COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE EA

Tribal code

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

EXHIBIT A

COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE EA

EXHIBIT A

COMMENTS ON EA

Comments received on the Environmental Assessment (EA) are listed in Table A-1. Copies of the

comment letters are provided in their entirety on the following pages, and issues are individually

bracketed and numbered in the margins of the representative comment letters. Responses to the

numbered comments are provided in Exhibit B.

TABLE A-1

LIST OF COMMENTERS

Letter

Agency/Organization

Number

Name

Date

Received

Federal Agencies (F)

United States Department of the Interior

(Acting Regional Director)

15-Oct-18

United States Bureau of Land Management

Molly Brown, Arcata Field Manager

26-Oct-18

United States Environmental Protection

Agency

Kathleen Martyn Goforth

5-Nov-18

State Agencies (S)

California Coastal Commission

Mark Delaplaine

19-Oct-18

Jesse Robertson

22-Oct-18

Local Agencies (L)

Daniel Berman

City of Trinidad

10-Oct-18

City of Trinidad

22-Oct-18

J. Bryce Kenny

1-Oct-18

J. Bryce Kenny

3-Oct-18

Carol Mone

9-Oct-18

Tribes (T)

N/A

Department of Transportation

Daniel Berman

Private Entities/ Organizations (P)

Humboldt Alliance for Responsible

Development

Humboldt Alliance for Responsible

Development

Private Citizen

Patty Stearns

9-Oct-18

Private Citizen

Sara March

16-Oct-18

Coalition for Responsible Transportation

Collin Fiske

16-Oct-18

Private Citizen

Sandra Haux

16-Oct-18

Private Citizen

Richard Salzman

17-Oct-18

Private Citizen

Charley Custer

17-Oct-18

P10

Private Citizen

Richard Clompus

18-Oct-18

P11

Private Citizen

Alan Grau

18-Oct-18

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

EA Comments

Exhibit A

Letter

Agency/Organization

Number

Name

Date

Received

P12

Private Citizen

Larry Goldberg

19-Oct-18

P13

Private Citizen

Gail Kenny

19-Oct-18

P14

Private Citizen

Geoff Proust

19-Oct-18

P15

Private Citizen

Dianne Rowland

19-Oct-18

P16

Private Citizen

Tami and Steen Trump

19-Oct-18

P17

Private Citizen

Jim and Sandra Cuthbertson

19-Oct-18

P18

Private Citizen

Julie Joynt

20-Oct-18

P19

Private Citizen

Joyce King

20-Oct-18

P20

Private Citizen

Erin Rowe

20-Oct-18

P21

Private Citizen

Kathleen Mill

21-Oct-18

P22

Private Citizen

Andrea Bustos

21-Oct-18

P23

Private Citizen

Karin Rosman

21-Oct-18

P24

Private Citizen

Gina M. Rimson

22-Oct-18

P25

Private Citizen

Don Allan

22-Oct-18

P26

Private Citizen

Emelia Berol

22-Oct-18

P27

Private Citizen

J. Bryce Kenny

22-Oct-18

P28

Private Citizen

Jolene Thrash

22-Oct-18

P29

Private Citizen

Charles Netzow

22-Oct-18

P30

Private Citizen

Josiah Raison Cain

22-Oct-18

P31

Northcoast Environmental Center

Larry Glass

22-Oct-18

P32

Private Citizen

Edward E. Pease

22-Oct-18

P33

Private Citizen

Ingrid Bailey

22-Oct-18

P34

Private Citizen

Ken Miller

22-Oct-18

P35

Private Citizen

Kimberly Tays

22-Oct-18

P36

Private Citizen

James Vandegriff

22-Oct-18

P37

Private Citizen

Katrin Homan

22-Oct-18

P38

Private Citizen

Richard Johnson

22-Oct-18

P39

Private Citizen

Sandra Schachter

22-Oct-18

P40

Private Citizen

Patricia Lee Lotus

22-Oct-18

P41

Private Citizen

Andrew Pruter

22-Oct-18

P42

Private Citizen

Annalisa Rush

22-Oct-18

P43

Private Citizen

Holly Vadurro

22-Oct-18

P44

Private Citizen

Clay Johnson

22-Oct-18

P45

Private Citizen

Patrick Harestad

22-Oct-18

P46

Private Citizen

Brenda Cooper

22-Oct-18

P47

Private Citizen

Jennifer Lance

22-Oct-18

P48

Private Citizen

Donna B Ulrich

22-Oct-18

P49

Private Citizen

Melanie and Ron Johnson

22-Oct-18

P50

Private Citizen

Mark Dondero

23-Oct-18

P51

Redwood Region Audubon Society

Chet Ogan

23-Oct-18

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

EA Comments

Exhibit A

Letter

Agency/Organization

Number

Name

Date

Received

P52

Private Citizen

Sam King

23-Oct-18

P53

Private Citizen

David Hankin

23-Oct-18

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

EA Comments

FEDERAL AGENCIES (F)

COMMENT LETTERS

Comment Letter F1

F1-01

Comment Letter F2

F2-01

Comment Letter F2

F2-01

(Cont.)

F2-02

F2-03

F2-04

F2-05

F2-08

F2-07

F2-08

Comment Letter F3

F3-01

F3-02

F3-03

Comment Letter F3

F3-03

(Cont.)

F3-04

F3-05

STATE AGENCIES (S)

COMMENT LETTERS

Comment Letter S1

S1-01

S1-02

Comment Letter S1

S1-02

(Cont.)

S1-03

Comment Letter S1

S1-03

(Cont.)

S1-04

S1-05

Comment Letter S1

S1-05

(Cont.)

S1-06

S1-07

S1-08

S1-09

Comment Letter S1

S1-09

(Cont.)

S1-10

S1-11

Comment Letter S1

Comment Letter S2

S2-01

S2-02

S2-03

S2-04

Comment Letter S2

S2-04

(Cont.)

S2-05

LOCAL AGENCIES (L)

COMMENT LETTERS

Comment Letter L1

L1-01

Comment Letter L2

L2-01

Comment Letter L2

L2-01

(Cont.)

L2-02

Comment Letter L2

L2-02

(Cont.)

L2-03

L2-04

L2-05

Comment Letter L2

L2-05

(Cont.)

L2-06

L2-07

Comment Letter L2

L2-07

(Cont.)

L2-08

L2-09

Comment Letter L2

L2-09

(Cont.)

L2-10

L2-11

L2-12

L2-13

L2-14

Comment Letter L2

L2-14

(Cont.)

L2-15

L2-16

Comment Letter L2

L2-17

L2-18

L2-19

L2-20

Comment Letter L2

L2-20

(Cont.)

L2-21

L2-22

Comment Letter L2

L2-23

L2-24

L2-25

L2-26

L2-27

Comment Letter L2

L2-27

(Cont.)

L2-28

L2-29

Comment Letter L2

L2-29

(Cont.)

L2-30

PRIVATE CITIZENS AND COMMERCIAL

ENTITIES (P)

COMMENT LETTERS

Comment Letter P1

P1-01

Comment Letter P1

Comment Letter P2

P2-01

Comment Letter P2

P2-01

(Cont.)

P2-02

P2-03

Comment Letter P2

P2-03

(Cont.)

P2-04

P2-05

P2-06

Comment Letter P2

P2-06

(Cont.)

P2-07

Comment Letter P2

P2-07

(Cont.)

Comment Letter P2

P2-07

(Cont.)

P2-08

P2-09

Comment Letter P2

P2-09

(Cont.)

P2-10

P2-11

Comment Letter P2

P2-11

(Cont.)

P2-12

Comment Letter P2

P2-13

Comment Letter P3

P3-01

P3-02

P3-03

Comment Letter P3

P3-03

(Cont.)

P3-04

P3-05

P3-06

P3-07

Comment Letter P4

P4-01

P4-02

Comment Letter P4

Comment Letter P5

P5-01

P5-02

P5-03

P5-04

P5-05

Comment Letter P5

P5-05

(Cont.)

Comment Letter P6

P6-01

Comment Letter P6

P6-02

P6-03

P6-04

Comment Letter P6

P6-05

P6-06

P6-07

P6-08

Comment Letter P6

P6-09

Comment Letter P7

P7-01

P7-02

P7-03

P7-04

Comment Letter P7

P7-04

(Cont.)

P7-05

P7-06

P7-07

P7-08

Comment Letter P8

P8-01

Comment Letter P9

P9-01

P9-02

P9-03

Comment Letter P10

P10-01

P10-02

P10-03

P10-04

Comment Letter P10

Comment Letter P11

P11-1

Comment Letter P11

P11-01

(Cont.)

P11-02

P11-03

P11-04

Comment Letter P11

P11-04

(Cont.)

P11-05

Comment Letter P12

P12-01

P12-02

P12-03

P12-04

P12-05

P12-06

Comment Letter P12

P12-06

(Cont.)

P12-07

P12-08

P12-09

Comment Letter P13

P13-01

P13-02

P13-03

Comment Letter P13

P13-04

P13-05

P13-06

Comment Letter P14

P14-01

P14-02

Comment Letter P14

P14-03

Comment Letter P15

P15-01

P15-02

Comment Letter P16

P16-01

P16-02

P16-03

Comment Letter P16

P16-04

P16-05

Comment Letter P17

P17-01

P17-02

P17-03

Comment Letter P18

P18-01

P18-02

Comment Letter P18

P18-02

(Cont.)

Comment Letter P19

P19-01

P19-02

P19-03

Comment Letter P20

P20-01

Comment Letter P21

P21-01

Comment Letter P22

P22-01

P22-02

Comment Letter P23

P23-01

P23-02

Comment Letter P24

P24-01

Comment Letter P24

P24-02

P24-03

P24-04

Comment Letter P24

P24-04

(Cont.)

P24-05

P24-06

Comment Letter P25

P25-01

P25-02

Comment Letter P25

P25-02

(Cont.)

P25-03

P25-04

P25-05

Comment Letter P25

P25-05

(Cont.)

P25-06

P25-07

Comment Letter P25

P25-07

(Cont.)

P25-08

Comment Letter P26

P26-01

P26-02

P26-03

P26-04

P26-05

Comment Letter P26

P26-05

(Cont.)

Comment Letter P27

P27-01

Comment Letter P27

P27-01

(Cont.)

P27-02

P27-03

Comment Letter P27

P27-03

(Cont.)

Comment Letter P27

P27-03

(Cont.)

Comment Letter P27

P27-03

(Cont.)

P27-04

Comment Letter P27

P27-04

(Cont.)

Comment Letter P27

P27-04

(Cont.)

P27-05

Comment Letter P27

P27-05

(Cont.)

P27-06

P27-07

Comment Letter P27

P27-08

P27-09

P27-10

P27-11

Comment Letter P27

P27-11

(Cont.)

P27-12

P27-13

Comment Letter P27

P27-13

(Cont.)

P27-14

P27-15

P27-16

Comment Letter P27

P27-17

P27-18

P27-19

P27-20

Comment Letter P27

P27-20

(Cont.)

P27-21

P27-22

Comment Letter P27

P27-22

(Cont.)

P27-23

P27-24

Comment Letter P27

P27-24

(Cont.)

P27-25

P27-26

Comment Letter P27

P27-26

(Cont.)

P27-27

P27-28

P27-29

P27-30

Comment Letter P27

P27-30

(Cont.)

P27-31

P27-32

P27-33

P27-34

Comment Letter P27

P27-34

(Cont.)

P27-35

Comment Letter P27

P27-35

(Cont.)

Comment Letter P27

P27-35

(Cont.)

P27-36

Comment Letter P27

P27-36

(Cont.)

P27-37

Comment Letter P27

P27-37

(Cont.)

P27-38

Comment Letter P27

P27-38

(Cont.)

P27-39

Comment Letter P27

P27-39

(Cont.)

P27-40

Comment Letter P27

P27-40

(Cont.)

P27-41

P27-42

P27-43

P27-44

Comment Letter P27

P27-45

P27-46

Comment Letter P27

P27-46

(Cont.)

P27-47

P27-48

Comment Letter P27

P27-48

(Cont.)

P27-49

P27-50

Comment Letter P27

P27-51

P27-52

P27-53

Comment Letter P27

P27-53

(Cont.)

P27-54

P27-55

Comment Letter P27

P27-55

(Cont.)

P27-56

P27-57

Comment Letter P27

P27-57

(Cont.)

P27-58

Comment Letter P27

P27-58

(Cont.)

P27-59

P27-60

Comment Letter P27

P27-60

(Cont.)

P27-61

P27-62

P27-63

Comment Letter P27

P27-63

(Cont.)

P27-64

Comment Letter P27

P27-64

(Cont.)

Comment Letter P27

P27-64

(Cont.)

P27-65

P27-66

Comment Letter P27

P27-66

(Cont.)

P27-67

Comment Letter P27

P27-67

(Cont.)

P27-68

P27-69

Comment Letter P27

P27-69

(Cont.)

P27-70

P27-71

P27-72

P27-73

Comment Letter P27

P27-74

P27-75

P27-76

P27-77

P27-78

P27-79

P27-80

Comment Letter P27

P27-80

(Cont.)

Comment Letter P28

P28-01

P28-02

Comment Letter P29

P29-01

Comment Letter P30

P30-01

P30-02

P30-03

Comment Letter P30

P30-03

(Cont.)

P30-04

P30-05

P30-06

P30-07

P30-08

Comment Letter P31

P31-01

P31-02

Comment Letter P31

P31-03

P31-04

P31-05

P31-06

P31-07

Comment Letter P32

P32-01

P32-02

P32-03

Comment Letter P32

P32-03

(Cont.)

P32-04

P32-05

P32-06

P32-07

P32-08

Comment Letter P32

P32-08

(Cont.)

Comment Letter P32

Comment Letter P33

P33-01

P33-02

P33-03

P33-04

Comment Letter P34

P34-01

Comment Letter P34

P34-01

(Cont.)

P34-02

P34-03

Comment Letter P34

P34-03

(Cont.)

P34-04

P34-05

P34-06

Comment Letter P34

P34-07

P34-08

Comment Letter P34

P34-08

(Cont.)

P34-09

Comment Letter P34

P34-10

P34-11

Comment Letter P34

P34-11

(Cont.)

P34-12

P34-13

P34-14

Comment Letter P34

Comment Letter P35

P35-01

P35-02

P35-03

Comment Letter P36

P36-01

P36-02

Comment Letter P36

P36-02

(Cont.)

P36-03

P36-04

Comment Letter P36

P36-04

(Cont.)

P36-05

Comment Letter P37

P37-01

Comment Letter P37

P37-01

(Cont.)

Comment Letter P38

P38-01

P38-02

Comment Letter P38

P38-03

P38-04

P38-05

P38-06

Comment Letter P38

Comment Letter P39

P39-01

Comment Letter P40

P40-01

P40-02

P40-03

P40-04

P40-05

Comment Letter P40

P40-05

(Cont.)

Comment Letter P41

P41-01

P41-02

P41-03

Comment Letter P41

P41-03

(Cont.)

P41-04

P41-05

P41-06

Comment Letter P41

P41-06

(Cont.)

P41-07

Comment Letter P42

P42-01

P42-02

Comment Letter P42

P42-02

(Cont.)

P42-03

Comment Letter P42

P42-03

(Cont.)

P42-04

P42-05

Comment Letter P42

P42-05

(Cont.)

P42-06

P42-07

Comment Letter P42

P42-07

(Cont.)

P42-08

Comment Letter P43

P43-01

P43-02

P43-03

P43-04

Comment Letter P44

P44-01

P44-02

Comment Letter P45

P45-01

P45-02

Comment Letter P45

P45-03

P45-04

P45-05

Comment Letter P46

P46-01

P46-02

P46-03

Comment Letter P46

P46-03

(Cont.)

P46-04

P46-05

P46-06

P46-07

P46-08

Comment Letter P46

P46-08

(Cont.)

Comment Letter P46

Comment Letter P47

P47-01

P47-02

Comment Letter P47

P47-03

P47-04

P47-05

Comment Letter P47

P47-05

(Cont.)

P45-06

P45-07

Comment Letter P47

P47-07

(Cont.)

Comment Letter P48

P48-01

P48-02

Comment Letter P49

P49-01

P49-02

Comment Letter P50

P50-01

P50-02

Comment Letter P50

P50-02

(Cont.)

P50-03

P50-04

Comment Letter P51

P51-01

P51-02

P51-03

P51-04

Comment Letter P51

P51-04

(Cont.)

Comment Letter P51

P51-04

(Cont.)

Comment Letter P52

P52-01

Comment Letter P53

P53-01

P53-02

Comment Letter P53

P53-02

(Cont.)

P53-03

P53-04

Comment Letter P53

P53-04

(Cont.)

P53-05

P53-06

Comment Letter P53

P53-06

(Cont.)

P53-07

EXHIBIT B

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

EXHIBIT B

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

Responses to comments are organized below in four sections based on the agency or individual. The

Sections are organized as follows: Section 1.0 includes comment letters received from Federal agencies,

Section 2.0 includes comments received from States agencies, Section 3.0 includes comment letters

received from local agencies, and Section 4.0 includes comments received from individual entities and

organizations. All of the comments, which have been bracketed and numbered in the margin for ease of

reference, are provided in Exhibit A. Refer to Table A-1 of Appendix A, which provides an index of all

of the comments received on the Environmental Assessment. Once an issue is addressed, subsequent

responses to similar comments reference the initial response. This format eliminates redundancy where

multiple comments have been submitted on the same issue. In accordance with CEQ and NEPA

Regulations, 40 CFR Part 1500, comments that further NEPA’s purposes are included and addressed,

additionally, comments merely expressing an opinion are also included and noted for consideration

purposed. Changes to the EA are included in Exhibit E of the FONSI.

1.0

FEDERAL COMMENT LETTERS (F)

Response to Comment Letter F1 – United States Department of the Interior

F1-01

The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provided one

letter in the record (F1), denying a 30-day extension of the comment period as requested by

the City of Trinidad. Refer to Comment Letter L1 for the letter requesting the extension.

Response to Comment Letter F2 –United States Bureau of Land Management

F2-01-08

Comment noted. The EA assesses impacts to seabirds, including the Marbled Murrelet, in

Section 3.4, Biological Resources. As discussed there within, foraging habitat for marbled

murrelet exists within approximately 500 feet of the project site on the shoreline west of the

development footprint and potential nesting habitat exists within approximately 25 feet of the

project site to the west, south, and east. Mitigation Measure 3.4.5 was incorporated into the

Proposed Project to ensure construction activities would not adversely impact nesting birds,

including seabirds. Regarding operation and potential impacts from bird strikes, according to

updated renditions provided by the Tribe, the hotel would be approximately 3.5 stories taller

than the existing casino (Figure 1). As shown in the figure below, the massing and height of

the hotel would not be considered a significant threat to seabirds flying at higher altitudes.

For those birds flying lower near the cliffs, the casino area including Scenic Drive, is a

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

FIGURE 1

EXTERIOR RENDITIONS OF PROPOSED HOTEL

Source: Wright Group: Thalden-Boyd-Emery Architects

heavily traversed area which would deter seabirds from flying near the structure. However,

the Tribe understands that the additional stories of the hotel compared to the casino may pose

a risk to seabirds and has therefore agreed to incorporate the following design provisions into

the hotel development:

1) Windows shall be fit with black out curtains within rooms that face the ocean;

2) Lighting shall be shielded and downcast; and

3) Building maintenance staff shall be trained to call the Humboldt Wildlife Care Center

wildlife rehabilitation facility should disoriented or injured seabirds be found on the

property.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

Response to Comment Letter F3 –United States Environmental Protection Agency

F3-01 through 03

Comment noted. As stated in Section 2.2.1 of the EA, in order to accommodate excess

wastewater capacity from the proposed Hotel, a 2004 Wastewater Assessment identified two

potential areas, shown in Figure 1-3 of the EA, feasible for additional leach field dispersal:

the mounded ridge to the south of Ter Ker Coo Lane and the hillside south of the Tribal

office. In response to similar comments the Tribe received from the California Coastal

Commission, the Tribe submitted additional information regarding the ability to provide

additional wastewater treatment and disposal for the hotel project. As stated in a letter to the

Coastal Commission dated May 13, 2019, the Tribe has worked with the developer,

engineers, and a technical team, to analyze the operational capacity of the existing leach field,

refine the estimate of project wastewater generated by the proposed project, and to conduct a

site-specific soils survey in order to verify the necessary size and location of a new leach field

and the need for expansion of the existing WWTP.

Based on the updated report submitted by SHN Consulting Engineers and Geologists, the

projected peak day flow for the hotel is likely 14,185 gallons per day (gpd). An assessment

of soil samples, bores, percolation tests, and observations at groundwater wells conducted

by SHN indicated that an approximately 51,500 ft2 area extending to the north and west

around the existing leach field would be suitable for wastewater disposal and would be

able to accommodate a maximum of 11,200 gpd of the peak day flow of 14,185 gpd. To

make up for the difference in the capacity of the leach field to handle peak flows

generated by the hotel, the Trinidad Rancheria is proposing additional storage capacity

(storage tanks) to expand the recycled water system in the existing wastewater treatment

plant. The Trinidad Rancheria will dispose of excess effluent on adjacent tribal property

as land irrigation. The Tribe has agreed to incorporate these recommendation into the

Proposed Project. With these final preliminary design components of the wastewater

treatment and disposal system, the Tribe has further proven that the hotel would have

adequate wastewater treatment and disposal options. The additional information

provided by the Tribe substantiate the findings of the EA and no further analysis or

revisions to the EA are required. Accordingly, the BIA has determined that a FONSI is the

appropriate finding for the Proposed Action.

F3-04

Comment noted. The reference to the expanded capacity in Section 4.1.10 erroneously stated

50,000 gallons per day (GPD) instead of the 30,000 gpd of total capacity the facility was

designed for expansion with extensive modifications as mentioned in Appendix A. The table

referenced in Appendix A assumes that the existing septic systems used by residential homes,

Tribal Office, and former clinic complex fail and therefore these existing community

facilities become connected to the WWTP (refer to Row 1, Column 2 versus Column 3). The

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

engineers concluded that a new wastewater treatment demand of 30,060 would be within the

daily flow ceiling of the expanded WWTP without the need for extensive retrofitting. In

addition, the Tribe has submitted additional documentation relating to the wastewater

treatment system. The installation of equalization and storage tanks would be within the

existing wastewater treatment building along with a minor expansion (25% total floor area) of

the building within the existing, disturbed property. No new impacts would result from the

expansion of the WWTP building and therefore no revisions to the EA are required.

F3-05

2.0

Comment noted. As noted in the additional engineering presented to the California Coastal

Commission, the recycle rate estimate has increased to 78% by adding the recommended

features to the WWTP including the slight expansion. This information represents additional

details submitted by the Tribe associated with the design phase of the hotel as requested by

the California Coastal Commission. While there may be various alterations to the project

description from those presented in the EA, the changes do not result in new adverse

environmental impacts. In accordance with the Indian Affairs National Environmental Policy

Act Guidebook (59 IAM 3-H), the BIA may direct the preparer of an EA to revise the

analyses, consider new alternatives or mitigation measures, seek public involvement, or take

other measures to make the EA adequate to determine whether or not an EIS is required.

Accordingly, the changes to the proposed wastewater treatment system do not alter the

adequacy of the EA to determine whether or not an EIS is required. Based on the entire

record, including the EA, response to comments, and supplemental information provided as a

result of the California Coastal Commission consistency determination, the BIA has

determined that an EIS is not required and a FONSI is applicable.

STATE AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS (S)

Response to Comment Letter S1 – California Coastal Commission (Waiting for consistency

determination)

S1-01

Comment noted. On February 11, 2019 the BIA submitted a Coastal Consistency

Determination in compliance with 15 CFR, Section 930.35 (a). Accordingly, it was the BIA's

determination that the Proposed Federal Action would be consistent with Chapter 3, Article 2

through 6 of the California Coastal Act of 1976. The February letter detailed the specific

provisions of Chapter 3, Articles 2 through 6 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (CCA)

and illustrated how the Proposed Action complies with the CCA, in order to make a Federal

Consistency Determination.

Prior to submission of the Coastal Consistency Determination letter, the BIA conducted a

teleconference with California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff regarding the consistency

determination and Coastal Commission hearing. During the teleconference, CCC staff

suggested a March or April hearing date assuming a February submittal and requested

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

responses to the comments submitted to the BIA on the Environmental Assessment by the

CCC that relate to issues outside of the consistency determination process.

On March 11, 2019, Commission staff formally requested that the BIA grant a time extension

to enable a public hearing at the Commission’s August 2019 meeting in Eureka. The

Commission stated that the delay was necessary to provide additional time related to design

changes implemented in response to comments on the project and to further develop details

regarding water usage, wastewater disposal, water supply, and viewshed impacts. The BIA

declined the request due to the resulting five-month time delay that would result. In addition,

the letter included summaries of responses to the Coastal Commission main concerns

regarding traffic, water demands, wastewater disposal, and slope stability.

Prior to the April Commission hearing, a staff report was published on March 22, 2019,

which recommended that the Commission object to the consistency determination. On March

27, 2019, the BIA moved the determination hearing to May 10, 2019 Commission hearing to

enable the BIA to provide updated project information. The determination was again moved

to the June 14, 2019 Commission hearing to allow further discussion between the Tribe, BIA,

and Commission staff.

On April 12th and May 13th, 2019, the Tribe submitted responses to the March 22nd, 2019

Coastal Commission Staff Report. These submittals provide further concurrence with the

BIA’s findings.

On May 24th, 2019, the staff report for the June 14, 2019 Commission hearing was released.

The staff report had the same conclusions as the March 22 regarding impact to the coastal

viewshed (Sections 30251 and 30253(e) of the Coastal Act) and available public services

(water supply, Section 30250(a) of the Coastal Act). Consistent with the BIA’s findings, the

May 24th staff report concluded that:

Wastewater

The proposed project would include an expansion of the casino’s existing leach field,

wastewater recycling, increased storage capacity, and landscaping irrigation. These

measures would result in sufficient capacity to appropriately dispose of wastewater,

including at times of peak flows, generated by the proposed hotel. Therefore, staff

recommends the Commission find the proposed project consistent with Section 30250(a) with

respect to wastewater treatment.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

Traffic

A traffic assessment for the proposed project finds that the hotel would not result in

significant impacts to the existing transportation network and that there is sufficient capacity

to handle traffic generated by the proposed hotel. Therefore, staff recommends the

Commission find the proposed project consistent with Section 30250(a) with respect to

transportation.

Geotechnical

A geotechnical feasibility and design report concludes that the site is suitable for the

proposed hotel with below-grade foundation design elements and the use of slope

stabilization walls. The Trinidad Rancheria has committed to incorporating landscaping to

conceal such walls where they extend above grade. Therefore, staff recommends the

Commission find the proposed project consistent with Sections 30253(a) and 30253(b) of the

Coastal Act.

On June 7, 2019, the BIA submitted a supplement to the Consistency Determination in

response to the Mary 24th staff report. The BIA reiterated that the Proposed Action for which

the Consistency Determination is required is the approval of a lease agreement for the Tribe’s

operation of the hotel and approval of a loan guarantee pursuant to the BIA land guarantee

program. As noted in the CZMA, "each Federal agency activity within or outside the coastal

zone that affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried

out in a manner which is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable

policies of approved State management programs." (25 U.S.C. § 1456(c)( l )(A)) The CZMA

regulations define the phrase "consistent to the maximum extent practicable" to mean: “fully

consistent with the enforceable policies of management programs unless full consistency is

prohibited by existing law applicable to the Federal Agency”. The supplement provides a

number of federal laws and regulations applicable to the Proposed Action which govern the

BIA’s authority to carry out its activities consistent with CZMA and CCMP. Furthermore, the

BIA summarized the history of the Rancheria and the availability of land to accommodate the

Proposed Action (for example, the Tribe does not own all the lands within the Trinidad

Rancheria), along with the need for the economic development project. Furthermore, where

conditions respecting water delivery to the Tribe's Rancheria are concerned, an issue is

whether the conditions intend to regulate use of the Rancheria, or whether the conditions are

serving an objective that is not preempted by federal law prescribing how the federal land is

to be used. Where federal property is concerned, the Property Clause, Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2,

provides that "Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and

Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." Thus,

the Property Clause allows the United States to take land into trust for the Tribe, and to

specify uses for that land. If State law conflicts with the land use specified by the United

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

States, it may be preempted by federal law pursuant to the Supremacy Clause. Conditions

concerning water delivery may not interfere with Congressionally-approved uses of the

Rancheria. Accordingly, the Tribe is engaged in discussions with the City that will ensure

that water delivery is provided to the hotel.

An addendum to the May 24th, 2019 staff report was released on June 11, 2019 providing an

update on comments received on the staff report and a summary of additional information

received from the BIA and Tribe. However, there were no changes to the May staff report

recommendations regarding the consistency determination.

At the June 12th California Coastal Commission hearing in San Diego, the Commission filed a

motion to object to the BIA’s determination. Many Commissioners stated that water supply

remained an open concern and that the BIA should resubmit a determination to be heard in

August at the Eureka hearing to allow time for the BIA, Tribe, and Commission to work on

the water supply issue.

The BIA resubmitted the Coastal Consistency Determination on July 10th, 2019 with the

intent of working with the Coastal Commission to address the issues from the June hearing.

The subsequent Coastal Consistency Determination was schedule for the August Coastal

Commission hearing in Eureka. A staff report was submitted on July 26, 2019 with the same

recommendations as the June Coastal Commission Hearing. Prior to the hearing, the Tribe

announced that groundwater explorations indicated a potential volume adequate to meet the

needs of the hotel.

The federal consistency determination was addressed at the August 9th, 2019 Coastal

Commission Hearing in Eureka. After deliberation the Coastal Commission concurred with

the BIA’s consistency determination 8 to 3, with a condition that the Tribe secure a consistent

water source.

S1-02

Comment noted. The language in the second bullet of Section 1.7 of the EA is hereby revised

as follows:

Consultation with the California Coastal Commission concerning consistency of the

Proposed Action with the enforceable policies of the California Coastal Management

Program (i.e., the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 30200 et

seq.) in accordance with 15 CFR Section 930.36 of the National Oceanic and Atmosphere

Administration, Federal Consistency Regulations.

S1-03

Comment noted. The language under Coastal Zone in Section 4.1.8 of the final EA is hereby

revised as follows:

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

While the project site is located within the Coastal Zone, the site is considered excluded

from the Coastal Zone as that phrase is defined in the CZMA, as it is on land held in trust

by the federal government. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not required to be

developed in accordance with the Local Coastal Program. However, for the BIA to issue

a loan guarantee for this project, the project is required to be consistent to the maximum

extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the California Coastal Management

Program (CCMP) under the CZMA. The type of land use for the proposed Hotel is

consistent with the adjacent land use of the existing Casino.

S1-04 and -05

Comment noted. As provided in the Tribe’s July, 2019 response to the Coastal

Commission’s Staff Report, the design features of the hotel have been modified to alleviate

issues with the viewshed. These alterations to the hotel are consistent with Mitigation

Measure 3.13.3 of the EA that states:

Design elements shall be incorporated into the Proposed Project to

minimize visual impacts of buildings and associated structures, including

landscaping that compliments buildings and parking areas, with setbacks

and vegetation consistent with existing landscaping. Earth-toned paints

and coatings shall be used, all exterior glass shall be non-reflective and

low-glare, and signs and facades shall be designed with a non-reflective

backing to decrease reflectivity.

The hotel has been sited to overlap the existing structure as much as possible in part, to

minimize the appearance of additional development on the site. The design has also been

revised with a smaller grade level building footprint to better fit within the topography. This

in turn lowers the perceived height of the building above the adjacent grade by one floor at

the South end of the exposed façade. The changing grade results in an overall height of 78.5’

vs. 65.5’ on the North and South ends respectively. The materials used on the exterior consist

of natural stone veneer, lap siding and vertical siding in multiple earth toned colors. Several

roof planes have been sloped back from the exposed elevations minimizing the amount of

visible roof surface and larger overhangs create greater depth of shadow on the building face.

The natural coloration along with offsets in the building face and roofline all help to break up

the perceived overall size of the building.

S1-06

Comment noted. The decision to build an approximately 100 room or more upper midscale

hotel (3+ star quality) was recommended by a lodging consultant as market justified at the

Cher-Ae Heights Casino. It was determined that a hotel of this quality would be attractive to

the Casino, leisure/recreational and commercial demand segments, and improve the Casino’s

attractiveness as a destination. The Tribe considered building a hotel with fewer rooms to

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

reduce the cost of the hotel, but research revealed that the Tribe would not realize the return

on investment with a smaller hotel, which would impair its ability to secure financing for the

project.

The proposed location was determined to be the only adequate location for the hotel as the

Tribe does not own additional lands within the Trinidad Rancheria on which the hotel can be

built. Due to land lost during the construction of Highway 101, the Rancheria Parcel is only

46.5 acres, on which is located the Tribe’s Casino, Tribal office buildings, parking facilities,

public service facilities, and Tribal member housing. The Casino parking lot is not a viable

option as it is not buildable and has destabilization issues related to ground water. Aside

from the land within the Rancheria’s “urbanized” area, the remaining developable acreage is

set aside for Tribal member housing. Due to the size of the existing land base, the

Rancheria’s only site location for the hotel is directly adjacent to and tucked behind the

Casino, which is consistent with the Coastal Act requirement to locate new development

contiguous with existing development and public services. Because of limitations related to

this site, the only alternative for an economically viable hotel with the necessary 100 rooms is

a multi-story hotel at the proposed location.

S1-07

Comment noted. As stated in the prepared EA, Section 3.13.3, as a measure to address glare

during daytime all exterior glass shall be non-reflective and low-glare. Non-reflective, also

known as anti-reflective glass, is intended to reduce the glare as seen from the face of the

glass. Additionally, low-glare glass provides low reflection off the surface of the window.

S1-08

Comment noted. After release of the EA, the Tribe had consulted with Caltrans regarding the

scheduling of the new offramp would not coincide with the potential opening of the new

hotel. Accordingly, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Trinidad Rancheria Hotel was

conducted in 2019 to assess the impacts of the hotel on the existing transportation network

without the new interchange. As recommended by Caltrans, four scenarios were studied,

these include: existing conditions, Forecast 1 – existing conditions with the commencement

of hotel operations slated for 2019, Forecast 2 – 20 year projection to 2039 with no

development, and Forecast 3 – 20 year projection to 2039 with development. The TIA

conclusions were consistent with the findings of the EA. The key findings of the TIA are

summarized below:

1. The Trinidad Rancheria Hotel has little to no impact on the existing transportation

network and traffic patterns.

o At the intersection #1 – Main Street/Scenic Drive/Patrick’s Point Drive the

Level of Service for the intersection is already operating in relatively poor

condition with LOS ratings of:

 “C, A, C, E” from a two-way-stop-control analysis.

 “C, C, B, B” from an all-way-stop-control analysis.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

At the intersection #1 – Main Street/Scenic Drive/Patrick’s Point Drive the

Level of Service for the intersection is minimally impacted by the proposed

hotel development:

 Two-way-stop-control analysis identifies the Southbound LOS

reduces from an “E” already poor rating, to an “F” poor rating.

 All-way-stop-control analysis identifies the Southbound LOS

reduced from a “C” average but acceptable to a “D” below average

rating.

o No other intersections or roadways show any reduced state of operation due

to the proposed Hotel development.

2. Area Transportation Improvements not related to the Development project are needed

to improve, or at a minimum, maintain the existing functionality of the transportation

network.

o 20-Year Project LOS analysis, assuming a realistic 2 percent per year traffic

growth rate and with no significant regional developments identifies the

following issues:

 Intersection #1 – Main Street/Scenic Drive/Patrick’s Point Drive will

be operating in failing condition in year 2039 regardless of

development, if no improvements are made.

 Intersection #4 – N Westhaven Drive/Trinidad Frontage

Road/US101 northbound Off Ramp will be operating in failing

condition in year 2039 regardless of development, if no

improvements are made.

 All other intersections and roadways analyzed in this report, if

maintained to their current condition, adequately serve the area from

a LOS analysis perspective.

S1-09

Comment noted. The draft EA for the hotel project was published in 2018 and indicates that

water would be delivered through the City of Trinidad’s water system. This has been the

Tribe’s intention since planning and development of the project began. The Tribe initiated the

formal discussion process with the City of Trinidad through Government-to-Government

consultation meetings in March and July of 2018. The City was notified that the hotel project

would move forward, and of the Tribe’s need to increase the amount of water use through the

existing Casino connection to service the hotel. As a result of these notifications, the City

began discussions regarding water rates, usage, capacity and other related topics.

The BIA agrees with the City’s efforts to gather appropriate data and re-evaluate water rates,

etc. Doing so will allow them to better determine their water capacity in response to the

Tribe’s request for service. The City has had numerous discussions at City Council meetings

related to the Tribe’s request, and has hired and engineering firm to work on the particular

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

issues. The Tribe shared this information with the Commission to illustrate its commitment

to working with the City, and that the Tribe is fully aware and support their need to study the

water supply. Again, the Tribe pointed the Rancheria already receives water service from the

City of Trinidad, and that the Tribe’s request is not for a new service, but the expansion of

existing service.

The Tribe has been involved with and provided funding for a number of infrastructure

improvement projects related to the City’s system from 1989-2015. The Tribe’s contributions

total $847,693, and include improvements to the City’s water main, water tank and water

plant.

The Tribe has been consistent in our efforts to be transparent, to continue to work

collaboratively, and to contribute funding to the City’s water infrastructure. For example,

because the City provides water service to the Tribe, the Tribe is eligible for federal funding

through Indian Health Service. Those funds can be used to address infrastructure needs as

well as water supply needs for all users.

Based on information provided by TBE Architects, via FEA Consulting Engineers, and

industry standards, the Tribe’s best available information to date is that the hotel will require

approximately 14,184 gallons per day. This number reflects 100% occupancy. However,

according to Wright, Inc., hotels average between 65% and 70% occupancy on an annual

basis. As a result, this brings the average down to approximately 9,000 gallons per day. With

off-site laundry, the recycling of water, and additional water saving techniques, the Rancheria

can achieve and estimated daily consumption number that is much lower.

Since the publication of the EA, the Tribe has met with the City in two government-togovernment meetings related to our water request. During the second meeting the Tribe was

able to discuss the results of one of their commissioned water studies. The conclusion of the

study indicated that the City does have a surplus of water and therefore could meet the

Tribe’s need. The report stated initial evaluations would be needed as the study focused

specifically on the treatment plant’s production capacity and did not address the City’s water

policy issues. The Tribe has sent the City a letter formally requesting water and will send a

follow-up letter requesting an exact amount. In the meantime, the City and the Tribe continue

to move forward on the water request and other related projects.

While using the City’s water and infrastructure is the preferred alternative, in the event that

they are unable to provide the necessary water, the Tribe plans to seek water from on-site

groundwater sources. The EA has been revised to include the option to develop groundwater

wells on the Reservation to serve the Proposed Project. According to preliminary well

explorations, on-site well development could provide approximately 6.8 gallons per minute

(gpm) or 9,792 gpd, approximately 99 percent of the average day demand. With trucking of

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

supplemental water to ensure stored levels can meet max demands, the optional water

strategy can meet the proposed water demands for the Proposed Project.

S1-10

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment F3-01-03 concerning the verification of

the leachfield capacity and expansion review.

S1-11

Comment noted. Appendix B of the EA includes the Draft Geotechnical Feasibility and

Preliminary Design Report which provides geotechnical data, geological hazards assessment,

and preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the proposed hotel project. Following the

draft report, the Final Geotechnical Report was completed and a Geotechnical Summary

Letter was published on April 10, 2019. The Summary Letter summarizes the geotechnical

findings from the Final Geotechnical Report. It states that at the time the EA was published,

the Proposed Project was a 6-story hotel with complementary facilities located along the

southwest side of the existing casino building and that some retaining walls were expected to

be incorporated into the final design to account for sloping ground to the southwest of the

building. The Draft Geotechnical Report (Appendix B) of the EA concluded that the site is

suitable for construction of the proposed hotel and complementary facilities provided that

appropriate mitigation of the geologic hazards is incorporated into project design. The

Summary Letter indicates that the likelihood of an active fault through the project site to be

low and that the risk of fault rupture does not represent a “fatal flaw” to the project.

Furthermore, it indicates that, depending on the final hotel layout, some level of slope

stabilization should be considered to limit head-ward encroachment of the slide. This slope

stabilization may include options such as a soil nail wall, welded wire wall, or cantilevered

solider pile wall, with wall height likely on the order of 10-15 feet. The Summary Letter

concludes that further geotechnical study is anticipated for final design based on the final

structure layout, retaining walls, and site grading. Therefore, it is anticipated that once the

final project design is completed, the final geotechnical study would be conducted.

Response to Comment Letter S2 – Department of Transportation

S2-01/2

Comment noted. The Tribe has clarified that the hotel has been a phased component of the

existing casino and is therefore independent of the Master Plan and associated interchange.

Accordingly, the Tribe has conducted an additional traffic impact study to assess the impacts

of the hotel on the existing transportation network as an independent project. The cumulative

analysis accurately assesses the implementation of the Master Plan within a 20-year

timeframe and associated need for the interchange. The impacts associated with the

interchange require review at the local level under the California Environmental Quality and

associated mitigation would reduce impacts below adverse levels.

S2-03

Comment noted. All appropriate studies required for the interchange to be developed off the

Reservation will completed to meet local, state, and any federal requirements (should federal

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

funding by used by Caltrans to complete the interchange). The project would comply with

Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER) which outlines the procedures and

documents required to comply with CEQA and NEPA, if applicable. In addition, the project

would be required to comply with Volume 5 of the SER, which outlined the procedures to be

incorporated into projects developed within the Coastal Zone.

S2-04/05

3.0

Comment noted. The Tribe’s Master Plan relies on the new interchange to meet the demands.

Should the new interchange become infeasible, the Tribe would revise the Master Plan to

incorporate feasible development in accordance with the existing available transportation

infrastructure. The Master Plan is a planning level document and can be readily altered by

the Tribe to assess conditions at implementation of the various features of the plan. As noted

above, the hotel is considered a phase of the casino and is independent of the implementation

of the Master Plan and accordingly is assessed separately in the new traffic impacts study.

LOCAL AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS (L)

Response to Comment Letter L1 – City of Trinidad

L1-01

The City of Trinidad requested an extension to the comment period which was denied by the

BIA. Refer to Comment Letter F1 for the response from the BIA.

Response to Comment Letter L2 – City of Trinidad

L2-01

Comment noted. The response to specific comments provided on the topics presented by the

Commenter are provided below. The findings provided in the EA address the commenter’s

concerns. Section 3.10.1 of the EA addresses the water supply,

L2-02

Comment noted. It is acknowledged that the City of Trinidad, the Trinidad Rancheria, and

the surrounding landscape and ocean are part of an incredibly beautiful, environmentally

sensitive, and unique location. Section 1.3 of the EA details the location and setting of the

project site in a general manner, this response serves as a further addendum to the setting

described in Section 1.3 to elaborate in a more specific manner. The proposed project is

located just onshore of the Waterboard designated Trinidad Bay Area of Special Biological

Significance (ASBS), Coastal Commission designated State Water Quality Protection Area

and designated coastline as the Trinidad Head Critical Coastal Area (CCA), and it is

recognized by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as a formal Gateway to the California

Coastal National Monument (CCNM). Trinidad Head is one of the few onshore portions of

the Federal CCNM and it provides the public access to scenic views of the area and the

project site. The State ASBS and CCA designations strictly prohibit any degradation of

natural water quality (BLM 2019, CCC 2014, Waterboard 2017). As noted in the footer,

Figure 1-2 was generated using the “Trinidad, CA” United States Geological Survey 7.5

minute topographic quadrangle and accurately depicts the regional topography and associated

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

features, including Trinidad Head. Section 3.4.4 of the EA accurately assesses the potential

impacts of the Proposed Project which would be localized to the area surrounding the existing

casino which has been previously disturbed. Implementation of the Proposed Project would

not adversely affect Trinidad Head ASBS, Trinidad Head, CCA, or the federal CCNM.

L2-03

Comment noted. Based on information provided by TBE Architects, via FEA Consulting

Engineers, and industry standards, the Rancheria’s best available information to date is that

the hotel will require approximately 14,184 gallons per day. This number reflects 100%

occupancy. However, according to Wright, Inc., hotels average between 65% and 70%

occupancy on an annual basis. As a result, this brings the average down to approximately

9,000 gallons per day, similar to the estimate provided in the EA. Wastewater recycling and

landscape irrigation have been proposed as options to reduce wastewater discharge flow rates

from the new hotel. The amount of recycling and irrigation to be implemented may be

determined based on potential disposal shortfalls resulting from limited available disposal

field capacity. FEA Consulting Engineers estimates that 15% wastewater recycling can be

accommodated in the proposed hotel.

Based on monthly water usage rates from similar size and type of hotels in the region

provided by Smith Travel Report (STR), projected water use variation on a monthly basis

indicates that the proposed hotel will increase during the summer and decrease during the

winter, with peak flows occurring in July. The actual recorded water use rates from these

similar facilities was compared with the maximum expected flow using the fixture unit

method to determine a percent of total capacity for each month. The monthly percent of total

capacity was then used to scale the maximum expected flow rate for the hotel to estimate

maximum monthly flow rates. The maximum monthly water use of 12,553 gpd occurs in

July at 88.5% of the peak daily flow. The average water usage rates over the year 2018

provided by STR indicates that the average flow rate will be 10,130 gpd (71% of the peak

daily flow).

According to SHN, excess treated wastewater may be disposed of using onsite landscape

irrigation. The Tribe wishes to implement the measures necessary to use landscape irrigation

as a means of disposing of excess treated wastewater when necessary. Any excess treated

effluent that cannot be disposed of onsite can be transferred to adjacent tribal lands for land

application. The Rancheria owns lands sufficient for this purpose.

L2-04/-05 Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 regarding water supply.

L2-06

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 regarding water supply. As

discussed there within, preliminary studies indicate that there is available capacity for the

City to meet the updated demands of the hotel project. Furthermore, the EA has been revised

to include the option to develop groundwater wells on the Reservation to serve the Proposed

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

Project. Based on preliminary drilling investigations, a well may be developed with a

capacity of approximately 10,000 gpd; which, when taking into account storage, would be

sufficient to meet the water demands of the hotel. Accordingly, based on the EA and

response to comments including associated clarifications added to the EA, there are no

changes necessary to the findings of the EA in regards to water supply and a FONSI is

warranted.

L2-07

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-08 regarding the proposed

interchange scheduling and the results of the TIA that was conducted in consultation with

Caltrans to address impacts for three scenarios: 2019 hotel operations, 2039 hotel operations

without cumulative development, and 2039 with cumulative development. The results

indicate that the EA accurately assessed impacts of the hotel which requires development of

the interchange as mitigation solely for the 2039 scenarios. Under the 2019 scenario,

operation of the hotel would not require mitigation. Accordingly, based on the EA and

response to comments, including associated clarifications added to the EA, there are no

changes necessary to findings of the EA in regards to traffic impacts and a FONSI is

warranted.

L2-08-11

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 through -03 regarding the

verification of the leachfield capacity. Refer to response to Comment L2-03 regarding the

water demand and project wastewater flows.

L2-12

Refer to the response to Comment S1-06 regarding feasible alternatives for the scale of the

hotel and location.

L2-13

Comment noted. As shown in the updated rendering provided in the response to Comment

F2-01-08, the Tribe has already incorporated the mitigation measure that requires design

elements to be incorporated into the Proposed Project to minimize visual impacts of buildings

and associated structures, including landscaping that compliments buildings and parking

areas, with setbacks and vegetation consistent with existing landscaping. Earth-toned paints

and coatings were used. Furthermore, the requirements for all exterior glass to be nonreflective and low-glare, and signs and facades to be designed with a non-reflective backing

to decrease reflectivity with be required through incorporation in the FONSI. As the Tribe

has included the mitigation measures into the updated design, no revisions to the EA are

necessary in regards to visual impacts and a FONSI is warranted.

L2-14

Comment noted. The impacts assessment provided in the EA provides adequate analysis and

mitigation for visual impacts. In accordance with requests from the Coastal Commission, the

Tribe submitted simulated views of the proposed hotel (including the incorporated mitigation

for design features). These views are included as Attachment I of the response to comments

as their inclusion in the EA are not necessary for the BIA to determine a FONSI is warranted.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

As shown in the photos, the proposed hotel is hidden by topography and various trees. The

elevation of the hotel would rest below the tree line and only 2.5 stories taller than the

connecting portion of the casino. Accordingly, the findings of the EA regarding visual

resources are accurate and the mitigation appropriately addressing the findings. No further

revisions or analysis are required in the EA for visual resources.

L2-15

Comment noted. In relation to impacts under NEPA, an adverse impact would occur if

project-related demands on public services would cause an exceedance of system capacities

that result in a need for additional facilities, the construction and operation of which would

result in adverse effects to the physical environment. The analysis adequately states that

compared to the existing setting which states that the County Sheriff would continue to

provide law enforcement services to the project site, a will serve is not applicable because, as

stated in Section 3.10.7 of the EA, in accordance with Public Law (PL) 280, 18 USC §1162,

the State of California and other local law enforcement agencies have criminal enforcement

authority on tribal lands. Furthermore, as stated in Section 3.10.6, per an agreement between

the County Sheriff’s Office and the Tribe, the Tribe provides funding for a deputy to patrol

and provide law enforcement services in the vicinity of the Rancheria offsetting impacts from

the Rancheria including existing casino. Based on the size of the hotel, calls for service

would not be disproportionate to the current number of calls for service at the Casino and no

additional law enforcement facilities would be required. Therefore, adverse impacts would

be minimal to law enforcement services.

L2-16

Comment noted. As noted in response to Comment L2-15, impacts from the hotel would be

significant if new facilities would be required to service the hotel, the construction or

expansion of which would result in significant adverse effects to the environment. Fire

service is currently provided to the casino and Reservation and, as with law enforcement, the

addition of a 100-room hotel would not result in a disproportionate number of calls compared

to the current number of calls for service at the Casino. Accordingly, no additional fire

protection facilities would be required. Therefore, adverse impacts would be minimal to fire

protection services.

L2-17

Comment noted. However, air emissions are generated in relation to a federal action on land

held in trust by the federal government; therefore, the General Conformity provisions of the

Clean Air Act apply to the project. State and local air quality regulations, including stateestablished air quality thresholds more stringent than the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS), do not apply to tribal trust lands and therefore associated criteria are not

applicable. The analysis within the EA accurately assess the impacts on the Proposed Action

and Proposed Project on the North Coast Air Basin (NCAB) in relation to General

Conformity. Although the NCAB is in conformance with all designated NAAQD, the EA

analysis utilized the General Conformity de minimis thresholds to assess impacts. As noted

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

in Section 3.3.4 of the EA, emissions from the Proposed Project would be below the General

Conformity de minimis levels and therefore operation of the Proposed Project would not

cause an exceedance of NAAQS or conflict with the implementation of California’s SIP.

L2-18

As stated in Section 3.11.3 of the prepared EA, a list of typical noise levels produced by

construction equipment was provided to assess impacts related to noise. This list included the

higher noise-producing equipment that may be utilized on the project site and did not include

every piece of equipment that may be used. Additionally, based on Table 3.11-1, the

maximum projected construction noise level on the project site would be approximately 89

dBA. This is a conservative maximum noise level based on the assumption that louder

equipment (pavers) could potentially be used daily. However, not all equipment would be

used simultaneously and not all equipment would be used on a daily basis. Thus, the actual

noise level would be lower than calculated. Using an attenuation factor of 8.0 dBA Leq per

doubling of distance, maximum average sound levels at nearby sensitive receptors

(approximately 165 feet east of construction activity) would be approximately 77 dBA Leq,

which is less than the FHWA threshold of 78 DBA Leq. As noted in the EA, this level is

higher than the County threshold of 50 dBA Leq for commercial land use noise, however

construction noise is exempt from County noise requirements. The discussion of the County

noise threshold was provided for comparison to the applicable federal threshold.

L2-19

Comment noted. However only a few examples are presented. Propane is a refined natural

gas that would be utilized for the gas mentioned in Section 2.2.1 of the EA. The EA has been

revised to clarify the use of propane. Minimal grading would be required as the site below

the proposed hotel has already been leveled for historic residential land uses. Because of the

pre-existing leveling and tree removal, minimal cut will be required to develop a sloped

roadway. Appendix B of the EA, the Draft Geotechnical Feasibility and Preliminary Design

Report assessed the area for the proposed access roadway and provided recommendations to

ensure construction would result in minimal adverse impacts. Because these

recommendations are part of the Proposed Project, they are incorporated into the project and

adequately addressed in the EA. For example, Mitigation Measure 3.1.6 states that prior to

construction of the Hotel foundation, the contractor shall implement one of the slope

stabilization options recommended by the soil engineers in the Draft Geotechnical Feasibility

and Preliminary Design Report.

L2-20

Comment noted. The considerations into the location of the hotel were considered during the

initiation of the hotel design process. Refer to the response to Comment S1-04 and -05 for

further discussion of the design process for the hotel.

L2-21

As stated in Section 3.3.4 of the prepared EA, the impacts to air quality were considered

using an estimated eight to twelve month construction period, and the operational emissions

were determined to be below de minimis levels. Additionally, both constructional and

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

operational emissions would result in GHG emissions were determined to not have

significant impacts. Based on the relatively small footprint of the new hotel, impacts to

sensitive receptors would be minimal. A health risk assessment is unwarranted for this type

of construction project. A review of the corresponding local documents for comparision

(District Rules and Regulations for the North Coast United Air Quality Management District

[NCUAQMD]) indicates that should a project like the Proposed Project be built outside of

trust land, further air quality analysis for air toxics and associated cancer and non-cancer

impacts is unwarranted under CEQA (per the guidance found in CAPCOA's "Health Risk

Assessments for Proposed Land Use Project" referenced by the NCUAQMD webpage titled

Air Quality Planning & CEQA).

L2-22

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment L2-02 regarding a response concerning

the unique habitat in the region.

L2-23

Comment noted. While the public meeting referenced by the commenter were well attended,

may of the comments were based purely on requesting updating visual simulations of the

design due to concerns regarding visual impacts of the Proposed Hotel. Visual impacts were

mitigated in the EA in response to such concerns received prior to release to the EA.

However, local controversy alone does not render an impact significant requiring further

analysis. Furthermore, the areas of controversy including visual effects, water supply,

geotechnical have been addressed through mitigation of further planning activities conducted

by the Tribe above the requirements of the environmental review process. Accordingly, the

impacts identified, including the context and intensity, do not require further review and a

FONSI is warranted.

L2-24

Comment noted. These issues have been addressed in the responses above and the resulting

findings are identical to those in the EA that the Proposed Project would not have a

significant effect on the environment and a FONSI is warranted.

L2-25

Comment noted. The presence of a master plan does not indicate that the projects will be

developed. A master plan is a guidance document but does not indicate that the project will

be built as many factors including Tribal citizen growth, financial health and growth of the

Tribe, and Tribal Council directives may prevent various or even all of the provisions of the

master plan from being developed. Accordingly, cumulative analysis does not cover

speculation as there are currently no funding mechanism for any of the developments

mentioned by the commenter.

L2-26

Comment noted; however, state and local laws do not apply to trust lands and therefore the

project would not violate any local or state environmental law.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

L2-27

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S2-02 and Comment S2-04 for response

to a timeline and alternative mitigation measures, respectively.

L2-28

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-08 regarding additional information

provided through a TIA conducted in consultation with Caltrans. The interchange project is

in the design phase and is close to commencing the environmental review stage. The

mitigation is for the cumulative year which is 2039. The impacts themselves are projections

and are as likely as the mitigation measure to become a reality. Accordingly, the project is

viable as being considered as mitigation since there are mechanisms already in place to

consider the mitigation beyond more than speculation.

L2-29-30

Comment noted. Based on the findings of the EA and responses to comments a FONSI is

warranted.

4.0

PRIVATE CITIZENS/COMMERCIAL ENTITIES COMMENT

LETTERS (P)

Response to Comment Letter P1 – Bryce Kenny, Humboldt Alliance for Responsible

Development (HARP)

P1-01

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment F1-01 concerning a request for an

extension to the 30-day commenting period. Petitioners are noted as concerned parties and

will be included in mailing lists to received further correspondence related to the Proposed

Action.

Response to Comment Letter P2 – Bryce Kenny, HARP

P2-01

The 30-day comment period for the prepared EA was established in accordance with Section

6.2 of the BIA’s NEPA Guidebook (59 IAM 3-H). A Notice of Availability (NOA) was

released providing the contact information for commenters and copies of the prepared EA.

The comment period was open beginning September 19, 2018 and ending on October 22,

2018. A request for an extension to the commenting period was submitted by the City of

Trinidad, and was denied by the BIA, refer to the response to Comment L1-01 and

Comment Letter F1-01.

P2-02

Comment noted. The EA was prepared on behalf of the Cher-Ae-Heights Indian Community

of the Trinidad Rancheria (Tribe), in the interest of an Indian Loan Guarantee and approval of

lease for a Hotel development and operation (Proposed Action). As per the BIA NEPA

Guidebook, an EA must analyze and described the direct and indirect effects which as

“caused by the action and occur in at the same time and place” (40 CFR 1508.8(a)).

Additionally, the cumulative effect must also be considered and discussed in the EA. As

discussed in Section 4.0 of the prepared EA, the cumulative and growth-inducing effects as a

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

result of the proposed action are addressed as a result of the Proposed Action with respect to

the affected environment. The commenter notes the mention of “interrelated development”,

assuming the reference is being made to the Tribe’s Comprehensive Economic Development

Strategy (Master Plan). Discussion of the potential affects as a result of the Master Plan as it

pertains to the Proposed Action includes supporting infrastructure and tribal enterprises, and

is discussed in Section 4.0 of the prepared EA.

P2-03

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-05 concerning impacts to visual

resources.

P2-04

Comment noted. Refer to Comment P2-01 for information concerning the public comment

period.

P2-05

Refer to the response to Comment L2-25.

P2-06

Comment noted. The EA was prepared in accordance with BIA NEPA Guidebook standards

as the project is within Tribal lands. Therefore, CEQA standards are not considered within

the prepared EA.

P2-07

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S2-01 to -02 concerning traffic related

impacts, and Comment S2-04 to -05 concerning mitigation alternatives for traffic impact.

P2-08

Refer to the response to Comment P1-01 concerning extension of 30-day commenting

period.

P2-09

Refer to the response to Comment L2-03 concerning the availability of water to supply the

Proposed Project.

P2-10

Refer to response to Comment F1-01.

P2-11

Appendix G was accidentally removed from the original public release draft of the EA but

was subsequently included in additional copies and was made available to those who received

the initial version where the appendix was missing. Nonetheless, a summary of its contents

in respect to the proposed project were included in Section 3.7 and 4.1.7 of the EA, in

sufficient detail for the public review.

P2-12

As stated in response to Comment P2-02, the EA was prepared for the loan and operation of

a Hotel. Pertinent impacts relating and resulting from the proposed project were addressed in

the EA in accordance with NEPA standards.

P2-13

Refer to the response to Comment P2-01.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

Response to Comment Letter P3 – Carole Mone

P3-01

Comment noted.

P3-02

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment L2-03 and Comment S1-09 concerning

the capacity of water supply and alternatives to the water supply, respectively.

P3-03

Comment noted. Biological Evaluation techniques are described in Section 3.4 of the EA. As

required under NEPA, the EA evaluates impacts to protected species listed under the

Endangered Species Act. Accordingly, As stated in Section 3.4.3, there are no habitats

delineated by the USFWS as being critical to the survival of a protected species within or

immediately adjacent to the project site. It was discovered that seven listed species had the

potential to be present in the project area. Specific site conditions were examined in relation

to these seven species with the conclusion that two of the seven species are met by the

immediate project area, the marbled murrelet and spotted owl. Potential for disturbance

during construction could occur as a temporary effect. Mitigation measures relating to these

species are outlined in the EA. As noted in Section 3.4.5, a qualified biologist shall conduct a

preconstruction nesting bird survey within 100 feet of the project site during nesting seasons.

Furthermore, if active nests are found to be within the project site, a no-disturbance buffer

zone will be established. Refer to Section 3.4.5 for more details related to mitigation

measures to biological resources.

P3-04

As stated in Section 3.4 of the EA, biological resources were evaluated through a review of

pertinent literature, consultation of relevant databases, and biological field surveys in order to

document habitat types and the potential occurrence for federally listed species. Refer to the

response to Comment P3-03 for additional investigative methods. In accordance, the

analysis must be commensurate with the potential for impact. Building on an existing

parking lot and paved areas would not adversely impact habitat for federally protected

species, therefore the analysis is commensurate to the level of impact. Furthermore, the

analysis meets the requirements to identify impacts under NEPA and the Endangered Species

Act.

P3-05

Comment noted. As stated in Section 3.1.3 of the EA, the project site is not currently mapped

for landslides or liquefaction Section 3.1.5 also notes landslides may be readily stabilized

utilizing measures such as retailing wall systems, slope reconstruction, and sub-drainage

elements. As a mitigation measure, noted in Section 3.1.6, the contractor shall implement one

of the slope stabilization options recommended by the soil engineers. The concern for the

“scenic drive sliding continually and hopelessly into the sea” would not be as a result of the

proposed project.

P3-06

Comment noted. Design alternatives are outside of the scope of the prepared EA.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

P3-07

Comment noted. Concerns relating to water capture and transportation were discussed as a

part of the prepared EA. As stated in Section 2.2.1 of the EA, to improve drainage conditions,

a storm drainage inlet system would be connected to the existing Casino system to capture

runoff from the building.

Response to Comment Letter P4 – Patty Stearns

P4-01

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-05 concerning the alternative design

considerations. Section 3.13 of the EA discusses the impacts to visual resources, including

the effects of lighting. As discussed in the EA, lighting from the proposed Hotel would be

minimal as the Tribe would use downcast, bi-level dimming motion sensor external lighting,

which would not alter the visual aesthetics of the area. Furthermore, the mitigation measure

discussed in Section 3.13.3 of the EA would minimize the impacts to visual resources to lessthan-significant levels.

P4-02

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P5 – Sara March

P5-01

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment P2-01 concerning the commenting

period.

P5-02

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment P3-05 concerning the slope stabilization

for the Proposed Project. Further, refer the response to Comment F3-01 and Comment F304 concerning the capacity for wastewater treatment and sizing, respectively.

P5-03

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09.

P5-04

Refer to the response to Comment S2-04 to -05 concerning the impacts to existing

transportation networks and alternatives.

P5-05

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-04 to -05.

Response to Comment Letter P6 – Colin Fiske, Coalition for Responsible Transportation

Priorities

P6-01

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S2-01 to -02 regarding the Proposed

Project as a separate development from the interchange and the traffic impacts from the

Proposed Project.

P6-02

Comment noted.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

P6-03

Comment noted. Refer to response to Comment S2-04 to -05 for alternatives to the

interchange traffic mitigation.

P6-04

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S2-03 concerning the determination of

needs associated with the proposed interchange.

P6-05

Comment noted.

P6-06

Comment noted.

P6-07

Comment noted. As stated in the prepared EA Section 3.3.4, the determination for the

construction and operational GHG emission was found to be below the de minimus levels

based on values from the CalEEMod, 2016. The operational use is based on mobile emissions

associated with hotel patron’s motor vehicle usage.

P6-08

Based on the definition for “Cumulative impact” as described in 40 CFR 1508.7, “the impacts

on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added

to…reasonably foreseeable future actions”. Therefore, speculation of future development

related to growth-inducing impacts from the construction of an interchange in not within the

scope of the prepared EA.

P6-09

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P7 – Sandra Haux

P7-01

Comment noted.

P7-02

Comment noted. Refer to the Response to Comment P3-05 concerning the slope stability of

the proposed project site.

P7-03

As stated in Section 3.1.2 of the prepared EA, the project site is not currently mapped for

liquefaction. Furthermore, as stated earlier in Section 2.2.1, the site is considered stable for

Hotel development. Additionally, cast-in-drilled-hold pile foundations at a minimum of 24inches in diameter would be driven into the bedrock in order to counteract potential for

caving soils. Further measures, such as concrete cantilever retaining walls, would be

constructed as additional support.

P7-04

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 concerning a confirmation for the water supply

capability.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

P7-05

Refer to the response to Comment S2-03 and Comment S2-04 to -05 concerning an

evaluation to determine the related needs for an interchange construction and alternative

measures, respectively.

P7-06

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S2-01 to -03 concerning the interchange

in relation to the proposed project and its impacts.

P7-07

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment F3-02 concerning the verification of

leachfield capacity, and Comment F3-03 concerning the determination of suitable soils.

P7-08

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment L2-19 concerning natural gas supply.

Response to Comment Letter P8 – Richard Salzman

P8-01

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P9 – Charley Custer

P9-01

Comment noted. As mentioned in Section 4.1.1 of the EA, the proposed project would be

required to implement measures consistent with local permitting requirements for

construction in order to address any geotechnical, seismic, or mining hazards. Additionally,

construction fill was used during the construction of the existing Casino. As a result, the

effects of soil erosion would not result in significant effects.

P9-02

Comment noted. As discussed in Section 3.2.1 of the EA, the project site and surrounding

lands do not directly contribute surface water to the Luffenholtz Creek-Frontal Pacific Ocean

sub-watershed. Refer to response to Comment S1-09 for confirmation of water supply

capability.

P9-03

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P10 – Richard Clompus

P10-01

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment L2-02 concerning the State designations.

P10-02

Refer to response to Comment S1-09 for confirmation of water supply capability.

P10-03

Refer to response to Comment F3-01 concerning the capacity of the proposed wastewater

treatment.

P10-04

Comment noted. As stated in Section 3.10.7 of the EA, it is not expected that increased

demand for emergency medical services would be created as a result of the proposed project.

As concluded in Section 3.10.8, there is no mitigation required for public services.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

Response to Comment Letter P11 – Alan Grau

P11-01

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S2-02 concerning a timeline for the

interchange.

P11-02

As stated in Section 3.7.2 of the prepared EA, an increase in traffic on Scenic Drive at the

proposed project entrance in forecasted to occur. Construction of a new intersection off

Highway 101 would reduce adverse effects and is currently under consultation between the

Tribe and Caltrans.

P11-03

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 concerning confirmation of the

source of water supply to the proposed project.

P11-04

Comment noted. As addressed in the response to Comment F3-02 concerning the

confirmation of leachfield capacity for the Proposed Project and Comment F3-01 concerning

the capacity of wastewater treatment.

P11-05

Refer to the response to Comment L2-13 concerning the proposed Hotel design.

Response to Comment Letter P12 – Larry Goldberg

P12-01

Comment noted.

P12-02

Refer to Section 3.0 of the prepared EA for discussion of affected environment, impacts, and

mitigation for the considered alternatives.

P12-03

Comment noted. As stated in the prepared EA, alternative locations or a reduction of size

would not meet purpose and need, and are therefore not defined as “reasonable” under the

CEQ’s Regulations for Implementing under NEPA.

P12-04

Comment noted.

P12-05

Refer to the response to Comment S1-05 concerning visual impact mitigation. Additionally,

refer to the response to Comment F2-01 to -08 and Comment P4-01 regarding the light

pollution and its potential impacts to species of birds. Refer to the Comment L2-18

regarding potential impacts from noise during construction.

P12-06

Refer to the response to the Comment S1-09 concerning the confirmation of water supply

related to the proposed project.

P12-07

Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 to -03 concerning the capacity for wastewater

treatment.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

P12-08

As state in the EA, traffic impacts are anticipated to occur at the intersection of the Main

Street corridor and project entrance on Scenic Drive under cumulative conditions. The Tribe

and Caltrans are in consultation for the construction of an intersection off Highway 101 as a

mitigation measure to alleviate these impacts, further refer to the response to Comment S201 to -02 for consideration of a timeline for the interchange construction.

P12-09

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P13 – Gail Kenny

P13-01

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 for water supply issues.

P13-02

Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 to -03 concerning wastewater treatment. As stated

in Section 3.3.4 of the EA, the proposed project location is 230 feet above mean sea level and

is set back 150 feet from the cliff edge. It is not vulnerable to coastal erosion.

P13-03

Comment noted. Refer to the Comment S2-01 to -02 for consideration of a timeline for the

interchange construction.

P13-04

Refer to the response to Comment S104 to -05 concerning visual impact mitigation.

Additionally, refer to the response to Comment S1-06 concerning the consideration of the

Proposed Project size.

P13-05

Comment noted. As stated in the response to Comment F2-01 to -08 concerning potential

impacts to birds from the Proposed Project.

P13-06

Comment noted. Refer to response to Comment P3-03 concerning biological impact

methodology and species consideration.

Response to Comment Letter P14 – Geoff Proust

P14-01

Comment noted.

P14-02

Comment noted.

P14-03

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment P12-03 and Comment S1-06 concerning

the consideration of design and size alternatives for the proposed project, respectively.

Response to Comment Letter P15 – Dianne Rowland

P15-01

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-09.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

P15-02

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S2-02 concerning the timing for the

traffic impact mitigation.

Response to Comment Letter P16 – Steen and Tami Trump

P16-01

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-04 to -05 concerning impacts on

visual resources.

P16-02

Refer to the response to Comment P4-01 concerning light impacts. As stated in the EA, a

significant impact due to noise would not result as a result of the proposed project as

mitigation measures during construction would be implemented, and noise resulting from

traffic would be below federal abatement criterion. Additionally, refer to the response to

Comment L2-18 for further potential construction noise impacts.

P16-03

Comment noted.

P16-04

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 and Comment F3-01 to -03, respectively,

concerning water supply and wastewater capability.

P16-05

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P17 – Jim and Sandra Cuthbertson

P17-01

Comment noted.

P17-02

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 addressing water supply for the proposed project.

P17-03

Comment noted. For concerns relating to wastewater, refer to the response to Comment F301 to -03.

Response to Comment Letter P18 – Julie Joynt

P18-01

Comment noted.

P18-02

Comment noted. Additional considerations for designs of the proposed project Hotel are not

in the scope of the prepared EA. Alternatives consideration can be found in the response to

Comment S1-06.

Response to Comment Letter P19 – Joyce King

P19-01

Refer to the response to Comment P2-01.

P19-02

Comment noted. Impacts and related mitigation measures to the proposed project have been

addressed in the prepared EA in accordance to NEPA standards and guidelines.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

P19-03

Comment noted. Potential impacts to cultural resources were examined in Section 3.5 of the

EA in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. No historical

resources were found to be present within Area of Potential Effects for the Proposed Project.

The BIA has consulted with the appropriate authorities as required under Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act whom concurred that no adverse impacts to historical

resources would result from the Proposed Action. Refer to Exhibit E of the FONSI.

Furthermore, the mitigation in Section 3.5.5 of the EA would reduce potential impacts to

undiscovered paleontological resources to less than significant levels.

In regards to hotel design, the visual impacts as a result of the hotel design were considered.

However, it is outside of the scope of the prepared EA to prepare and provide alternative

designs. Refer to the response to Comment

Response to Comment Letter P20 – Erin Rowe

P20-01

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P21 – Kathleen Mill

P21-01

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P22- Andrea Bustos

P22-01

Refer to the response to Comment S2-01 to -02 addressing the impacts to traffic as a result of

the proposed project.

P22-02

Comment noted. As discussed above in response to Comments S1-09 and Comment F3-01

to -03, concerning the water supply and wastewater, respectively, for the proposed project.

Response to Comment Letter P23 – Karin Rosman

P23-01

Comment noted.

P23-02

Refer to the responses to Comments S2-04 to -5, S1-09, F3-01 to -03, and P9-01 address

impacts concerning relating to traffic, water supply, wastewater, and coastal erosion,

respectively.

Response to Comment Letter P24 – Gina Rimson

P24-01

Comment noted.

P24-02

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment P2-02, speculation of future projects are

outside of the scope of the prepared EA. Furthermore, refer to Comment S2-04 to -05 for

alternatives to the interchange.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

P24-03

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 concerning water supply.

P24-04

Comment noted. Refer to response to Comment F3-01 to -03 concerning the leach fields,

Comment S1-09 for city water supply, and Comment L2-14 regarding impacts to visual

resources. In terms of the Proposed Project being inconsistent with local land use

regulations, the local jurisdiction does not have a designated land use for the project area.

Furthermore, the Proposed Project would be compatible with the mixed land use surrounding

the project site, including the adjacent Casino. Because of these factors, the EA determined

that the impact to land use was less than significant.

P24-05

Comment noted. Refer to the Comment S1-06 regarding the determination process for the

hotel location and size. Furthermore, refer to the Section 3.0 of the EA for the environmental

impacts of the Proposed Project.

P24-06

Comment noted. Refer to response to Comment S2-04 to -05 concerning the Tribe’s Master

Plan.

Response to Comment Letter P25 – Don Allen

P25-01

Comment noted.

P25-02

Comment noted. Refer to response to Comment P3-05 concerning the stability of the slope.

Furthermore, stability of the Proposed Project location and mitigation measures are discussed

in Section 3.1.6 of the prepared EA. As stated, the contractor shall implement one of the

slope stabilization options as recommended by the soil engineers prior to the construction of

the Hotel foundation. Options included are soil nail walls, reconstructed embankment, solider

pile, and welded wire walls. Additionally, as mentioned in Section 3.1.5, the project location

is outside of the 50-foot setback boundary as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo

P25-03

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 addressing water supply infrastructure. The

commenter is referring to the GHD, 2019 study referenced in the Final EA.

P25-04

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 addressing water supply.

P25-05

Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 to -03 concerning the capacity for wastewater and

the leach fields. Refer to Comment P3-05 regarding slope stabilization.

P25-06

Comment noted. Alternative designs of the Hotel are out of the scope of work for the

prepared EA, refer to the response to Comment S1-04 to -05 concerning visual impacts.

P25-07

Concerning the potential impact to birds, refer to the response to Comment F2-01 to -08.

Additionally, for biological impact methodology, refer to the response to Comment P3-03.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

P25-08

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S2-04 concerning traffic and the Tribe’s

Master Plan.

Response to Comment Letter P26 – Emelia Berol

P26-01

Comment noted.

P26-02

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 concerning the availability of water supply for the

proposed project, and Comment F3-01 to -03 for wastewater concerns. Refer to the response

to Comment F3-05 regarding the applicability of an EA and associated FONSI.

P26-03

Comment noted. Refer to the responses to Comments F2-01 to -08 regarding impacts to

birds.

P26-04

Comment noted. Refer to the Comment S1-04 to -05 for concerns regarding visual resources.

P26-05

Comment noted

Response to Comment Letter P27 – Bryce Kenny, HARP

P27-01

Comment noted.

P27-02

Comment noted. Individual responses to the comments are addressed as they are presented.

P27-03

Comment noted. As stated within Section 8 of the BIA’s NEPA Guidebook, the

determination for preparing an EIS is based on the significance of impact, not the scale or

“class” of the Proposed Action and thereby the Guidebook meets the CEQ Regulations.

P27-04

In accordance with Section F.1. of the Tribe’s Ordinance titled Environmental Policy

Ordinance for Gaming Facility Development [Tribal State Gaming Compact Section

10.8.1] that became effective May 16, 2000, “(i)n the event that the Project requires the

approval of a federal agency, and therefore NEPA applies to the Project, compliance with

NEPA and the federal process related thereto shall constitute compliance with this Ordinance.

P27-05

Refer to the response to Comments S2-04 to -05 concerning the Tribe’s Master Plan and the

interchange, and refer to the response to Comment Letter S2 in regards to contacting the

Department of Transportation. Refer to the response to Comment P27-04 regarding the

Environmental Ordinance.

P27-06

Comment noted.

P27-07

Comment noted.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

P27-08

Comment noted.

P27-09

Refer to the response to Comment P27-04 regarding the Environmental Ordinance.

P27-10

The purpose of the prepared EA is to determine whether the Proposed Action would result in

significant impact on the quality of human environment. The documents listed do not fall

under the scope of word for the prepared document and are therefore not included.

P27-11

Comment noted.

P27-12

Refer to the response to Comment P27-10. The considerations presented in the comment do

not fall under the scope of the prepared EA.

P27-13

Refer to the response to Comment S2-01 to -02 regarding the Proposed Project and the

interchange as independent developments.

P27-14

Comment noted.

P27-15

Refer to the response to Comment S1-05 for impacts to visual resources.

P27-16

Comment noted.

P27-17

Comment noted.

P27-18

Comment noted.

P27-19

Comment noted.

P27-20

Comment noted.

P27-21

Comment noted. Comment Letter S2 in Appendix XX states that Caltrans “concur[s] that a

new freeway interchange would provide adequate capacity to serve the hotel…”. Therefore,

approval from a qualified government agency for this EA has been obtained.

P27-22

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment P27-13 regarding the Proposed Project

and the interchange as independent developments.

P27-23

Comment noted. The cumulative impact analysis within the EA considered the construction

of the projects in the vicinity of the project site along with the full implementation of the

Tribe’s Master Plan until 2032, which is the County of Humboldt’s planning horizon year.

The justification for a planning horizon until 2038 is not clearly stated within the comment

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

and the only readily available planning horizon with information that can be reference is

2032.

P27-24

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-06 concerning the consideration for

alternatives presented in the prepared EA.

P27-25

Refer to the responses to Comment F3-01 to -03 regarding the leach fields.

P27-26

Refer to the responses to Comment F3-01 to -03 regarding wastewater discharge.

P27-27

As stated in the prepared EA, the existing leachfield capacity would need to be expanded in

order to accommodate the Proposed Project. In summary, an upgrade to the WWTP,

expansion of the current leachfield, and an additional leach field are proposed to meet

wastewater needs. Refer to the responses to Comments F3-01 to -04 pertaining to

wastewater.

P27-28

Refer to the response to Comment P27-27 regarding leach fields.

P27-29

Refer to the response to Comment P7-03 concerning site stability.

P27-30

Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 to -03 regarding leach fields.

P27-31

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 to -03 in determining leachfield

capacity.

P27-32

Comment noted.

P27-33

Comment noted.

P27-34

Refer to the response to Comment L2-02 regarding the natural setting of the Proposed

Project.

P27-35

Comment noted.

P27-36

As stated in Section 4.1.13 of the prepared EA, the development of the Proposed Project

would generally be consistent with the visual goals of both the County and the City land use

regulations.

P27-37

Refer to the response to Comment S1-04 to -05 regarding issues with the visual resources.

P27-38

Comment noted.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

P27-39

Comment noted.

P27-40

Refer to the response to Comment L2-02 regarding the natural setting of the Proposed

Project.

P27-41

Comment noted.

P27-42

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-06 concerning the consideration for

alternatives for the Proposed Action.

P27-43

Comment noted.

P27-44

Comment noted.

P27-45

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment P4-01 regarding impacts from lighting.

P27-46

As signage was not a part of the Proposed Action, it does not fall under the scope of the

prepared EA and is therefore not included in the discussion.

P27-47

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 regarding water supply.

P27-48

Refer to the response to Comment L2-03 regarding water usage.

P27-49

Comment noted.

P27-50

Refer to the response to Comment L2-03 regarding water usage.

P27-51

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 and Comment L2-06, concerning the confirmation

of water supply and the alternative solutions to water supply for the Proposed Project,

respectively.

P27-52

Refer to the response to Comment L2-06.

P27-53

Comment noted.

P27-54

Comment noted.

P27-55

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 concerning the City’s effort to generate information

on minimum flow and operational capacity.

P27-56

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 and Comment L2-16 concerning the City’s service

priority and fire service, respectively.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

P27-57

Comment noted.

P27-58

As stated in Section 3.3.4 of the prepared EA, the Proposed Project site is located 150 feet

away from cliff edge. Additionally, as stated in Section 3.1.2, the site is not currently mapped

for landslides, however they are common in the vicinity. Measures such as nail walls, welded

wire walls, and those mentioned in Section 3.1.6, as recommended by soil engineers, shall be

implemented prior to construction of the proposed project.

P27-59

Comment noted.

P27-60

Comment noted.

P27-61

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment P3-05 regarding landslides and

Comment P7-03 for site stabilization.

P27-62

Comment noted.

P27-63

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment L2-02 regarding the setting of the

Proposed Project and Comment F2-01 to -08 regarding the hotel impacts to birds.

P27-64

Refer to the response to Comment F2-02 regarding the hotel impacts to birds and Comment

P3-03 regarding the biological surveys and impacts.

P27-65

Comment noted. According to updated data as a result of the construction of the existing

casino and parking lot, there are no waters of the U.S. located within the project area.

P27-66

Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 to -03 regarding wastewater facilities.

P27-67

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 to -03 concerning the

confirmation for the capacity of wastewater treatment for the Proposed Action.

P27-68

Comment noted. An updated review of the CalRecycle website 1 indicates that the Anderson

Landfill has a remaining capacity of 10.4 million cubic yards as of 2015, 7 years after the

date of the information that was available at the time the EA was developed. Extrapolating

out using the capacity loss from 2008 to 2015 (0.6 million tons), the landfill will reach

maximum capacity in 2134 (119 years from 2015).

P27-69

Comment noted. Please refer to the response to the Comments S1-04 and -05 regarding hotel

design and visual impacts.

https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/45-AA-0020/Detail

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

P27-70

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment L2-02 concerning the Federal and State

designations and associated impacts. Furthermore, as noted in Section 3.2.14, potential

impact to water quality would be reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of the

BMPS listed in Appendix C of the EA.

P27-71

Comment noted. Prior to the decision to develop a hotel, economic studies are conducted in

order to determine if the investment will provide an adequate return in order to fund the

project. For a hotel, the determining factor is competition and the number of available units

in the region. The Tribe’s consultant has indicated that there is a lack of the type of hotel the

Tribe would provide and therefore the Tribe decided to move forward with the project. These

studies are highly confidential as they outline economic strategies of the Tribe and therefore

are not included in the analysis or as an appendix. Whether or not there is an intentional lack

of hotel rooms of the type the Tribe is developing is irrelevant.

P27-72

Comment noted. The statement referenced by the Commenter is very general in that some of

the Tribal facilities are connected to City municipal systems while the Casino and thereby the

hotel are connected to the Tribe’s wastewater system. The statement has been revised to

remove the general statement and focus on the Proposed Project.

P27-73

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment L2-19 for gas service clarification.

P27-74

Refer to the response to Comment L2-16.

P27-75

Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 to -03 concerning the capacity for the wastewater

treatment system.

P27-76

Noise attenuates as distance increases. Therefore, since the bar would be at the top of the

hotel, the noise would attenuate more than if the bar were on the bottom levels since the

distance would be greater due to the angle of incidence between the ground level and top

level bar.

P27-77

The reports generated in 2015, by Environmental Data Resources indicate the Citizens

Mortuary as closed. However, as to 40 CFR Part 312 and ASTM (E 1527-13) standards, the

location is listed due to the proximity (0.5 miles) to the project site and listing as Leaking

Underground Storage Tank incident.

P27-78

Comment noted.

P27-79

Comment noted.

P27-80

Comment noted.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

Response to Comment Letter P28 – Jolene Thrash

P28-01

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-04 to -05 for impacts to visual

resources.

P28-02

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P29 – Charles Netzow

P29-01

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P30 – Josiah Cain

P30-01

Comment noted.

P30-02

Refer to the response to Comment P27-36.

P30-03

Refer to the response to Comment P3-05 and Comment L2-25, concerning the slope

stability and the cumulative impacts as associated with the intersection project, respectively.

P30-04

As stated in the response to Comment F3-01 to -03 regarding leach field capacities, and

Comment P9-01 regarding soil erosion.

P30-05

Refer to the response to Comment P3-05. Additionally, as included as Appendix B, a Draft

Geotechnical Feasibility and Preliminary Design Report was conducted involving laboratory

testing, sampling and analyses of the proposed project site.

P30-06

Refer to the response to Comment S1-04 to -05 regarding the potential impacts to visual

resources, and Comment F2-01 to -08 and Comment P4-01 regarding the light pollution and

its potential impacts to species of birds.

P30-07

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-04 to -05 regarding the potential

impacts to visual resources.

P30-08

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P31 – Larry Glass, Northcoast Environmental Center

P31-01

Comment noted. As stated in the response to Comment P6-08, speculation concerning future

developments is outside the scope of the prepared EA.

P31-02

Refer to the response to Comment S1-04 to -05 concerning visual impacts.

P31-03

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment P12-03.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

P31-04

As the proposed project occurs within the Tribe’s Reservation, the documentation was

prepared in accordance with the Tribe’s environmental Ordinance and associated NEPA

regulations due to the approval of the BIA of the loan guarantee. CEQA is not required nor

does the gaming compact require compliance with CEQA. The intent of the environmental

provisions wihtin the gaming compact was to ensure project’s that support gaming conduct

some level of environmental review even though the project would support gaming on

sovereign land. In accordance with the Tribe’s Environmental Ordinance, because NEPA is

required for the Proposed Project, no additional environmental review is required.

P31-05

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 concerning water supply.

P31-06

Refer to the response to Comment S1-01 to -02 regarding the interchange and traffic.

P31-07

Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 to -03 regarding wastewater, and Comment P1203 regarding project alternatives.

Response to Comment Letter P32 – Edward Pease

P32-01

Comment noted.

P32-02

Comment noted. Refer to the responses to Comments S1-04 to -05 concerning visual

impacts. The responses to Comment P4-01, Comment P16-02, Comment F2-01 to -08, and

Comment F1-01 to -03 provide discussion for light pollution, noise pollution, impact to bird

species, and wastewater respectively. As signage was not included as a part of the Proposed

Project, it is not discussed in the prepared EA, and therefore does not require a response.

P32-03

Comment noted. As stated in the response to Comment P32-02, the visual impacts as a result

of the hotel design were considered. However, it is outside of the scope of the prepared EA to

prepare and provide alternative designs. The additional comments presented here are

addressed in the responses to Comment P3-05 addresses the slope stability for the proposed

project.

P32-04

Refer to the response to Comment P3-05 regarding the slope stability for the proposed

project, and Comment S1-09 concerning the water supply for the proposed project.

P32-05

Refer to the responses to Comment S2-01 to -02 regarding the interchange timeline.

P32-06

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 regarding City water supply.

P32-07

Comment noted.

P32-08

Comment noted.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

Response to Comment Letter P33 – Ingrid Bailey

P33-01

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment P3-05 concerning the slope stability for

the proposed project site.

P33-02

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 concerning water supply.

P33-03

Refer to the response to Comment P3-06 concerning the proposed Hotel design alternatives.

P33-04

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P34 – Ken Miller

P34-01

Comment noted.

P34-02

Refer to the response to Comment P2-01.

P34-03

Comment noted.

P34-04

Comment noted.

P34-05

Comment noted.

P34-06

Refer to the response to Comment P6-08, speculation of future developments is outside of

the scope of the prepared EA.

P34-07

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment L2-15 regarding law enforcement for the

Proposed Project, and Comment P12-03 and Comment S1-06 concerning the consideration

of design and size alternatives for the proposed project, respectively.

P34-08

Refer to the response to Comment S1-04 to -05 concerning the impact to visual resources.

P34-09

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment P34-07 regarding the range of

alternatives.

P34-10

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 regarding water supply for the proposed project.

P34-11

Comment noted. Comments received are included within the administrative record and will

be considered by the BIA in the decision on the project. This will be recorded as a part of the

Record of Decision (ROD).

P34-12

Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 to -03 for wastewater discharge.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

P34-13

Refer to the response to Comment P6-08, speculation of future projects is outside of the

scope for the prepared EA, and Comment S2-04 to -05 regarding the Tribe’s Master Plan and

the interchange.

P34-14

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P35 – Kimberly Tays

P35-01

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-05 to -04 concerning the visual

impacts of the proposed project.

P35-02

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 for the water supply for the proposed project.

P35-03

Comment noted. Refer to the responses to Comment F2-01 to -08 regarding bird strikes.

Response to Comment Letter P36 – James Vandegriff

P36-01

Comment noted.

P36-02

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Refer to the response to Comment S1-05 to -04

concerning the visual impacts of the proposed project.

P36-03

Comment noted. The EA considers the alternatives presented, and evaluates the associated

environmental impacts. Alternative sources of energy and design features are not included in

the scope of the prepared EA.

P36-04

Comment noted. As stated above, this is not included in the scope of the prepared EA.

P36-05

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P37 – Katrin Homan

P37-01

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P38 – Richard Johnson

P38-01

Comment noted.

P38-02

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 concerning water supply.

P38-03

Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 and Comment F3-04 concerning wastewater

treatment capacity.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

P38-04

Refer to the response to Comment S2-01 to -02 concerning the development of the

interchange.

P38-05

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-04 to -05 concerning the visual

impacts.

P38-06

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P39 – Sandra Schachter

P39-01

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P40 – Patricia Lee Lotus

P40-01

Comment noted.

P40-02

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment P3-05 concerning the slope stability for

the proposed project site location.

P40-03

Comment noted.

P40-04

Comment noted.

P40-05

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P41 – Andrew Pruter

P41-01

Comment noted.

P41-02

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-04 to -05 concerning visual impacts.

P41-03

Refer to the response to Comment P3-05 concerning the stability of the slope for the

proposed project.

P41-04

Refer to the response to Comment S2-01 to -03 concerning the interchange. As previously

stated, speculation of future projects is outside of the scope of the prepared EA.

P41-05

Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 to -03 concerning the leach field capacity.

P41-06

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 concerning water supply.

P41-07

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment F2-01 to -08 concerning bird strikes.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

Response to Comment Letter P42 – Annalisa Rush

P42-01

Comment noted.

P42-02

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-04 to -05 concerning the visual

impact of the proposed project.

P42-03

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S2-01 to -03 concerning the interchange

and traffic impacts.

P42-04

Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 to -03 concerning wastewater

P42-05

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 concerning water supply.

P42-06

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment F2-01 to -08 concerning bird strikes.

P42-07

Comment noted. As stated in Section 3.3.4 of the prepared EA, construction activities

incorporating provided BMP’s are anticipated to not result in any adverse air quality effect

and therefore require no mitigation measures.

P42-08

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P43 – Holly Vadurro

P43-01

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 concerning the water supply for

the proposed project.

P43-02

Refer to the response to Comment L2-03 and F3-01 to -03 concerning wastewater treatment

capacity.

P43-03

Refer to the response to Comment L2-16 concerning fire protection.

P43-04

Comment noted. Refer to the responses to Comment S2-01 to -03 regarding traffic impacts

and Comment S1-04 to -05 concerning traffic impacts and visual impacts, respectively.

Response to Comment Letter P44 – Clay Johnson

P44-01

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 concerning water supply.

P44-02

Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 to -03 concerning sewage capacity.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

Response to Comment Letter P45 – Patrick Harestad

P45-01

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-04 to -05 concerning the impact to

visual resources.

P45-02

Comment noted. Refer to the responses to Comment S2-01 to -03 regarding traffic impacts.

P45-03

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment L2-03 and F3-01 to -03 concerning

wastewater treatment capacity.

P45-04

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 concerning the water supply for

the proposed project.

P45-05

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment F2-01 to -08 concerning bird strikes.

Response to Comment Letter P46 – Brenda Cooper

P46-01-08 Comments noted. Refer to the responses to Comments P32-01 to -08 as the comments

submitted are identical.

Response to Comment Letter P47 – Jennifer Lance

P47-01-07 Comments noted. Refer to the response to Comments P41-01 through P41-07 as the

comments submitted are identical.

Response to Comment Letter P48 – Donna Ulrich

P48-01

Comment noted. As previously stated, the design for the hotel as proposed was considered as

presented in the prepared EA, however, preparation of design alternatives are outside of the

scope of the EA. Refer to the responses to Comment S1-04 to -05 for the impact to visual

resources.

P48-02

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 concerning water supply.

Response to Comment Letter P49 – Melanie and Ron Johnson

P49-01

Comment noted. Refer to the responses to Comment S1-04 to -05, Comment S1-09, and

Comment S2-01 to -03 regarding the visual impact and design of the proposed project, the

water supply impact, and the proposed mitigation measure of the interchange, respectively.

P49-02

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P50 – Mark Dondero

P50-01

Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 to -03 concerning wastewater.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

P50-02

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 concerning water supply.

P50-03

Speculation regarding future development is outside of the scope of the prepared EA. Refer to

the response to Comment S2-01 to -03 regarding the proposed mitigation measure of a new

interchange.

P50-04

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P51 – Chet Ogan, Redwood Region Audubon Society

P51-01

Comment noted.

P51-02

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-04 to -05 concerning the design of

the proposed project Hotel.

P51-03

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 concerning water supply.

P51-04

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 to -03 concerning wastewater

treatment capacity.

Response to Comment Letter P52 – Sam King

P52-01

Comment noted.

Response to Comment Letter P53 – David Hankin

P53-01

Comment noted.

P53-02

Comment noted.

P53-03

Refer to the response to Comment L2-03 concerning water needs for the proposed project.

P53-04

Refer to the response to Comment S1-09 concerning the water supply.

P53-05

Refer to the response to Comment F3-01 to -03 concerning wastewater.

P53-06

Refer to the response to Comment S2-01 to -03 concerning traffic and the proposed

mitigation measure of an interchange construction.

P53-07

Comment noted.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

Exhibit B

REFERENCES

California Coastal Commission (CCC), 2014. California’s Critical Coastal Areas: Partnering to Protect

our Coast from Polluted Runoff. Available online at:

https://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/Web/cca_ncoast_regional.htm. Accessed July 22, 2019.

California State Water Resources Control Board (Waterboard), 2017. California’s Areas of Special

Biological Significance. Available online at:

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/asbs_map.shtml. Accessed July

22, 2019.

United States (U.S.) Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2019. California Coastal National Monument.

Available online at: https://www.blm.gov/programs/national-conservationlands/california/california-coastal. Accessed July 22, 2019.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Response to EA Comments

ATTACHMENT I

REPRESENTATIVE VIEWSHED SIMULATIONS

Before

SOURCE: AES, 5/9/2019

Staff Recommended Viewsheds Friday May 10, 2019

Baker Beach (Before)

After

SOURCE: AES, 5/9/2019

Staff Recommended Viewsheds Friday May 10, 2019

Baker Beach (After)

Before

SOURCE: AES, 5/9/2019

Staff Recommended Viewsheds Friday May 10, 2019

Trinidad Harbor Parking Lot (Before)

After

SOURCE: AES, 5/9/2019

Staff Recommended Viewsheds Friday May 10, 2019

Trinidad Harbor Parking Lot (After)

Before

SOURCE: AES, 4/16/2019

Staff Recommended Viewsheds Friday May 10, 2019

Trinidad Casino Parking Lot (Before)

After

SOURCE: AES, 4/16/2019

Staff Recommended Viewsheds Friday May 10, 2019

Trinidad Casino Parking Lot (After)

Before

SOURCE: AES, 5/9/2019

Staff Recommended Viewsheds Friday May 10, 2019

Trinidad Harbor Looking East (Before)

After

SOURCE: AES, 5/9/2019

Staff Recommended Viewsheds Friday May 10, 2019

Trinidad Harbor Looking East (After)

Before

SOURCE: AES, 5/9/2019

Staff Recommended Viewsheds Friday May 10, 2019

Trinidad Harbor Looking Southeast (Before)

After

SOURCE: AES, 5/9/2019

Staff Recommended Viewsheds Friday May 10, 2019

Trinidad Harbor Looking Southeast (After)

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. The

Council of Environmental Quality (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

Action, 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 and in response to comment received on the

Final EA. As specified in the following table, the compliance monitoring and evaluation will be

performed by the Tribe as indicated in the description of each measure. In addition, the BIA has the duty

to monitor mitigation to ensure all measures are implemented as required. 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

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Program

Exhibit C

Mitigation Measure

Implementing

Responsibility

Compliance Standards

Timing

Prior to construction of the Hotel foundation, the contractors

will implement one of the slope stabilization options

recommended by the soil engineers in the Draft Geotechnical

Feasibility and Preliminary Design Report (Appendix B of the

EA). Options include soil nail walls, reconstructed

embankment, soldier pile, and welded wire walls.

Tribe

General Contractor

Measure shall be included in

construction specifications

Site Prep

Coverage under the General Construction National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit shall be

obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA. As required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared that

addresses potential water quality impacts associated with

construction and operation of the Proposed Project. The

SWPPP shall make provisions for erosion prevention and

sediment control and control of other potential pollutants. The

SWPPP shall describe construction practices, stabilization

techniques and structural Best Management Practices (BMPs)

that are to be implemented to prevent erosion and minimize

sediment transport. BMPs shall be inspected, maintained, and

repaired to assure continued performance of their intended

function. Reports summarizing the scope of these inspections,

the personnel conducting the inspection, the dates of the

inspections, major observations relating to the implementation

of the SWPPP, and actions taken as a result of these

inspections shall be prepared and retained as part of the

SWPPP. The BMPs shall include, but are not limited to, the

following:



Stripped areas shall be stabilized through temporary

seeding using dryland grasses.



Exposed stockpiled soils shall be covered to prevent

wind and rain erosion.



The construction entrance shall be stabilized by the

use of rip-rap, crushed gravel, or other such material

to prevent the track-out of dirt and mud.



Construction roadways shall be stabilized through

Tribe

General Contractor

NPDES permit shall be

obtained from USEPA

SWPPPs shall be completed for

all construction and excavation

activities

Measures identified on the

SWPPP shall be included in

construction plans

A copy of the SWPPP shall be

current and remain on-site

SWPPP practices shall be

implemented on-site during

construction

Measures shall be included in

construction specifications

Planning and

Construction

Phases

Verification

(Date/Initial)

Land Resources

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Program

Exhibit C

Mitigation Measure



the use of frequent watering, stabilizing chemical

application, or physical covering of gravel or rip-rap.

Filter fences shall be erected at all onsite stormwater

exit points and along the edge of graded areas to

stabilized non-graded areas and control siltation of

onsite stormwater.

Prior to land-disturbing activities, the clearing and

grading limits shall be marked clearly, both in the

field and on the plans. This can be done using

construction fences or by creating buffer zones.

Concentrated flows create high potential for erosion;

therefore, any slopes shall be protected from

concentration flow. This can be done by using

gradient terraces, interceptor dikes, and swales, and

by installing pipe slope drains or level spreaders.

Inlets need to be protected to provide an initial

filtering of stormwater runoff; however, any

sediment buildup shall be removed so the inlet does

not become blocked.

The SWPPP shall address maintenance and repair of

heavy equipment on site to remove the potential for

pollution from oil, fuel, hydraulic fluid, or any other

potential pollutant.

If construction occurs during wet periods, sub-grade

stabilization shall be required. Mulching or netting

may be needed for wet-weather construction.

Temporary erosion control measures (such as silt

fence, gravel filter berms, straw wattles,

sediment/grease traps, mulching of disturbed soil,

construction stormwater chemical treatment, and

construction stormwater filtration) shall be employed

for disturbed areas.

Exposed and unworked soils shall be stabilized by

the application of effective BMPs. These include,

but are not limited to, temporary or permanent

seeding, mulching, nets and blankets, plastic

covering, sodding, and gradient terraces.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Implementing

Responsibility

Compliance Standards

Timing

Verification

(Date/Initial)

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Program

Exhibit C

Mitigation Measure



Implementing

Responsibility

Compliance Standards

Timing

Tribe

NPDES permit shall be

obtained from USEPA

SWPPPs shall be completed for

all construction and excavation

activities

Measures identified on the

SWPPP shall be included in

construction plans

A copy of the SWPPP shall be

current and remain on-site

SWPPP practices shall be

implemented on-site during

construction

Construction

Verification

(Date/Initial)

Existing vegetation shall be retained where possible.

To the extent feasible, grading activities shall be

limited to the immediate area required for

construction.

Temporary erosion control measures (such as silt

fences, staked straw bales, and temporary

revegetation) shall be employed for disturbed areas

and stockpiled soil.

Potentially hazardous materials shall be stored away

from drainages and containment berms shall be

constructed to prevent spilled materials from

reaching water bodies.

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.

Disturbed areas shall be revegetated after completion

of construction activities.

Water Resources

Construction Activities

Refer to Land Resources

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Program

Exhibit C

Mitigation Measure

Implementing

Responsibility

Compliance Standards

Timing

Verification

(Date/Initial)

Measures shall be included in

construction specifications

Operational Measures

The following BMPs would be implemented to reduce water

usage at the Hotel:



In order to reduce water consumption and support

LEED and sustainability goals of the building, all

plumbing would include low-flow and ultra-flow

fixtures to reduce water consumption. All fittings

are made of brass construction with a high-quality

chrome finish, and polished, per the current Hyatt

Place hotels plumbing and accessories list. All

proposed fixtures would comply with applicable

water use reduction requirements of American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 189.1

Section 6.

Tribe

General Contractor

Measure shall be included in

construction specifications

Construction

Tribe

Measures shall be included in

construction specifications

Planning and

Construction

Phases

Biological Resources

The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to

minimize impacts to Migratory Birds.



A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction

nesting bird survey within 100 feet of the project site

during marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, birdof-prey, and migratory bird nesting seasons. If any

active nests are located within the vicinity of the

project site, a no-disturbance buffer zone shall be

established to avoid disturbance or destruction of the

nest(s). The distance around the no-disturbance

buffer shall be determined by the biologist in

coordination with USFWS and will depend on the

level of noise or construction activity, the level of

ambient noise in the vicinity of the nest, and the lineof-sight between the nest and disturbance. The

biologist shall delineate the buffer zone with

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Program

Exhibit C

Mitigation Measure

construction tape or pin flags. The no-disturbance

buffer will remain in place until after the nesting

season or until the biologist determines that the

young birds have fledged. A report shall be prepared

and submitted to the Tribe and the USFWS

following the fledging of the nestlings to document

the results.

Implementing

Responsibility

Compliance Standards

Timing

Tribe

General Contractor

Measures shall be included in

construction specifications

Planning and

Construction

Phase

Tribe

California Department of

Transportation (Caltrans)

Caltrans Requirements for

Project Implementation

Planning Phase

Tribe

General Contractor

Measures shall be included in

construction specifications

Hazardous materials storage

and disposal plan shall be

developed in accordance with

industry practices

Planning and

Construction

Phases

Verification

(Date/Initial)

Cultural Resources

The following mitigation measure is required for Alternative A

to avoid adverse effects to cultural resources and/or

paleontological resources:



Halt work within 50 feet of the find, retain a

qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist to

assess significance. If the find is determined to be

significant, determine the appropriate course of

action, including recovery, analysis, curation, and

reporting according to current professional standards.

Transportation (Cumulative Environment)

For the cumulative setting, the following mitigation measure is

required for Alternative A to reduce impacts to transportation

and circulation:



Construct the Cher-Ae Lane interchange off of HWY

101 to provide direct access to the Rancheria and

Westhaven Drive.

Noise

The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to

minimize impacts from noise during construction:



Construction activities would only occur between the

hours of 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through

Friday, and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday. No

construction activities would occur on any Sunday.



Where feasible, the stationary construction

equipment shall be located on the southern portion of

the project site.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Program

Exhibit C

Mitigation Measure



Implementing

Responsibility

Compliance Standards

Timing

Verification

(Date/Initial)

All construction equipment over 50 horsepower shall

be equipped with noise reducing mufflers.

Visual Resources

The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to

minimize visual impacts of buildings and associated structures.

These elements include:



Design elements shall be incorporated into the

Proposed Project to minimize visual impacts of

buildings and associated structures, including

landscaping that compliments buildings and parking

areas, with setbacks and vegetation consistent with

existing landscaping. Earth-toned paints and

coatings shall be used, all exterior glass shall be nonreflective and low-glare, and signs and facades shall

be designed with a non-reflective backing to

decrease reflectivity.



Windows shall be fit with black out curtains within

rooms that face the ocean;



Lighting shall be shielded and downcast; and



Building maintenance staff shall be trained to call the

Humboldt Wildlife Care Center wildlife

rehabilitation facility should disoriented or injured

seabirds be found on the property.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

Trinidad REDC Hotel Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Program

EXHIBIT D

THPO CONCURRENCE

EXHIBIT E

FINAL EA

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

TRINIDAD RANCHERIA ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

HOTEL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

JANUARY 2020

LEAD AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs

2800 Cottage Way

Sacramento, CA 95825

(916) 978-6000

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

TRINIDAD RANCHERIA ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

HOTEL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

JANUARY 2020

LEAD AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs

2800 Cottage Way

Sacramento, CA 95825

(916) 978-6000

PREPARED BY:

Analytical Environmental Services

1801 7th Street, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95811

(916) 447-3479

www.analyticalcorp.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TRINIDAD RANCHERIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Background .............................................................................................................................1-2

1.3 Location and Setting ...............................................................................................................1-2

1.4 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................................1-2

1.5 Overview of the Environmental Review Process....................................................................1-6

1.6 Environmental Issues Addressed ............................................................................................1-6

1.7 Regulatory Requirements and Approvals ...............................................................................1-6

2.0

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Selection of Alternatives for Detailed Evaluation ..................................................................2-1

2.2 Proposed Action and Proposed Project ...................................................................................2-1

2.3 No-Action Alternative.............................................................................................................2-7

2.4 Comparison of the Proposed Action and the Project Alternatives ..........................................2-7

3.0

DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Land Resources .......................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Water Resources .....................................................................................................................3-6

3.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas ............................................................................................3-8

3.4 Biological Resources.............................................................................................................3-13

3.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................3-16

3.6 Socioeconomic Conditions / Environmental Justice .............................................................3-18

3.7 Transportation and Circulation .............................................................................................3-19

3.8 Land Use ...............................................................................................................................3-21

3.9 Agriculture ............................................................................................................................3-22

3.10 Public Services ......................................................................................................................3-22

3.11 Noise .....................................................................................................................................3-25

3.12 Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................................3-28

3.13 Visual Resources ...................................................................................................................3-29

4.0

CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS

4.1 Cumulative Effects..................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Indirect and Growht-Inducing Effects ....................................................................................4-6

5.0

CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND LIST OF PREPARERS

5.1 Federal Agencies .....................................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Local Government ..................................................................................................................5-1

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

TRDEC Hotel

Final Environmental Assessment

5.3 Preparers of Environmental Assessment.................................................................................5-1

6.0

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 6-1

FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Regional Location Map .................................................................................................1-3

Figure 1-2 Site and Vicinity Map....................................................................................................1-4

Figure 1-3 Aerial View Photograph ................................................................................................1-5

Figure 2-1 Proposed Site Plan .........................................................................................................2-2

Figure 2-2 Architectural Rendering ................................................................................................2-4

Figure 3-1 Regional Fault Map .......................................................................................................3-2

Figure 3-2 Soil Types ......................................................................................................................3-4

Figure 3-3 Habitat Types ..............................................................................................................3-14

TABLES

Table 3.3-1 Unmitigated Construction Emissions ........................................................................3-11

Table 3.3-2 Unmitigated Operational Emissions ..........................................................................3-11

Table 3.3-3 Proposed Project GHG Emissions .............................................................................3-12

Table 3.11-1 Unmitigated Operational Emissions ........................................................................3-26

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Appendix G

Appendix H

Appendix I

Preliminary Feasibility Report for Trinidad Rancheria Cher-Ae Heights Facility

Draft Geotechnical Feasibility and Preliminary Design Report

Best Management Practices

Regulatory Context

CalEEMod Files

Special Status Species

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study Report

Limited Evaluation of Water-Supply

Traffic Impact Analysis

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

TRDEC Hotel

Final Environmental Assessment

SECTION 1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1

INTRODUCTION

Programs administered by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) allow tribes to improve tribal

government infrastructure, community infrastructure, education, job training, and employment

opportunities, along with other components of long-term sustainable development that work to improve

the quality of life for their members. To help Indian tribes and individuals establish and expand Indianowned businesses, and to encourage self-sufficiency, Congress passed the Indian Financing Act of 1974

(Act). The Act was established to reduce the disparity between business capital available to Indian and

non-Indian businesses. The Act is administered by the BIA, Office of Indian Energy and Economic

Development (IEED): Division of Capital Investment (DCI) that oversees the various implementation

programs such as the Indian Loan Guaranty, Insurance, and Interest Subsidy Program. BIA approvals

under the program, including Indian Loan Guarantees which result in the physical disturbance of the

environment (such as new construction), constitute a Federal Action requiring review under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. In addition to the DCI, the BIA Division of Real Estate

Services assists tribes in improving the quality of life for its members. The Division of Real Estate

Services reviews and approves leases on lands held in Trust by the Department of the Interior.

Accordingly, this Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the BIA to support the Trinidad

Rancheria Economic Development Corporation (TREDC) requests, on behalf of the Cher-Ae Heights

Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria (Tribe), for an Indian Loan Guarantee by DCI for capital to

build a Hotel adjacent to the Tribe’s Casino on the Reservation and the approval of a lease by the

Division of Real Estate Services between the Tribe and TREDC to operate the Hotel. Combined, these

two approvals represent the Proposed Action. The construction and operation of the Hotel constitute the

Proposed Project. The BIA will use this EA to determine if the Proposed Action and subsequent

Proposed Project would result in adverse effects to the environment.

This document has been prepared in accordance with the requirements set out in NEPA (42 United States

Code [USC] §4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Guidelines for Implementing

NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and the BIA’s NEPA Guidebook (59 Indian Affairs Manual [IAM] 3H). Section 2.0 of this EA provides a detailed description of the Project Alternatives. Section 3.0

provides a description of the existing environmental conditions on and in the vicinity of the project site,

an analysis of the potential environmental consequences associated with the Project Alternatives, and

impact mitigation measures. Section 4.0 describes cumulative and growth-inducing effects, and Section

5.0 presents a list of preparers.

Consistent with the requirements of NEPA, the BIA will review and analyze the environmental

consequences associated with the Proposed Action and Project Alternatives and either determine that a

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate, request additional analysis, or request that an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

1-1

TRDEC Hotel

Final Environmental Assessment

1.0 Introduction

1.2

BACKGROUND

The Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria is a federally recognized Indian Tribe

with ancestral ties to the Yurok, Wiyot, Tolowa, Chetco, Karuk, and Hupa peoples. The Tribe is located

within the ancestral territories of the Yurok, with core land holdings located on a coastal bluff east of U.S.

Highway 101 (HWY-101), just south of the town of Trinidad, CA. The Tribe’s culture, including but not

limited to traditional and customary fishing and gathering, is inextricably tied to the land and marine

resources found within the traditional homeland, which is defined as a 20-mile area of interest and

concern surrounding the Tribe’s lands. The Tribe has made a significant investment to revitalize the local

economy and preserve the Tribe’s cultural heritage and has developed a model that advances economic

development and stewardship.

1.3

LOCATION AND SETTING

The project site is located west of HWY-101, adjacent to the City of Trinidad (approximately 0.75 miles

southeast of downtown Trinidad) in Humboldt County, within the existing Reservation on the south and

west side adjacent to the existing Casino. The project site is located in Section 25 of the Trinidad, CA

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle within the southwest quarter of the northeastern quadrant of

Township 8 North and Range 1 West. Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2 show the regional location and vicinity

of the project site. Figure 1-3 shows an aerial photograph of the project site. The project site includes

approximately 0.40 acres located on the south and west sides of the existing Casino that is currently

developed and paved.

Regional access is provided by HWY-101, which travels in a general north-south direction and is located

approximately 0.2 miles east of the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by Scenic

Drive and Cher-Ae Lane. Scenic Drive is a two-lane paved road that runs in a general north south

direction along the coastline from Trinidad to Westhaven going through the existing Reservation. CherAe Lane is a two lane paved road on the Reservation connecting the Tribal amenities and Casino to

Scenic Drive. The project site is composed of developed/paved parking and roadway behind and beside

the existing Casino.

1.4

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The existing Cher-Ae Heights Casino provides a consistent revenue stream that has improved the

socioeconomic status of the Tribe, allowing for development of programs and services that have resulted

in reduced poverty and unemployment. Implementation of the Proposed Action would assist the Tribe in

meeting the following project objectives:



Maintain the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that

could be used to strengthen the tribal government, fund a variety of social, governmental,

administrative, educational, health, and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal

members; and to provide capital for other economic development and investment opportunities.

Create new jobs for both tribal and non-tribal members.

Reduce visitor trips on local roadways by providing additional overnight accommodations.

Provide additional amenities to existing patrons and allow the target market to expand to

nonresidential clients.

Allow tribal members to enhance their economic self-sufficiency.

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

1-2

TRDEC Hotel

Final Environmental Assessment

Project Site

Humboldt County

SCALE

Miles

P A

C I

F I

O C

E A

Project Site

SOURCE: ESRI, 2018; AES, 9/17/2018

Trinidad Rancheria EA / 216561

Figure 1-1

Regional Location

Patric

oint

ks P

101

nic

Project Site

haven

W es t

SCALE

Feet

1,000

2,000

SOURCE: "Trinidad, CA" USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle,

T8N R1W, Section 25, Humboldt Baseline & Meridian;

ESRI, 2018; AES, 9/17/2018

Trinidad Rancheria EA / 216561

Figure 1-2

Site and Vicinity

-K

O O LN

-PA H

TEP

-A

VIE

PRIVAT

ATE

PRIV

PRIVATE DR

101

IVA

LEGEND

Project Site

Potential Leachfield Location

Feet

225

450

SOURCE: DigitalGlobe aerial photograph, 10/12/2017; AES, 9/17/2018

Trinidad Rancheria EA / 216561

Figure 1-3

Aerial Photograph

1.0 Introduction

The Proposed Action and subsequent Proposed Project would ensure that the Tribe continues to maintain

a long-term, viable, and sustainable revenue base and allow the Tribe to continue to compete with other

gaming and tourist attraction venues in the region.

1.5

OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

This EA is intended to satisfy the environmental review process of 59 IAM 3-H, 40 CFR § 1501.3 and 40

CFR § 1508.9. The EA has been released for a 30-day comment period. Comments will be considered

by the BIA, and either a FONSI will be prepared or additional environmental analysis will be conducted.

After the NEPA process is complete, the DCI and Division of Real Estate may issue a determination on

the request to approve the Indian Load Guarantee and lease agreement.

1.6

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ADDRESSED

In accordance with NEPA and because the Proposed Project is located within a coastal zone, this EA

evaluates the following environmental issue areas outlined within the BIA’s NEPA Guidebook:



1.7



Land Resources

Water Resources

Air Quality/Greenhouse Gasses

Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

Socioeconomic Conditions /

Environmental Justice

Land Resources

Land Use and Agriculture

Public Services

Noise

Hazardous Materials

Visual Resources

Transportation and Circulation

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS

The following direct and indirect federal approvals and actions may occur as a result of the Proposed

Action:



Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) under Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), if endangered

species may be impacted by the Proposed Action.

Consultation with the California Coastal Commission concerning consistency of the Proposed

Action with the enforceable policies of the California Coastal Management Program (i.e., the

Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 30200 et seq.) in accordance with

15 CFR Section 930.36 of the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, Federal

Consistency Regulations was completed and the Proposed Action received conditional

concurrence so long as a suitable water source was identified.

Consultation with the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer under Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

1-6

TRDEC Hotel

Final Environmental Assessment

SECTION 2.0

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1

SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR DETAILED EVALUATION

As discussed in Section 1.4, the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action relates to the Tribe’s goals of

economic self-sufficiency, self-governance, and self-determination. The only reasonable alternative is for

the DCI and the Division of Real Estate Services to deny approval of the Indian Loan Guarantee and lease

agreement, respectively. Furthermore, the selected location of the Proposed Project provides for a

reduced-level of potential environmental impacts compared to alternative locations as the site is

previously developed and supports the existing gaming operation. Other potential alternatives to the

Proposed Action, such as a reduction in the size of the area for development or alternative locations, do

not meet the definition of “reasonable” under the CEQ’s Regulations for Implementing the NEPA

because the purpose and need would not be met. Due to the proposed location of the Hotel, the Tribe has

reduced the size to the minimum size that would provide the economic gains that would make the Hotel

profitable and thereby viable. Accordingly, a smaller area for the Proposed Project is not evaluated

within this Environmental Assessment (EA).

Being that all the parcels near the existing Casino are designated for parking, tribal facilities, or housing

under Tribal land use planning, the surrounding locations owned by the Tribe are not suitable for a Hotel

development. There are no other available comparable and affordable lands that would meet the purpose

and need of the Proposed Project (in that the funds needed to purchase surrounding lands would result in

lack of funding for Hotel development). Furthermore, the Tribe’s purpose for the development of a 100room Hotel is to support the existing Casino (Proposed Project). There is no alternative location that

would allow the Tribe to have a Hotel near the existing Casino without disrupting future plans essential to

the Tribe’s growth and facilities. In addition, developing a Hotel separated from the existing Casino

would prevent sharing of operational costs. This increase in operating costs associated with a separated

Hotel facility would not be economically feasible for the Tribe. Therefore, alternative locations for the

Proposed Project are not evaluated within this EA as none have been evaluated as being a reasonable

alternative to the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would allow the Tribe to better support their

existing Casino and patrons visiting the area of Trinidad, thus providing economic benefit to the Tribe

and its members. The Proposed Project is detailed below in Section 2.2.

2.2

PROPOSED ACTION AND PROPOSED PROJECT

The Proposed Action consists of the guarantee of a loan by DCI to the Tribe’s lender in accordance with

25 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 162 Residential, Business, and Wind and Solar Resource

Leases on Indian Lands and approval of a lease agreement between the Tribe and TREDC by the Division

of Real Estate Services for the operation of the Hotel.

2.2.1 ALTERNATIVE A – PROPOSED PROJECT

The Tribe proposes to develop a six-story, 100-room Hotel, and accessory components on approximately

0.4 acres within existing developed/paved areas to the south and east of the existing Casino (Figure 2-1)

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

2-1

TRDEC Hotel

Final Environmental Assessment

LEGEND

Feet

Existing

Casino

PORTE COCHERE

Proposed

Project Areas

SOURCE: DigitalGlobe aerial photograph, 10/12/2017; AECOM, 1/13/2017; AES, 9/17/2018

Trinidad Rancheria EA / 216561

Figure 2-1

Proposed Site Plan

3.0 Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation

south and east of the existing Casino (Figure 2-2). The Hotel would include a mix of room types, 1,552

square feet of meeting space divided into two separate areas, a business center, fitness room, café/bar,

lounge, rooftop event space, and indoor pool. A porte-cochere along the eastern side of the existing

Casino would provide a covered vehicle entrance for arriving guests. As part of the franchise agreement

between TREDC and Hyatt Place, Hyatt Place would provide the design standards for the Hotel to ensure

development is commensurate with Hyatt standards and the Tribe’s culture.

WATER SUPPLY

Under the preferred option, water would be supplied though the existing three-inch diameter metered

Casino water line. Maximum water demands for the Hotel and accessory components would be

approximately 14,184 gallons per day (gpd) at full capacity (FEA, 2019). Typical capacity of the hotel is

expected to be approximately 70 percent, resulting in an expected average water demand of 9,929 gpd.

Except for connections from the Hotel to the system serving the existing Casino, no additional water

infrastructure is required for Alternative A.

Hot and cold domestic water would be provided via a combination of three separate systems. A 750gallon water heater and storage tank would provide water to guest rooms and common areas. A 100gallon water heater would serve water to the laundry area. Lastly, the proposed system would include a

second 100-gallon water heater with recirculating hot water for the kitchen. All piping materials would

meet the California Plumbing Code standard.

Optional Water Supply

In the event that City water would not be available to meet the demands of the Proposed Project, the Tribe

would utilize alternative water sources, primarily including on-site water storage and well development.

According to preliminary well explorations, on-site well development could provide approximately 6.8

gallons per minute (gpm) or 9,792 gpd, approximately 99 percent of the average day demand (Appendix

H). With occasional trucking of supplemental water as needed to ensure stored levels can meet peak

demands, the optional water strategy can meet the proposed water demands for the Proposed Project.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

Wastewater generated by the existing Casino, averaging 7,200 gallons per day (gpd), is currently treated

by the Tribe’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and leach fields. The existing WWTP utilizes a

combination of biological treatment and membrane separation and has an existing capacity of 15,000 gpd.

The existing WWTP was designed to double in size with the addition of three filters, without resizing or

excessive retrofitting. Wastewater generated by the existing Casino is pumped to a 15,000-gallon holding

tank before being transferred to a concrete bioreactor. After organic material is broken down in the

bioreactor, the wastewater is filtered through membranes. Once filtered, the wastewater is disinfected

with a UV system and chlorinated. Approximately 40 percent (4,000 gpd) of the treated wastewater is

dispersed via pumps into a leach field with a capacity of 10,000 gpd located south of the Tribal office.

The remaining 60 percent (6,000 gpd) of the treated wastewater is stored in storage tanks to be recycled

back into the existing Casino toilets (Appendix A).

Construction of a 100-room Hotel would result in the need to treat and dispose of approximately 10,000

gallons of wastewater per day. The proposed Hotel would connect directly to the existing Casino

wastewater treatment system, which would be expanded in order to accommodate the additional capacity

Analytical Environmental Services

January 2020

2-3

TRDEC Hotel

Final Environmental Assessment

SOURCE: TBE, 12/13/2018; AES, 1/4/2019

Trinidad Rancheria EA / 216561

Figure 2-2

Architectural Rendering

3.0 Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation

generated by the Hotel. The Hotel sewer collection system would be drained by gravity and multiple

exit pipes would be connected to the existing underground sanitary sewer. Sanitary drainage and vent

piping materials would meet the California Plumbing Code standard. Recycled water would be utilized

for toilet flushing within the Hotel, accounting for approximately 20 percent (2,000 gpd) of the proposed

Hotel wastewater generation rate. Accordingly, the Hotel would be dual-plumbed and cross connections

would be prohibited to prevent contaminating potable water with recycled water.

In order to accommodate the increase in wastewater treatment capacity, additional pumps, blowers, and

piping and a parallel carbon polishing system would be installed. Upgrades to the electrical system would

also be completed. The UV disinfection systems would also require a larger impeller on the existing

pump; however, the UV disinfection systems themselves are sufficiently sized to handle the new flow.

All of this equipment would be accommodated by the existing building. Some minor plumbing issues

would be corrected at the time of upgrade. Currently, the floor drains and plumbing fixtures in the

treatment building are plumbed to the effluent tank. This would be rerouted to the holding tank and

processed prior to dispersal. Some upgrades would occur with plumbing in the pump tanks to replace

corroded pipes and valves. An additional standalone recycled water tank that is not chlorinated would be

installed for use in the backwashing process of the membranes. This tank may affect the space currently

dedicated to maintenance staff and activities and additional building space may be required to make sure

routine maintenance activities are not impacted.

Wastewater from the septic tanks from the nearby Tribal Office, the clinic complex, and two homes is

discharged directly to a community dispersal field without treatment. The community dispersal field was

designed with a capacity of 10,000 gallons per day. A comparison of water meter usage records for the

existing Casino and the processed wastewater flows from the WWTP indicate that approximately 60

percent of the average daily flow is recycled back into the existing Casino for toilet flushing and does not

require disposal at the dispersal field. Therefore, approximately 2,880 gpd of treated wastewater is

discharged to the dispersal field. In addition, an estimated 960 gpd are discharged to the dispersal field

from the Tribal Offices, the clinic complex and the two houses connected to the community dispersal

field. Accordingly, the total estimated flow to the community dispersal field is approximately 4,000 gpd.

According to design specifications, there is approximately 6,000 gpd of capacity remaining in the existing

community dispersal field. With 8,000 gpd of wastewater generated at the proposed Hotel, the existing

leach field would operate over capacity. In order to accommodate excess wastewater capacity from the

proposed Hotel, a 2004 Wastewater Assessment identified two potential areas, shown in Figure 1-3,

feasible for additional leach field dispersal: the mounded ridge to the south of Ter Ker Coo Lane and the

hillside south of the Tribal office (Appendix A). Accordingly, both locations are assessed in this EA.

GRADING AND DRAINAGE

Minimal grading would be required for a new access roadway, as the site is currently developed with

asphalt for circulation for the back of house operations of the existing Casino and an existing Tribal

property that has been previously cleared and flattened for historic residential. All cut and fill would be

balanced on the site. The building would be constructed in a manner consistent with the 2016 California

Building Code (CBC), including seismic design criteria related to the geologic setting of the area. The

site is considered stable for hotel foundations, as it is located on undisturbed deposits and bedrock

(Append

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.