0
0
0.48
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
9/14/2011
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97 1.00
Frt
1.00 1.00
Flt Protected
0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433 1863
Flt Permitted
0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433 1863
Volume (vph)
446
557
0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
485
605
0
0
485
605
Turn Type
Prot
Protected Phases
7
4
Permitted Phases
19.1 46.4
19.1 46.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.19 0.46
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
656
864
v/s Ratio Prot
0.14 c0.32
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
0.74 0.70
Uniform Delay, d1
38.1 21.3
Progression Factor
0.74 0.68
3.8
2.2
Delay (s)
31.9 16.8
Level of Service
C
B
Approach Delay (s)
23.5
Approach LOS
C
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
378
0.92
411
130
281
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
429
0.92
466
0
350
Prot
6
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3364
0.99
3364
570
0.92
620
0
736
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
141
0.92
153
103
50
Perm
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
424
0.92
461
0
461
Prot
1
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
552
0.92
600
0
600
8
23.3
23.3
0.23
4.0
3.0
825
0.17
0.73
35.4
1.00
3.2
38.6
D
41.1
D
27.5
0.66
100.0
72.2%
15
8
23.3
23.3
0.23
4.0
3.0
369
c0.18
0.76
35.7
1.00
8.9
44.7
D
2
45.6 45.6
45.6 45.6
0.46 0.46
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
734 1534
0.22 c0.22
0.48
18.9
1.00
0.5
19.4
B
0.48
18.9
1.00
0.2
19.2
B
20.7
C
2
23.2
23.2
0.23
4.0
3.0
367
0.03
0.14
30.5
1.00
0.8
31.2
C
SBR
1900
4.0
0.88
0.85
1.00
2787
1.00
2787
0
776
0.92 0.92
0
843
0
385
0
458
custom
6
45.6
45.6
0.46
4.0
3.0
1271
18.4
18.4
0.18
4.0
3.0
632
c0.13
0.16
0.36
17.7
1.00
0.2
17.9
B
0.73
38.5
1.00
4.2
42.7
D
26.6
C
C
12.0
C
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
9/14/2011
EBT
713
0.42
18.6
0.0
18.6
151
217
598
EBR
473
0.47
3.4
0.0
3.4
0
57
WBL
291
0.83
50.2
0.0
50.2
202
297
WBT
1112
0.72
10.7
0.0
10.7
192
272
928
SBL
126
0.42
41.2
0.0
41.2
75
135
SBT
190
0.45
9.1
0.0
9.1
1
62
712
1708
0
0
0
0.42
1008
0
0
0
0.47
435
0
0
0
0.67
1546
0
0
0
0.72
303
0
0
0
0.42
426
0
0
0
0.45
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
9/14/2011
Movement
EBL
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
0
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
656
0.92
713
0
713
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
435
0.92
473
245
228
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
458
0.92
498
0
291
Prot
3
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3359
0.61
2056
833
0.92
905
0
1112
1900
1900
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.85
1.00
1506
1.00
1506
1
0.92
1
155
35
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
116
0.92
126
0
126
Prot
1
21.7
21.7
0.22
4.0
3.0
349
c0.18
74.0
74.0
0.74
4.0
3.0
1804
0.13
c0.32
0.62
6.2
1.57
0.6
10.3
B
17.9
B
18.0
18.0
0.18
4.0
3.0
303
c0.07
18.0
18.0
0.18
4.0
3.0
271
0.02
0.42
36.3
1.00
0.9
37.3
D
0.13
34.4
1.00
0.2
34.6
C
35.7
D
4
48.3
48.3
0.48
4.0
3.0
1709
0.20
0.42
16.7
1.00
0.2
16.9
B
16.5
B
4
48.3
48.3
0.48
4.0
3.0
765
0.14
0.30
15.6
1.00
0.2
15.8
B
19.2
0.62
100.0
69.7%
15
0.83
37.4
0.86
14.2
46.6
D
8
0.0
A
174
0.92
189
0
0
6
B
8.0
C
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
9/14/2011
EBL
388
0.81
56.9
0.0
56.9
138
#203
EBT
450
0.45
15.3
0.0
15.3
222
338
928
WBT
568
0.45
26.6
0.0
26.6
144
206
1416
WBR
211
0.30
4.8
0.0
4.8
0
50
NBL
181
0.29
22.3
0.0
22.3
86
135
NBT
381
0.30
21.8
0.0
21.8
91
120
1192
NBR
72
0.19
9.6
0.0
9.6
0
37
SBL
326
0.66
47.0
0.0
47.0
102
141
SBR
823
0.54
4.2
0.0
4.2
20
59
481
0
0
0
0.81
1000
0
0
0
0.45
1263
0
0
0
0.45
701
0
0
0
0.30
757
0
0
0
0.24
1276
0
0
0
0.30
374
0
0
0
0.19
790
0
0
0
0.41
1698
0
0
0
0.48
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
9/14/2011
Movement
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
357
0.92
388
0
388
Prot
7
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
414
0.92
450
0
450
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
194
0.92
211
136
75
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
294
0.92
320
0
181
Prot
6
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.98
3329
0.98
3329
223
0.92
242
0
381
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
66
0.92
72
58
14
Perm
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
300
0.92
326
0
326
Prot
1
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
523
0.92
568
0
568
38.3
38.3
0.38
4.0
3.0
617
0.11
38.3
38.3
0.38
4.0
3.0
1275
0.11
0.29
21.4
1.00
0.3
21.7
C
0.30
21.5
1.00
0.1
21.6
C
22.9
C
8
14.0 53.7
14.0 53.7
0.14 0.54
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
481 1000
c0.11 c0.24
0.81
41.7
1.05
8.9
52.5
D
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
4
35.7
35.7
0.36
4.0
3.0
1263
0.16
0.45
14.1
0.92
1.4
14.4
B
32.1
C
0.45
24.6
1.00
1.2
25.8
C
24.8
C
27.4
0.54
100.0
60.7%
15
8
35.7
35.7
0.36
4.0
3.0
565
0.05
0.13
21.7
1.00
0.5
22.2
C
2
2
20.0
20.0
0.20
4.0
3.0
317
0.01
0.05
32.3
1.00
0.3
32.6
C
SBR
1900
4.0
0.88
0.85
1.00
2787
1.00
2787
0
757
0.92 0.92
0
823
0
452
0
371
custom
6
38.3
38.3
0.38
4.0
3.0
1067
14.3
14.3
0.14
4.0
3.0
491
c0.09
c0.13
0.35
22.0
1.00
0.2
22.2
C
0.66
40.6
1.00
3.4
43.9
D
28.3
C
C
16.0
B
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
9/14/2011
EBT
953
0.52
17.5
0.0
17.5
210
267
598
EBR
396
0.39
2.7
0.0
2.7
0
46
WBL
249
0.86
60.1
0.0
60.1
149
#296
WBT
1189
0.80
10.1
0.0
10.1
64
150
928
SBL
182
0.60
47.0
0.0
47.0
113
189
SBT
241
0.58
18.6
0.0
18.6
42
125
712
1837
0
0
0
0.52
1012
0
0
0
0.39
322
0
0
0
0.77
1490
0
0
0
0.80
303
0
0
0
0.60
416
0
0
0
0.58
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
9/14/2011
Movement
EBL
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
0
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
877
0.92
953
0
953
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
364
0.92
396
190
206
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
333
0.92
362
0
249
Prot
3
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
1.00
3374
0.68
2295
990
0.92
1076
0
1189
1900
1900
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.88
0.99
1543
0.99
1543
0
0.92
0
138
103
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
213
0.92
232
0
182
Prot
1
18.1
18.1
0.18
4.0
3.0
291
c0.15
74.0
74.0
0.74
4.0
3.0
1894
0.11
c0.35
0.63
6.3
1.16
0.6
7.9
A
16.1
B
18.0
18.0
0.18
4.0
3.0
303
c0.11
18.0
18.0
0.18
4.0
3.0
278
0.07
0.60
37.7
1.00
3.3
41.0
D
0.37
36.0
1.00
0.8
36.9
D
38.7
D
4
51.9
51.9
0.52
4.0
3.0
1837
0.27
0.52
15.8
1.00
1.1
16.9
B
16.0
B
4
51.9
51.9
0.52
4.0
3.0
822
0.13
0.25
13.3
1.00
0.7
14.0
B
19.0
0.66
100.0
72.9%
15
0.86
39.7
0.92
18.6
55.1
E
8
0.0
A
176
0.92
191
0
0
6
B
8.0
C
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
Queues
Lane Group
EBL
487
v/c Ratio
1.09
Control Delay
100.7
Queue Delay
0.0
Total Delay
100.7
Queue Length 95th (ft) #284
Base Capacity (vph)
446
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
1.09
9/14/2011
EBT
605
0.65
16.0
0.0
16.0
151
193
928
WBT
600
0.52
30.1
0.0
30.1
161
236
1416
WBR
411
0.66
24.4
0.0
24.4
137
#279
NBL
364
0.53
24.2
0.0
24.2
186
252
NBT
765
0.54
22.7
0.0
22.7
196
227
1192
NBR
153
0.35
9.4
0.0
9.4
5
57
SBL
461
0.73
45.3
0.0
45.3
144
184
SBR
847
0.54
4.8
0.0
4.8
34
69
925
0
0
0
0.65
1155
0
0
0
0.52
622
0
0
0
0.66
773
0
0
0
0.47
1423
0
0
0
0.54
432
0
0
0
0.35
824
0
0
0
0.56
1697
0
0
0
0.50
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
9/14/2011
Movement
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
448
0.92
487
0
487
Prot
7
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
557
0.92
605
0
605
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
378
0.92
411
106
305
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
468
0.92
509
0
364
Prot
6
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3358
0.99
3358
570
0.92
620
0
765
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
141
0.92
153
115
38
Perm
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
424
0.92
461
0
461
Prot
1
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
552
0.92
600
0
600
8
13.0 49.6
13.0 49.6
0.13 0.50
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
446
924
c0.14 c0.32
32.6
32.6
0.33
4.0
3.0
1154
0.17
1.09
43.5
0.77
66.8
100.1
F
0.52
27.3
1.00
1.7
29.0
C
30.7
C
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
4
0.65
18.8
0.64
3.1
15.1
B
53.0
D
33.1
0.73
100.0
73.0%
15
8
32.6
32.6
0.33
4.0
3.0
516
0.19
0.59
28.1
1.00
4.9
33.1
C
2
42.4 42.4
42.4 42.4
0.42 0.42
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
683 1424
0.23 c0.23
0.53
21.4
1.00
0.8
22.2
C
0.54
21.5
1.00
0.4
21.9
C
23.4
C
2
20.0
20.0
0.20
4.0
3.0
317
0.02
0.12
32.8
1.00
0.8
33.5
C
SBR
1900
4.0
0.88
0.85
1.00
2787
1.00
2787
0
779
0.92 0.92
0
847
0
397
0
450
custom
6
42.4
42.4
0.42
4.0
3.0
1182
18.4
18.4
0.18
4.0
3.0
632
c0.13
0.16
0.38
19.8
1.00
0.2
20.0
B
0.73
38.5
1.00
4.2
42.7
D
28.0
C
C
16.0
D
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Cumulative AM (with Town's Mitigation)
9/14/2011
EBT
745
0.46
20.5
0.0
20.5
175
229
598
EBR
736
0.76
14.6
0.0
14.6
151
326
WBL
363
0.89
53.3
0.0
53.3
200
#389
WBT
1361
0.84
16.4
2.4
18.8
190
217
928
SBL
153
0.53
45.6
0.0
45.6
94
164
SBT
226
0.53
12.6
0.5
13.1
14
87
712
1620
0
0
0
0.46
971
0
0
0
0.76
451
0
0
0
0.80
1614
0
146
0
0.93
286
0
0
0
0.53
426
0
39
0
0.58
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
Movement
EBL
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
0
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
9/14/2011
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
685
0.92
745
0
745
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
677
0.92
736
247
489
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
668
0.92
726
0
363
Prot
3
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3346
0.56
1904
918
0.92
998
0
1361
1900
1900
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.87
0.99
1525
0.99
1525
1
0.92
1
167
59
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
163
0.92
177
0
153
Prot
1
25.2
25.2
0.25
4.0
3.0
406
c0.23
75.0
75.0
0.75
4.0
3.0
1791
0.19
c0.38
0.76
7.3
2.00
1.6
16.1
B
23.3
C
17.0
17.0
0.17
4.0
3.0
286
c0.09
17.0
17.0
0.17
4.0
3.0
259
0.04
0.53
37.9
1.00
1.9
39.8
D
0.23
35.8
1.00
0.5
36.3
D
37.7
D
4
45.8
45.8
0.46
4.0
3.0
1621
0.21
0.46
18.6
1.00
0.2
18.8
B
21.3
C
4
45.8
45.8
0.46
4.0
3.0
725
0.31
0.68
21.3
1.00
2.5
23.8
C
24.0
0.74
100.0
92.0%
15
0.89
36.1
0.88
18.2
50.0
D
8
0.0
A
185
0.92
201
0
0
6
C
8.0
F
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
9/14/2011
EBL
382
0.93
61.8
0.0
61.8
128
#217
EBT
535
0.57
13.4
0.0
13.4
103
134
928
WBT
874
0.72
32.8
0.0
32.8
254
327
1416
WBR
242
0.34
4.6
0.0
4.6
0
51
NBL
205
0.31
21.0
0.0
21.0
93
152
NBT
433
0.31
20.3
0.0
20.3
98
137
1192
NBR
188
0.35
6.5
0.0
6.5
0
53
SBL
339
0.78
55.9
0.0
55.9
109
#169
SBR
839
0.57
8.7
0.0
8.7
68
130
412
0
0
0
0.93
939
0
0
0
0.57
1216
0
0
0
0.72
703
0
0
0
0.34
676
0
0
0
0.30
1385
0
0
0
0.31
537
0
0
0
0.35
446
0
0
0
0.76
1487
0
0
0
0.56
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
Movement
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
9/14/2011
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
351
0.92
382
0
382
Prot
7
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
492
0.92
535
0
535
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
223
0.92
242
159
83
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
341
0.92
371
0
205
Prot
6
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.98
3326
0.98
3326
246
0.92
267
0
433
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
173
0.92
188
141
47
Perm
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
312
0.92
339
0
339
Prot
1
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
804
0.92
874
0
874
41.6
41.6
0.42
4.0
3.0
670
0.13
41.6
41.6
0.42
4.0
3.0
1384
0.13
0.31
19.5
1.00
0.3
19.8
B
0.31
19.6
1.00
0.1
19.7
B
22.0
C
4
8
12.0
12.0
0.12
4.0
3.0
412
c0.11
50.4
50.4
0.50
4.0
3.0
939
0.29
34.4
34.4
0.34
4.0
3.0
1217
c0.25
0.93
43.6
0.75
24.7
57.4
E
0.57
17.3
0.62
2.2
13.0
B
31.5
C
0.72
28.6
1.00
3.7
32.2
C
30.3
C
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
28.8
0.69
100.0
70.4%
15
8
34.4
34.4
0.34
4.0
3.0
545
0.05
0.15
22.7
1.00
0.6
23.3
C
2
2
25.0
25.0
0.25
4.0
3.0
396
0.03
0.12
29.0
1.00
0.6
29.6
C
SBR
1900
4.0
0.88
0.85
1.00
2787
1.00
2787
0
772
0.92 0.92
0
839
0
318
0
521
custom
6
41.6
41.6
0.42
4.0
3.0
1159
12.6
12.6
0.13
4.0
3.0
433
c0.10
c0.19
0.45
21.0
1.00
0.3
21.3
C
0.78
42.4
1.00
9.0
51.3
D
29.9
C
C
16.0
C
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
Queues
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Cumulative PM (with Town's Mitigation)
9/14/2011
EBT
1062
0.66
24.3
0.0
24.3
283
358
598
EBR WBL
641
363
0.65 0.88
8.8 53.5
0.0
0.0
8.8 53.5
61
200
187 m#376
WBT
1366
0.84
13.3
1.6
14.8
166
191
928
SBL
229
0.80
61.7
0.0
61.7
149
#276
SBT
272
0.77
39.9
3.4
43.3
107
#238
712
1609
0
0
0
0.66
984
0
0
0
0.65
1635
0
127
0
0.91
286
0
0
0
0.80
353
0
32
0
0.85
451
0
0
0
0.80
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
Movement
EBL
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
0
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
9/14/2011
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
977
0.92
1062
0
1062
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
590
0.92
641
264
377
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
514
0.92
559
0
363
Prot
3
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3366
0.52
1776
1076
0.92
1170
0
1366
1900
1900
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.89
0.99
1559
0.99
1559
0
0.92
0
88
184
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
283
0.92
308
0
229
Prot
1
25.5
25.5
0.26
4.0
3.0
411
c0.23
75.0
75.0
0.75
4.0
3.0
1737
0.20
c0.39
0.79
7.6
1.60
1.8
14.0
B
21.6
C
17.0
17.0
0.17
4.0
3.0
286
c0.14
17.0
17.0
0.17
4.0
3.0
265
0.12
0.80
39.9
1.00
14.8
54.6
D
0.69
39.1
1.00
7.7
46.7
D
50.3
D
4
45.5
45.5
0.46
4.0
3.0
1610
0.30
0.66
21.2
1.00
1.0
22.2
C
21.4
C
4
45.5
45.5
0.46
4.0
3.0
720
0.24
0.52
19.5
1.00
0.7
20.2
C
25.2
0.80
100.0
89.6%
15
0.88
35.8
0.97
15.6
50.3
D
8
0.0
A
178
0.92
193
0
0
6
C
8.0
E
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
Queues
Lane Group
EBL
477
v/c Ratio
1.16
Control Delay
121.9
Queue Delay
0.0
Total Delay
121.9
Base Capacity (vph)
412
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
1.16
9/14/2011
EBT
712
0.76
17.1
0.0
17.1
152
209
928
WBT
912
0.76
34.3
0.0
34.3
269
344
1416
WBR
439
0.73
30.7
0.0
30.7
193
314
NBL
414
0.61
27.5
0.0
27.5
220
335
NBT
871
0.62
25.1
0.0
25.1
233
301
1192
NBR SBL
325
501
0.66 1.12
26.8 121.6
0.0
0.0
26.8 121.6
110 ~191
208 #293
SBR
818
0.55
8.4
0.0
8.4
64
123
932
0
0
0
0.76
1203
0
0
0
0.76
601
0
0
0
0.73
676
0
0
0
0.61
1410
0
0
0
0.62
495
0
0
0
0.66
1483
0
0
0
0.55
446
0
0
0
1.12
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
Movement
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
9/14/2011
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
439
0.92
477
0
477
Prot
7
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
655
0.92
712
0
712
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
404
0.92
439
63
376
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
545
0.92
592
0
414
Prot
6
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3356
0.99
3356
638
0.92
693
0
871
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
299
0.92
325
99
226
Perm
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
461
0.92
501
0
501
Prot
1
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
839
0.92
912
0
912
4
8
12.0 50.0
12.0 50.0
0.12 0.50
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
412
932
c0.14 c0.38
34.0
34.0
0.34
4.0
3.0
1203
0.26
1.16
44.0
0.75
89.2
122.3
F
0.76
29.3
1.00
4.5
33.8
C
34.5
C
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
0.76
20.2
0.61
4.3
16.6
B
59.0
E
43.7
0.86
100.0
84.5%
15
8
34.0
34.0
0.34
4.0
3.0
538
0.24
0.70
28.6
1.00
7.4
36.0
D
2
42.0 42.0
42.0 42.0
0.42 0.42
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
676 1410
0.26 c0.26
0.61
22.6
1.00
1.7
24.3
C
0.62
22.7
1.00
0.8
23.5
C
26.8
C
2
25.0
25.0
0.25
4.0
3.0
396
SBR
1900
4.0
0.88
0.85
1.00
2787
1.00
2787
0
753
0.92 0.92
0
818
0
312
0
506
custom
6
42.0
42.0
0.42
4.0
3.0
1171
13.0
13.0
0.13
4.0
3.0
446
c0.15
0.14
0.57 1.12
32.8 43.5
1.00 1.00
5.9 80.8
38.7 124.3
D
F
0.18
0.43
20.5
1.00
0.3
20.8
C
60.1
E
D
16.0
E
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
Queues
Cumulative +Project AM (with Town's Mitigation)
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
9/14/2011
EBT
760
0.48
21.2
0.0
21.2
180
234
598
EBR
760
0.79
16.7
0.0
16.7
172
361
WBL
371
0.88
50.3
0.0
50.3
201
#397
WBT
1397
0.86
17.0
2.1
19.1
192
218
928
SBL
160
0.56
46.2
0.0
46.2
100
170
SBT
242
0.55
12.9
0.6
13.4
15
92
712
1579
0
0
0
0.48
957
0
0
0
0.79
451
0
0
0
0.82
1632
0
125
0
0.93
288
0
0
0
0.56
438
0
39
0
0.61
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisCumulative +Project AM (with Town's Mitigation)
9/14/2011
Movement
EBL
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
0
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
699
0.92
760
0
760
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
699
0.92
760
251
509
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
668
0.92
726
0
371
Prot
3
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3348
0.56
1894
959
0.92
1042
0
1397
1900
1900
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.86
1.00
1519
1.00
1519
1
0.92
1
177
65
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
163
0.92
177
0
160
Prot
1
26.2
26.2
0.26
4.0
3.0
422
c0.23
74.9
74.9
0.75
4.0
3.0
1800
0.20
c0.38
0.78
7.5
1.93
1.8
16.3
B
22.7
C
17.1
17.1
0.17
4.0
3.0
287
c0.10
17.1
17.1
0.17
4.0
3.0
260
0.04
0.56
38.0
1.00
2.3
40.3
D
0.25
35.9
1.00
0.5
36.4
D
38.0
D
4
44.7
44.7
0.45
4.0
3.0
1582
0.21
0.48
19.5
1.00
0.2
19.7
B
22.9
C
4
44.7
44.7
0.45
4.0
3.0
708
0.32
0.72
22.5
1.00
3.5
26.0
C
24.4
0.75
100.0
94.8%
15
0.88
35.4
0.87
15.6
46.5
D
8
0.0
A
206
0.92
224
0
0
6
C
8.0
F
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
Queues
Cumulative +Project AM (with Town's Mitigation)
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
9/14/2011
EBL
384
0.93
62.0
0.0
62.0
128
#218
EBT
535
0.57
13.3
0.0
13.3
103
134
928
WBT
874
0.72
32.8
0.0
32.8
254
327
1416
WBR
242
0.34
4.6
0.0
4.6
0
51
NBL
219
0.33
21.3
0.0
21.3
101
163
NBT
461
0.33
20.5
0.0
20.5
106
147
1192
NBR
188
0.35
6.5
0.0
6.5
0
53
SBL
339
0.78
55.9
0.0
55.9
109
#169
SBR
842
0.57
8.8
0.0
8.8
68
131
412
0
0
0
0.93
939
0
0
0
0.57
1216
0
0
0
0.72
703
0
0
0
0.34
676
0
0
0
0.32
1382
0
0
0
0.33
537
0
0
0
0.35
446
0
0
0
0.76
1487
0
0
0
0.57
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisCumulative +Project AM (with Town's Mitigation)
9/14/2011
Movement
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
353
0.92
384
0
384
Prot
7
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
492
0.92
535
0
535
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
223
0.92
242
159
83
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
380
0.92
413
0
219
Prot
6
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.98
3320
0.98
3320
246
0.92
267
0
461
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
173
0.92
188
141
47
Perm
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
312
0.92
339
0
339
Prot
1
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
804
0.92
874
0
874
41.6
41.6
0.42
4.0
3.0
670
0.14
41.6
41.6
0.42
4.0
3.0
1381
0.14
0.33
19.7
1.00
0.3
20.0
C
0.33
19.8
1.00
0.1
19.9
B
22.1
C
8
12.0
12.0
0.12
4.0
3.0
412
c0.11
50.4
50.4
0.50
4.0
3.0
939
0.29
34.4
34.4
0.34
4.0
3.0
1217
c0.25
0.93
43.6
0.74
25.6
57.8
E
0.57
17.3
0.62
2.2
12.9
B
31.6
C
0.72
28.6
1.00
3.7
32.2
C
30.3
C
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
4
28.7
0.69
100.0
71.2%
15
8
34.4
34.4
0.34
4.0
3.0
545
0.05
0.15
22.7
1.00
0.6
23.3
C
2
2
25.0
25.0
0.25
4.0
3.0
396
0.03
0.12
29.0
1.00
0.6
29.6
C
SBR
1900
4.0
0.88
0.85
1.00
2787
1.00
2787
0
775
0.92 0.92
0
842
0
318
0
524
custom
6
41.6
41.6
0.42
4.0
3.0
1159
12.6
12.6
0.13
4.0
3.0
433
c0.10
c0.19
0.45
21.0
1.00
0.3
21.3
C
0.78
42.4
1.00
9.0
51.3
D
29.9
C
C
16.0
C
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
Queues
Cumulative +Project PM (with Town's Mitigation)
Lane Group
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Base Capacity (vph)
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
9/14/2011
EBT
1077
0.67
24.8
0.0
24.8
288
365
598
EBR WBL
665
372
0.68 0.89
9.8 54.7
0.0
0.0
9.8 54.7
76
204
214 m#394
WBT
1401
0.85
13.8
2.1
15.9
168
192
928
SBL
232
0.81
62.8
0.0
62.8
151
#282
SBT
292
0.80
40.3
4.3
44.6
110
#252
712
1598
0
0
0
0.67
980
0
0
0
0.68
1640
0
127
0
0.93
286
0
0
0
0.81
366
0
33
0
0.88
451
0
0
0
0.82
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisCumulative +Project PM (with Town's Mitigation)
9/14/2011
Movement
EBL
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
0
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
991
0.92
1077
0
1077
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
612
0.92
665
266
399
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
514
0.92
559
0
372
Prot
3
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3368
0.53
1784
1117
0.92
1214
0
1401
1900
1900
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
0.89
0.99
1553
0.99
1553
0
0.92
0
102
190
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
283
0.92
308
0
232
Prot
1
25.9
25.9
0.26
4.0
3.0
417
c0.23
75.0
75.0
0.75
4.0
3.0
1748
0.21
c0.39
0.80
7.8
1.53
2.1
14.1
B
21.9
C
17.0
17.0
0.17
4.0
3.0
286
c0.14
17.0
17.0
0.17
4.0
3.0
264
0.12
0.81
40.0
1.00
15.9
55.8
E
0.72
39.2
1.00
9.0
48.3
D
51.6
D
4
45.1
45.1
0.45
4.0
3.0
1596
0.30
0.67
21.7
1.00
1.1
22.8
C
22.2
C
4
45.1
45.1
0.45
4.0
3.0
714
0.25
0.56
20.2
1.00
1.0
21.1
C
25.9
0.82
100.0
92.7%
15
0.89
35.7
0.97
16.5
51.3
D
8
0.0
A
199
0.92
216
0
0
6
C
8.0
F
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
Queues
Cumulative +Project PM (with Town's Mitigation)
Lane Group
EBL
479
v/c Ratio
1.16
Control Delay
123.2
Queue Delay
0.0
Total Delay
123.2
Base Capacity (vph)
412
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
1.16
9/14/2011
EBT
712
0.76
16.9
0.0
16.9
150
212
928
WBT
912
0.76
34.3
0.0
34.3
269
344
1416
WBR
439
0.73
30.7
0.0
30.7
193
314
NBL
427
0.63
28.1
0.0
28.1
230
348
NBT
901
0.64
25.6
0.0
25.6
244
314
1192
NBR SBL
325
501
0.66 1.12
26.8 121.6
0.0
0.0
26.8 121.6
110 ~191
208 #293
SBR
822
0.55
8.5
0.0
8.5
64
126
932
0
0
0
0.76
1203
0
0
0
0.76
601
0
0
0
0.73
676
0
0
0
0.63
1408
0
0
0
0.64
495
0
0
0
0.66
1483
0
0
0
0.55
446
0
0
0
1.12
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisCumulative +Project PM (with Town's Mitigation)
9/14/2011
Movement
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Volume (vph)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
441
0.92
479
0
479
Prot
7
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
655
0.92
712
0
712
1900
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
404
0.92
439
63
376
Perm
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.95
1610
0.95
1610
584
0.92
635
0
427
Prot
6
1900
4.0
0.91
1.00
0.99
3352
0.99
3352
638
0.92
693
0
901
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
299
0.92
325
99
226
Perm
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
461
0.92
501
0
501
Prot
1
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
839
0.92
912
0
912
8
12.0 50.0
12.0 50.0
0.12 0.50
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
412
932
c0.14 c0.38
34.0
34.0
0.34
4.0
3.0
1203
0.26
1.16
44.0
0.75
90.7
123.6
F
0.76
29.3
1.00
4.5
33.8
C
34.5
C
Windsor Community
Sonoma County
Abrams
Farhad &Associates
Associates
4
0.76
20.2
0.60
4.2
16.4
B
59.5
E
43.8
0.86
100.0
85.3%
15
8
34.0
34.0
0.34
4.0
3.0
538
0.24
0.70
28.6
1.00
7.4
36.0
D
2
42.0 42.0
42.0 42.0
0.42 0.42
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
676 1408
0.27 c0.27
0.63
22.9
1.00
1.9
24.8
C
0.64
23.0
1.00
1.0
24.0
C
27.1
C
2
25.0
25.0
0.25
4.0
3.0
396
SBR
1900
4.0
0.88
0.85
1.00
2787
1.00
2787
0
756
0.92 0.92
0
822
0
312
0
510
custom
6
42.0
42.0
0.42
4.0
3.0
1171
13.0
13.0
0.13
4.0
3.0
446
c0.15
0.14
0.57 1.12
32.8 43.5
1.00 1.00
5.9 80.8
38.7 124.3
D
F
0.18
0.44
20.6
1.00
0.3
20.8
C
60.0
E
D
16.0
E
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
ATTACHMENT B
REVISED HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
ATTACHMENT C
REVISED RATIONAL METHOD DRAINAGE STUDY
(PRE-CONSTRUCTION)
EXHIBIT C
MITIGATION MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
EXHIBIT C
MITIGATION MONITORING AND ENFORCMENT PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 1508.13, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been prepared. CEQ
recommends that a Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Program (MMEP) be adopted and
summarized in certain FONSI documents. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is the lead agency for
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance purposes. In order to minimize or avoid
potentially significant impacts that could occur as a result of the Proposed Project, mitigation measures
have been developed and incorporated into this MMEP.
TRIBAL MITIGATION MONITORING OVERVIEW
This chapter has been created to guide mitigation compliance before, during, and after implementation of
the selected alternative, as required by NEPA. The mitigation measures described below were created
through the analysis of potential impacts within the Final EA. As specified in the following table, the
compliance monitoring and evaluation will be performed by the Tribe, and if warranted the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Town of Windsor, Sonoma County, and the USEPA as
indicated in the description of each measure. The MMEP is included within the FONSI to provide:
Requirements for compliance of the mitigation measures specifically created to
mitigate impacts;
List of responsible parties;
Timing of mitigation measure implementation.
Mitigation measures included within the following table list the responsible party, the compliance
standards, implementation timeline, and verification of completion. Where applicable, mitigation
measures will be monitored and enforced pursuant to Federal law, tribal ordinances, and agreements
between the Tribe and appropriate governmental authorities, as well as the FONSI.
Analytical Environmental Services
1
Lytton Rancheria Development Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Program
Mitigation Measure
Land Resources

All site preparation and earthwork construction in
the field shall be performed by licensed contractors.

Suitability of earth and construction materials shall
Implementing
Responsibility
Compliance Standards
Timing
Tribe
Geotechnical and soil
laboratory testing preformed in
accordance with engineering
industry practices
Planning and
Construction
Phases
General Contractor
be determined by a licensed professional employing
Grading other plans to be
reviewed and approved by
appropriate licensed
professionals
geotechnical/soils laboratory testing standards
according to standard engineering practice.

All grading plans, subsurface investigations, and
Grading and foundation work
related to expansive soils to be
approved by a licensed
engineer
slope stability and seismic design calculations as
well as all foundation, paving, and building design
parameters shall be produced under the supervision
of appropriate licensed professionals.

Design-level geotechnical
specifications addressing the
specific grading and
development plans shall be
developed and approved by a
licensed engineer
Construction on expansive soil shall be mitigated by
using specialized grading techniques or designing
structural foundations to withstand expansion
pressures.

Verification
(Date/Initial)
Measures shall be included in
construction specifications
The effects of soil movement shall be mitigated by
strengthening the soils during grading and/or
designing and constructing satisfactory foundation
support.

Prior to finalization of the grading and development
plans for the property, design-level geotechnical
specifications addressing the specific grading and
development plans shall be developed. The
specifications should include, but not be limited to,
2
Lytton Property Residential Development
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Verification
(Date/Initial)
the following:
o
Site, building and facility-specific grading
recommendations regarding site preparation,
clearing and grubbing.
o
Select grading procedures, remedial grading
procedures, material suitability and compaction
criteria.
o
Cut and fill slope stability analyses,
recommended slope configurations and
inclinations.
o
Evaluation of soil expansion and corrosion
potential.
o
Building-specific foundation design parameters.
o
Site-specific seismic design parameters.
o
Lateral earth pressure parameters for retaining
wall design, if applicable.
o
Pavement design specifications.
Water Resources

The Tribe shall obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit (NPDES
Tribe
NPDES permit shall be
obtained from USEPA
General Permit) from the USEPA for construction
SWPPPs shall be completed for
all construction and excavation
activities
site runoff during the construction phase in
compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA). A
Measures identified on the
SWPPP shall be included in
construction plans
Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be prepared, implemented, and
Construction
3
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
A copy of the SWPPP shall be
current and remain on-site
maintained throughout the construction phase of the
development, consistent with General Permit
Verification
(Date/Initial)
SWPPP practices shall be
implemented on-site during
construction
requirements. The SWPPP would detail the BMPs
to be implemented during construction and postconstruction operation of the Proposed Project. The
BMPs may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
o
Straw wattle placement on cut and fill slopes.
o
Straw wattle check dam installation within
drainage swales.
o
Covering disturbed areas with plastic, hydroseed applications, or straw.
o
Installation of “construction only” entrances to
reduce off-site sediment transport.
o

Revegetation following construction activities.
If Alternative B or C is chosen, the Tribe shall
construct the tertiary wastewater treatment and
reclamation facility (WTRF) as described in
Tribe
General Contractor
Measure shall be included in
Operation
Phase
obtained from USEPA
Operation
Phase
Appendix B of the Final EA. Salt-based
chemicals shall not be used whenever feasible in
the wastewater treatment process. Water
softeners that dispose of salt into the
wastewater system shall be prohibited.

Should Alternative B be chosen, the Tribe shall
obtain a NPDES permit for surface discharge of
Tribe
4
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
treated effluent. An energy dissipater that does not
Timing
Verification
(Date/Initial)
result in any fill of waters of the U.S. shall be
installed at the effluent discharge outfall.

The nested monitoring well constructed for the
hydrogeologic investigation shall be maintained and
Tribe
A groundwater monitoring
program shall be developed and
implemented by the Tribe to
monitor groundwater pumping
and usage in accordance with
standard industry practices
used for groundwater-level monitoring.
Operation
Phase

If Alternative B or C is chosen, wastewater effluent
discharge shall be reduced or eliminated, if possible,
Tribe
Construction
and Operation
Phases
Tribe
obtained from USEPA
Construction
and Operation
during the issuance of an Urban and Small Streams
Flood Advisory by the National Weather Service for
the receiving waters into which project effluent is
discharged.

If Alternative B or C is chosen, community
education programming will be conducted to educate
residents of the importance of reducing chemical
product use and disposal in the home and minimizing
release of medicines and other contaminants into
wastewater.

If Alternative B or C is chosen, all effluent discharge
basins shall maintain a minimum vertical distance of
5
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
two feet freeboard between the high water level and
A Vector Control Plan shall be
developed and implemented in
accordance with standard
industry practices
pond levee crowns. Storage basins will also be gated
to restrict access. All basins shall be equipped with
draining systems and level monitors. A Vector
Timing
Phases
Verification
(Date/Initial)
Control Plan shall be developed and enforced to
monitor for and reduce the presence of vectors on the
project site.

If Alternative B or C is chosen, spray drift from the
spray disposal irrigation areas would be monitored
Tribe
A spray field monitoring
program shall be developed and
implemented in accordance
with standard industry practices
daily during operation by qualified personnel. Spray
drift shall not be allowed to migrate outside of the
irrigation area.

Landscape irrigation to be
preformed in accordance with
standards equivalent to the
State Water Resources Control
Board Recycled Water Policy
for landscape irrigation
If Alternative B or C is chosen, spray irrigation
would cease when winds exceed 30 miles per hour.

Operation
Phase
If Alternative B or C is chosen, the Tribe would
adopt standards equivalent to the landscape irrigation
standards in the State Water Resources Control
Board Recycled Water Policy (as referenced in

If Alternative B or C is chosen, a wastewater
contingency plan shall be developed that ensures
Tribe
obtained from USEPA
untreated wastewater is not discharged to the
Wastewater contingency plan
shall be developed and
implemented in accordance
with standard industry practices
environment in the event of WTRF failure or
malfunction.
Construction
and Operation
Phases
6
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Verification
(Date/Initial)
Air Quality

Construction vehicles, delivery, and commercial
vehicles shall not idle for more than five minutes.

The Tribe shall designate an onsite Air Quality
Tribe
General Contractor
Construction BMP Manager (AQCBM), who shall
construction specifications and
implemented throughout
construction.
Planning and
Construction
Phases
be responsible for directing compliance with BMPs
for the project construction heavy-duty equipment.

Heavy, diesel-powered equipment idling shall be
limited to two minutes.

The Tribe shall use heavy duty construction
equipment equipped with a diesel particulate matter
filter.

The Tribe shall fully fund a program to encourage
and facilitate the use of ‘carpools’ by construction
workers, including providing an off-site location for
construction workers to park their vehicles and meet
to carpool.

If possible, the Tribe shall use heavy duty
construction equipment, which meets CARB’s most
recent certification standards.

The Tribe shall provide a storage area for recyclables
and green waste during construction.
7
Mitigation Measure

Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Tribe
Tribe shall comply with LEED
or equivalent design standards
Planning and
Construction
Phases
Verification
(Date/Initial)
The Tribe shall recycle 50 percent or more of
construction waste.

The Tribe shall use environmentally preferable
materials to the extent practical for construction of
facilities. Buildings will be designed to meet LEED
General Contractor
or equivalent certification standards, except with
respect to indoor smoking allowed in certain
restricted areas.

The AQCBM shall be responsible for directing
compliance with the following BMPs for fugitive
dust control practices during project construction:
o
Tribe
General Contractor
Planning and
Construction
Phases
For any earth moving which is more than 100
feet from all property lines, conduct watering as
necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from
exceeding 100 feet in length in any direction.
o
For all disturbed surface areas apply dust
suppression in a sufficient quantity and
frequency to maintain a stabilized surface. Any
areas, which cannot be stabilized, as evidenced
by wind driven dust, must have an application
of water at least twice per day to at least 80
percent of the unstabilized area.
o
Establish a vegetative ground cover as soon as
feasible after active operations have ceased.
o
Either water all unpaved roads used for any
8
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Verification
(Date/Initial)
vehicular traffic as often as necessary to
minimize dust; or apply chemical stabilizer to
all unpaved road surfaces in sufficient quantity
and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface.
o
Provide track-out control to minimize tracking
of soil onto neighboring roadways.
o
For all off site haul vehicles, cover loads.
o
Grading activities shall not occur when winds
exceed 25 miles per hour (mph).
o
Speed on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15
mph.

For operation of the proposed project, the Tribe shall
institute and fund an on-site waste composting
Tribe
Tribe shall comply with
industry standards
program. Waste composting reduces GHG
emissions from landfills. This mitigation measure
Planning,
Construction,
and Operation
Phases
would reduce GHG emissions from mobile sources
by one percent.

For operation of the proposed project, the Tribe shall
plant trees and other carbon-sequestering vegetation
Tribe
Final design shall minimize the
impacts to oak trees by
avoiding oak tree removal to
the maximum extent feasible
(as part of the Mitigation Measure outlined for native
oak trees in Section 5.4.2 of the Final EA) or
preserving an equivalent area of oak woodland. The
Oak Woodland Management
Plan
addition of photosynthesizing plants would reduce
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) because plants
use CO2 for elemental carbon and energy
Planning,
Construction,
and Operation
Phases
9
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Verification
(Date/Initial)
production. Trees planted near buildings would
result in additional benefits by providing shade to the
buildings, reducing heat absorption and the need for
air conditioning. Implementation of this mitigation
measure would reduce the project’s electricity
consumption, thus lowering indirect GHG emissions
in the residential air conditioning sector by up to 30
percent.

The Tribe shall use solar hot water heaters where
possible for all project components. The use of solar
hot water heaters would reduce project’s energy
usage, thus lowering indirect related GHG emissions
by reducing natural gas and electricity usage.
According to the BAAQMD, implementation of this
mitigation measure would reduce the project’s
indirect GHG emissions in the residential natural gas
water heating sector by up to 70 percent

The Tribe shall seal all residential and other
buildings heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
ducts. According to the BAAQMD, implementation
of this mitigation measure would reduce the project’s
electricity consumption, thus lowering indirect GHG
emissions in the residential air conditioning sector by
up to 30 percent.
10
Mitigation Measure
For Alternatives A and B, the Tribe shall purchase

1,716.44 metric tons of approved carbon credits from
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Tribe
CARB standards and
regulations
Planning and
prior to
construction
Tribe
Setbacks will be delineated and
monitored by a qualified
biologist during construction
activities
Planning and
Construction
Phases
a carbon credit exchange or trading entity, such as
Verification
(Date/Initial)
the Climate Action Reserve, Chicago Climate
Exchange, Element Markets or similar entity prior to
the operation of the Proposed Project
Biological Resources
Waters of the U.S.

A 50-foot setback, where possible, shall be
established around each of the potentially
jurisdictional wetland features within the project
A CWA 404 permit shall be
obtained from the USACE if
avoidance is not possible
development and no development shall occur
within the setback areas.

Prior to the onset of construction activities, these
A CWA Section 401 Water
Quality Certification permit
shall be obtained from USEPA
if avoidance is not possible
wetland avoidance setbacks shall be established
around jurisdictional wetland features using highvisibility fencing. A qualified biologist shall be
present during construction activities that ensue
within the vicinity of the wetland avoidance
buffer zones. The qualified biologist shall
BAAQMD/CARB standards
and regulations
monitor during construction to make sure that the
fencing remains intact and that construction
activities do not penetrate the wetland avoidance
buffer zones. When project development is
completed, the high-visibility fencing may be
11
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Verification
(Date/Initial)
removed.

Temporary fencing shall be installed around
riparian habitats. Fencing shall be in place prior
to the initiation of any construction activities and
no encroachment into the fenced areas shall be
permitted. Fencing shall remain in place until all
construction activities have ceased.

Any proposed construction activities that would
occur within 50 feet of jurisdictional waters of the
U.S. shall be conducted during the dry season
(i.e., April 15 through October 15) to further
reduce sedimentation within the watershed.

If complete avoidance of waters of the U.S. is not
possible and impacts to wetland features cannot
be avoided, authorization from the USACE is
required. A Section 404 CWA permit shall be
obtained from the USACE and mitigation ratios
defined within the permit conditions shall be
implemented. Typical Nationwide Permits
(NWP) mitigation occurs at a ratio of 1:1 acres
created versus impacted and 2:1 acres preserved
versus impacted. Individual permit conditions
may vary. A CWA Section 401 Water Quality
Certification permit from the U.S. EPA would
also be required.
12
Mitigation Measure
Native Trees:

Trees of notable size (i.e., heritage trees exceeding
Implementing
Responsibility
Tribe
Oak Woodland Management
Plan
33 inches diameter at breast height) shall be
Timing
Verification
(Date/Initial)
Planning and
Construction
Phases
preserved to the greatest extent feasible.

Impacts to valley oak trees within the Valley Oak
Habitat Combining District shall be avoided to the
maximum extent feasible.

Protection of tree crowns and root zones shall be
required for all trees planned for retention in the
vicinity of the construction footprint.

Native oak trees permanently removed as a result
of project construction will be mitigated through
re-planting of removed trees at a 1:1 ratio, as
detailed below, or alternatively, preserving an
equivalent area of oak woodland.
o
Replacement oak trees will be planted on
Tribally-owned land and/or other parcels
in the vicinity of the project site.
o
Oak trees may be established by planting
in replacement areas trees salvaged from
construction impact zones, 15 gallon-sized
trees, 24-inch boxes, 36-inch boxes,
saplings, propagated seedlings, acorns or
any combination of these sizes or stages.
o
To ensure the success of planted oak trees,
13
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Tribe
Tribe
Planning and
Construction
Phases
Tribe
Flora studies shall be
preformed by a qualified
biologist in accordance to Santa
Rosa Plain Conservation
Strategy protocol
Planning and
Construction
Phases
Verification
(Date/Initial)
the trees shall be monitored annually by a
qualified biologist for a period of five
years, with a survival target goal of 60
percent by the third year. If it is
determined after the third year of
monitoring that the 60 percent survival rate
is not being met, additional trees shall be
planted to meet an 80 percent survival goal
near the end of five years.
o
Trees removed for construction shall be
assessed by a qualified biologist to see if
the removed trees would be suitable for
relocation in replacement areas.
Special-Status Animals

The remaining aquatic surveys for the California
Tiger Salamander (CTS) and California RedLegged Frog (CRLF) shall be conducted with the
stock pond located on parcel 066-050-047. If
either CTS or CRL is found, facilities proposed
under Alternative B in the area upland of the pond
could be restricted or could require mitigation.
Special-Status Plants

The remaining floristic surveys for Sonoma
sunshine, Sebastopol meadowfoam, Burke’s
goldfields, and many-flowered navarretia (Final
14
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Verification
(Date/Initial)
EA- Appendix E) shall be conducted within the
required areas of the project site in accordance
with the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy
protocol prior to groundbreaking on those parcels.

If the protocol-level floristic survey results are
positive, then formal consultation with USFWS
must be initiated. Upon consultation, an
appropriate course of action shall be established.

Prior to the onset of construction activities, an
avoidance plan must be formulated, submitted,
and approved by the USFWS. It is likely entail
the following basic principles:
o
Prior to the onset of construction activities
the areas where the plants occur shall be
delineated with avoidance buffers via high
visibility fencing. The avoidance buffers
may be 50 feet in width, unless otherwise
specified by USFWS.
o
A qualified botanist shall be present during
construction activities that ensue within the
vicinity of the special-status plant
avoidance buffer zones and monitored to
ensure that the fencing remains intact and
that construction activities do not penetrate
the special-status plant avoidance buffer
15
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Tribe
Surveys shall be conducted by
a qualified biologist
Planning and
Construction
Phases
Verification
(Date/Initial)
zones.
o
When project development is completed,
the high-visibility fencing may be
removed. However, future development
shall not occur within the setback buffer
areas.

If complete avoidance of the Santa Rosa Plain
special-status plants is not feasible, the Tribe shall
mitigate for impacts to the plants according to the
mitigation ratios in Final EA -Table 5-1, which
are outlined in the Programmatic Consultation for
USACE 404 Permitted Projects that May Affect
Four Endangered Plant Species on the Santa
Rosa Plain, California (File Number 223420N)
(USFWS, 2007).
Nesting of Migratory Birds

If any construction activities are scheduled to
occur during the nesting season (February 15 –
Appropriate avoidance setbacks
will be established and
monitored by a qualified
biologist
August 31), pre-construction bird surveys shall be
conducted. Pre-construction surveys for any
nesting bird species shall be conducted by a
If avoidance is unavoidable,
consultation with USFWS shall
be initiated
qualified wildlife biologist, throughout all areas of
suitable trees and habitat that are within 500 feet
of any proposed construction activity, including
oak trees slated for removal. The surveys shall
16
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Verification
(Date/Initial)
occur no more than 14 days prior to the scheduled
onset of construction activities. If construction is
delayed or halted for more than 14 days, another
pre-construction survey for nesting bird species
shall be conducted. If no nesting birds are
detected during the pre-construction surveys no
additional surveys or mitigation measures are
required.

If migratory nesting bird species are observed
within 500 feet of the construction area during the
surveys, appropriate avoidance setbacks shall be
established by the qualified biologist. The size
and scale of nesting bird avoidance setbacks is
dependent upon the species of nesting bird
observed and the habitat that the nest occurs.
Avoidance setbacks shall be established around all
active nest locations via stakes and high visibility
fencing. The nesting bird setbacks shall be
completely avoided during the duration of
construction activities and the fencing must
remain intact. The qualified biologist shall also
determine an appropriate monitoring plan and
shall decide if construction monitoring is
necessary during the duration of construction
activities. Again, monitoring requirements are
17
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Tribe
If archeological resources are
discovered, a professional
archeologist shall assess their
significance and an appropriate
course of action shall be
decided
Construction
Phase (if
warranted)
Verification
(Date/Initial)
dependent upon the species of nesting birds
observed, the habitat in which the nests are
contained, and the number of nests observed. The
setback fencing may be removed when the
qualified biologist confirms that the nest(s) are no
longer occupied and all young have fledged.

If impacts (i.e., take) to migratory nesting bird
species are unavoidable, consultation with
USFWS shall be initiated. Through consultation,
an appropriate and acceptable course of action
shall be established.
Cultural Resources

Should any buried cultural materials
(archaeological or paleontological) be uncovered
during ground-disturbing project activities, such
General Contractor
activities shall cease within 100 feet of the find.
Prehistoric archaeological indicators include:
obsidian or chert flaked-stone tools and waste
A treatment plan shall be
developed in accordance with
standard industry practices
flakes (debitage) resulting from the toolmaking
process; bedrock outcrops and boulders with
mortar cups; ground stone implements (grinding
slabs, mortars and pestles); and locally darkened
midden soils containing any of the previously
listed items plus fragments of faunal bone or shell,
fire-affected rocks, and/or unusual amounts of
18
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Verification
(Date/Initial)
charcoal. Historic period site indicators generally
include: fragments of glass, ceramic and metal
objects; milled and split lumber; and structural
and feature remnants such as building
foundations, privy pits, wells, irrigation ditches,
and refuse dumps; and old trails. The Lytton
Rancheria shall be notified of the discovery and a
professional archeologist (or paleontologist, as
appropriate) shall be retained to evaluate the find
and recommend appropriate treatment measures in
consultation with the Lytton Rancheria. Projectrelated activities shall not resume within 100 feet
of the find until all mitigation measures have been
approved and completed.

If suspected human remains are encountered,
work should halt in the vicinity and the Sonoma
County Coroner should be notified immediately.
Tribe
General Contractor
Procedures for the recovery of
human remains pursuant to 43
C.F.R. 10.4
Construction
Phase (if
warranted)
Procedure shall be included in
At the same time, the Lead Agency and a
qualified archaeologist should be contacted to
evaluate the find. If human remains are
determined to be of Native American origin, the
Coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours of
this identification. Construction activities shall
not resume within 100 feet of the find until the
NAHC-designated Most Likely Descendant
19
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Tribe
Any fossils discovered during
construction shall be collected
and catalogued by an approved
paleontologist/geologist
Construction
Phase (if
warranted)
Verification
(Date/Initial)
(MLD) and the Tribe approves and implements a
strategy for the appropriate disposition of the
remains.

Should paleontological resources be unearthed, a
paleontological resource impact mitigation plan
(PRIMP) shall be created prior to further
General Contractor
earthmoving in the vicinity of the find. The
Procedures for the discovery
and recovery of fossils shall be
included in construction
specifications
PRIMP shall detail the procedures for collecting
and preserving the discovered fossils. Any fossils
discovered during construction shall be
accessioned in an accredited scientific institution
for future study.
Transportation and Circulation

The Tribe shall pay a proportionate share for
necessary intersection improvements at the
intersection of Windsor River Road and Bell Road
Tribe
General Contractor
(Intersection #6). The improvements shall include,
Proportionate share agreement
with the Town of Windsor
Planning phase
Standard industry practices
but not limited to, installation of a traffic signal if
and when the Town of Windsor determines a signal
is warranted.

The Tribe shall pay a proportionate share for
intersection improvements at the intersection of Old
Tribe
Redwood Highway and the Northbound U.S. 101
Planning phase
Off-Ramp at Lakewood Drive (Intersection #9).
Improvements would include the construction of an
20
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Tribe
consistent with equivalent state
and local standards
Planning and
Construction
Phases
Verification
(Date/Initial)
additional southbound left turn lane, an additional
southbound right-turn lane, and restriping the
northbound approach to include a shared through-left
lane. It is assumed that the project’s equitable share
of any planned improvements at this intersection
would be calculated based on the methodology set
forth in Appendix “B” of the California Department
of Transportation “Guide for the Preparation of
Traffic Impact Studies.” It is also assumed this will
be determined in consultation with Sonoma County,
the Town of Windsor and the Tribe.
Public Services

To minimize the risk of fire and the need for fire
protection services during construction, any
construction equipment that normally includes a
General Contractor
Development plans to be
appropriate licensed
professionals
spark arrester shall be equipped with a spark arrester
in good working order. This includes, but is not
limited to, vehicles, heavy equipment, and
chainsaws.

During construction, staging areas, welding areas, or
areas slated for development using spark-producing
equipment would be cleared of dried vegetation or
other materials that could serve as fire fuel. To the
extent feasible, the contractor would keep these areas
clear of combustible materials in order to maintain a
21
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Tribe
Standard industry practices,
and local standards
Planning Phase
Tribe
and local standards
Planning Phase
Verification
(Date/Initial)
firebreak.

Fire extinguishers shall be maintained onsite and
inspected on a regular basis.

An evacuation plan shall be developed for the
proposed development in the event of a fire
emergency.

Fire hydrant spacing will follow current fire codes.

Fire alarm and suppression systems installed shall
conform to design standards equivalent to the
licensed professionals
requirements of the California Building and Fire
Codes as amended and adopted by Sonoma County.

On-site development shall be generally consistent
with Sonoma County Fire Safe Standards Sections
Tribe
Planning Phase
Tribe
Vegetation management plan to
be developed by a qualified
professional
Planning Phase
13-54 through 13-59.

A vegetation management plan shall be prepared by
a qualified professional prior to occupation of any
residences. The plan shall include, at a minimum,
defensible space zones, identification of vegetation
types, replacement of non-native flammable
vegetation with fire resistive vegetation, and a
maintenance program for all vegetation. The Tribe
shall approve the plan and pass a resolution that
22
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Tribe
and local standards
Ongoing
Tribe
Ongoing
Tribe
Construction
Phase
Verification
(Date/Initial)
requires that it will be implemented and maintained.
Prior to approving the plan, the Tribe shall submit it
to the County Fire Chief for review.

The Tribe shall arrange and coordinate with local
law enforcement and emergency services if needed
to assist with large events held at the proposed
community center.

If Alternative A is selected, the Tribe and the Town
of Windsor shall enter into a mutually agreeable
binding service contract for the provision of water
Noise

and sewer service to the project.
The Tribe shall restrict construction activities to
normal daytime hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.), Monday
through Saturday, with no work performed on
General Contractor
Sundays.

The Tribe shall ensure that construction equipment
used at the project site shall be equipped with the
best available noise reduction technology feasible,
including the use of mufflers on motorized
equipment according to the manufacturer’s
specifications.

All existing residences within 200 feet of the project
site shall be notified at least one day in advance of
construction that is proposed to take place within 300
23
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Verification
(Date/Initial)
feet of the residence.

Stationary noise-producing equipment such as
compressors and generators shall be placed as far as
practical from homes, and shielding shall be
provided between any such equipment and homes
when it is necessary to operate the equipment closer
than 200 feet from a home.

If Alternatives B or C is chosen, on-site water
reclamation facility equipment shall be shielded or
enclosed.
Tribe
General Contractor
Planning Phase
Planning and
Construction
Phases
Hazardous Materials

Potentially hazardous materials, including fuels,
shall be stored away from drainages and secondary
containment shall be provided for all hazardous
Tribe
General Contractor
materials during construction.

A spill prevention and countermeasure plan shall be
Hazardous materials storage
and disposal plan shall be
developed in accordance with
industry practices
developed which shall identify proper storage,
collection, and disposal measures for potential
pollutants (such as fuel storage tanks) used onsite, as
well as the proper procedures for cleaning up and
reporting of any spills.

Vehicles and equipment used during construction
shall be provided proper and timely maintenance to
reduce potential for mechanical breakdowns leading
to a spill of materials into water bodies.
24
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Timing
Verification
(Date/Initial)
Maintenance and fueling shall be conducted in an
area that meets the criteria set forth in the spill
prevention plan.

Before the parcels are taken into trust, all items of
non-hazardous debris shall be removed for the site
and properly disposed of or recycled an appropriate
off-site facility.

A hazardous materials storage and disposal plan
shall be prepared that contains an inventory of
hazardous materials stored and used on site,
maintains an emergency response plan for a release
and disposal of unused hazardous materials, and
provides provisions specifying employee training in
safety and emergency response procedures.
25
EXHIBIT D
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
CONCURRENCE LETTER
EXHIBIT E
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
CONCURRENCE LETTERS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA – THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
1725 23rd Street, Suite 100
SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-7100
(916) 445-7000 Fax: (916) 445-7053
calshpo@parks.ca.gov
www.ohp.parks.ca.gov
1 February 2012
Reply To: BIA111007A
Amy Dutschke
Regional Director
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Pacific Regional Office
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento, CA 95825
Re: Section 106 Consultation for Fee-to-Trust Conveyance of 32 acres of land for the Lytton
Band of Pomo Indians, Sonoma County, CA
Dear Ms. Dutschke:
Thank you for your letter of 5 September 2011 initiating consultation for the above referenced
undertaking in order to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 and its implementing regulation at 36 CFR Part 800. The BIA’s implementation of this
proposed action is contingent in part on the BIA meeting its obligations under Section 106.
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for this undertaking includes seven parcels of land totaling
approximately 32 acres located in portions of Sections 10, 11, 14, and 15 of Township 8 North,
Range 9 West, MDBM. The project is situated three miles west of the City of Windsor, on the
south side of Windsor River Road and adjacent to the east bank of the Russian River. The APE
is shown in Figure 1 and 2 in the attached report. I agree the APE is sufficient pursuant to 36
CFR800.4(1)(a).
Within the APE for this project, two parcels (APN: 066-191-016 and APN: 066-191-021)
contained several historic structures and buildings were identified which were of sufficient age to
be considered for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Of these
buildings and structures, none were determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and thus the
BIA determined the undertaking would not have an effect on historic properties. I concur the
buildings are not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and that no historic properties will be
affected.
Thank you for considering historic properties in your planning process and I look forward to
continuing consultation on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Amanda
Blosser of my staff at (916) 445-7048 or e-mail at ablosser@parks.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA
State Historic Preservation Officer
MWD: ab
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Pacific Regional Office 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento. California 95825 FEB - 8'2012
The Honorable Margie Mejia, Chairperson
Lytton Band ofPomo Indians, Lytton Rancheria
1300 N Dutton Ave.
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Dear Chairperson Mejia:
The enclosed letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), dated February 1,2012,
concurs with our determination of No Historic Properties Affected regarding the Lytton
Rancheria's proposed fee-to-trust conveyance of seven parcels totaling 32 acres of land.
Therefore, the Section 106 historic preservation compliance consultation process, as specified in
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations in 36 CFR Part 800 (revised
December 12, 2000), has now been completed.
You should be aware, however, that in the event of an inadvertent discovery, the BIA may have
additional responsibilities relevant to this undertaking, pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.13. If you
require further clarification or need additional information, please contact Jennifer Lavris,
Assistant Regional Archeologist, at (916) 978-6044, or John Rydzik, Chief, Division of
Environmental, Cultural Resources Management, and Safety, at (916) 978-6051.
Sincerely,
',<"\
-Regional Director
I'c\\\ ,go- ~
Enclosure
cc: Superintendent, Central California Agency
Regional Environmental Protection Specialist

FONSI - Lytton Residential Development

Transcription

Similar documents

AFARINESH IELTS House - www.IELTS

PB# 73-72 Lightron of Cornwall

Sites of Apology / Sites of Hope Map

style picks - Our Homes Magazine

Live Music

construction in your community - DeForest Area School District

italian of the year 2015

Bill That Lets Bosses Fire Single Women For Getting Pregnant Gains

PDF Brochure

Conservation groups nickname NM `The Land of Entrapment` | KOB