# COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE EA > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Acher-ae_heights%3A9c01b0fe1fbbb2e9 ## Record - **Collection:** Tribal code - **Document type:** Tribal code ## 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) F1 United States Department of the Interior (Acting Regional Director) 15-Oct-18 F2 United States Bureau of Land Management Molly Brown, Arcata Field Manager 26-Oct-18 F3 United States Environmental Protection Agency Kathleen Martyn Goforth 5-Nov-18 State Agencies (S) S1 California Coastal Commission Mark Delaplaine 19-Oct-18 S2 Jesse Robertson 22-Oct-18 Local Agencies (L) L1 Daniel Berman City of Trinidad 10-Oct-18 L2 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 P1 Development Humboldt Alliance for Responsible P2 Development P3 Private Citizen P4 Private Citizen Patty Stearns 9-Oct-18 P5 Private Citizen Sara March 16-Oct-18 P6 Coalition for Responsible Transportation Collin Fiske 16-Oct-18 P7 Private Citizen Sandra Haux 16-Oct-18 P8 Private Citizen Richard Salzman 17-Oct-18 P9 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 S1 Comment Letter S1 Comment Letter S1 Comment Letter S1 Comment Letter S1 Comment Letter S1 Comment Letter S1 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 P1 Comment Letter P1 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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. o 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 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 26 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 27 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 28 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 29 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 30 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 31 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 32 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 33 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. 1 https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/45-AA-0020/Detail Analytical Environmental Services January 2020 34 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 35 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 36 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 37 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 38 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 39 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 40 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 41 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 42 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 43 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 44 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 1 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 c [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Acher-ae_heights%3A9c01b0fe1fbbb2e9. Public record. Not legal advice.