FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

LYTTON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

VOLUME I

MAY 2011

Lead Agency:

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Pacific Region Office

2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2820

Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

LYTTON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

VOLUME I

MAY 2011

Lead Agency:

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Pacific Region Office

2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2820

Sacramento, CA 95825-1846

Prepared By:

Analytical Environmental Services

1801 7th Street, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95811

(916) 447-3479

www.analyticalcorp.com
Analytical Environmental Services i Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LYTTON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT – VOLUME I 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

VOLUME I – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 

1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 

1.2 Organization of the Document ............................................................................................ 1-1 

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EA (BRACKETED COMMENT LETTERS) .................................. 2-1 

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS .................................................................................................. 3-1 

3.1 General Responses .............................................................................................................. 3-1 

3.2 Individual Responses ........................................................................................................ 3-20 

4.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 4-1 

VOLUME II – REVISED EA

(BOUND UNDER SEPARATE COVER) 

VOLUME III – APPENDICES 

(BOUND UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
CHAPTER 1.0 

INTRODUCTION
Analytical Environmental Services 1-1 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

CHAPTER 1.0 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 OVERVIEW 

The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed Lytton Rancheria of California Fee-to-Trust and 

Residential Development Project, dated July 2009 (SCH #2009074006) was submitted to the State 

Clearinghouse and released for public and agency review for a 30-day comment period beginning on July 

30, 2009 and ending on August 31, 2009. Additional extensions to the 30-day comment period were 

granted by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). This three-volume Final EA includes responses to 

comments received on the EA (Volume I), and a revised version of the EA to reflect the responses to 

comments received, with revised text shown in underline/strikeout format (Volume II). Volume III 

contains supporting Appendices A through N. 

Since the public comment period, the Tribe has purchased an additional 32.12 acres (seven parcels) 

discussed in further detail in Volume II of the Final EA. These seven parcels were added to the fee-totrust application and housing project site plan alternatives (Volume II) to provide additional flexibility for 

reclaimed water reuse and mitigation of potential impacts in response to comments and concerns raised 

during the EA public comment period. The Tribe met with the BIA, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA), Sonoma County and the City of Windsor to discuss their concerns with the fee-to-trust 

application and EA. 

This Final EA was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

implementing regulations developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), parts 1500-1508 

and the BIA’s NEPA handbook (59 IAM 3-H). The three-volume Final EA will be presented to the 

Regional Director of the BIA to determine if the environmental review process has been carried out 

consistent with the requirements of NEPA, and to determine whether a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) can be issued, or whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared. 

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE DOCUMENT 

Volume I of the Final EA contains a total of four chapters: 

Chapter 1.0 Introduction. This chapter provides information on the contents and organization of the 

Final EA. 
1.0 Introduction 

Analytical Environmental Services 1-2 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2.0 Comments. Chapter 2.0 includes a list of commenters and copies of all written 

comments received. All comments are bracketed and annotated with individual comment 

numbers. 

Chapter 3.0 Responses to Comments. Chapter 3.0 provides responses to all comments included in 

Chapter 2.0. Responses generally provide clarification of the original EA, and 

occasionally include changes in, or additions to, the text of that document. 

Chapter 4.0 References. A list of references for Volume I of the Final EA (exclusive of those 

included in the original EA) is provided in this chapter. 

Volume II of the Final EA contains the full text of the original EA, with appropriate alterations based on 

comments received. New text is shown by underlining, with deletions shown in strikeout format. New 

tables in the Final EA are designated in the table name as “New Table;” revised tables are designated as 

“Revised,” and new Appendices as “Added.” 

Volume II also includes an executive summary section, including a table summarizing all project impacts 

and mitigation measures. The use of underlining has been disabled for the executive summary section, 

given that the entire section is newly added. 

Volume III of the Final EA contains supporting Appendices A through N. Appendices A through H and 

J were revised for the Final EA. Appendix F (Cultural Resources Study and Addendum) is a 

confidential appendix bound under separate cover. Appendices K through N have been added with the 

Final EA, and Appendix I (Cooperative Fire Agreement) remains unchanged. 

1.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

Table ES-1 in Volume II presents a summary of project impacts and mitigation measures that would 

avoid or minimize potential impacts. In the table, the level of significance of each environmental impact 

is indicated both before and after implementation of the recommended mitigation measure(s). Table ES1 includes impacts and mitigation measures in the original EA, as well as any additional or revised 

impacts and mitigation measures developed in response to comments on the project, found in Chapter 

3.0 of this document. No new significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant 

level were identified, nor were substantial increases in the severity of environmental impacts identified as 

a result of comments received on the Draft EA. 
CHAPTER 2.0 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EA 

(BRACKETED COMMENT LETTERS) 
Analytical Environmental Services 2-1 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

CHAPTER 2.0 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EA 

Comments received on the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) are listed in Table 2-1, and provided in 

their entirety on the following pages. Issues are individually bracketed and numbered in the margins of 

the comment letters. Responses to the numbered comments are provided in Chapter 3.0. 

TABLE 2-1 

LIST OF COMMENTERS

Letter 

Number From Name Date 

Federal Agencies/Elected Officials

1 U.S. House of Representatives, 1st

District, California 

Mike Thompson, Member of Congress 08/11/2009 

2 U.S. House of Representatives, 6th

District, California 

Lynn Woolsey, Member of Congress 08/25/2009 

3 U.S. Senate Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator 08/24/2009 

State Agencies/Elected Officials

4 Department of Justice Patty Brandt, Senior Legal Analyst, for Edmund 

G. Brown Jr., Attorney General 

08/10/2009 

5 Governor’s Office of Planning and 

Research State Clearinghouse and 

Planning Unit 

Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse Acting 

Director 

09/01/2009 

6 California Department of Fish and Game 

Bay Delta Region 

Charles Armor, Regional Manager 08/27/2009 

7 Caltrans District 4 Local Development – 

Intergovernmental Review 

Lisa Carboni, District Branch Chief 08/31/2009 

8 Regional Water Quality Control Board 

North Coast Region 

Cathleen Goodwin, Water Resources Control 

Engineer 

09/08/2009 

Local Agencies/Elected Officials 

9 County of Sonoma Jeffrey Brax, Deputy County Counsel 08/05/2009 

10 County of Sonoma, Sonoma County 

Water Agency 

Paul L. Kelley, Chair, Sonoma County Board of 

Supervisors, Sonoma County Water Agency 

10/08/2009 

11 Town of Windsor Sheila Wolski, Planning Administrative 

Specialist 

08/13/2009 

12 Town of Windsor (Meyers Nave Riback 

Silver & Wilson) 

Richard R. Rudnansky, Windsor Town Attorney 

& Windsor Water District General Counsel 

08/11/2009 

13 Town of Windsor J. Matthew Mullan, Town Manager 10/07/2009 

14 Windsor Unified School District Steve Herrington, Ph.D., Superintendent 09/22/2009 

Other Interested Organizations/Individuals

15 Windsor West Residents William McCormick 08/12/2009 
2.0 Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 2-2 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment

Letter 

Number From Name Date 

16 Windsor West Residents William V. McCormick, Spokesperson 09/09/2009 

17 Windsor West Residents Robert E. Crawford, JD 08/05/2009 

18 Windsor West Residents Robert E. Crawford, esq. and Donna M. 

Crawford 

08/31/2009 

19 Windsor West Residents Dennis and Jane Kral 08/25/2009 

20 Windsor West Residents Rose Zoia 10/08/2009 

21 California Native Plant Society Milo Baker 

Chapter 

C. Michael Hogan, Ph.D., Conservation 

Chairman 

10/05/2009 

22 local residents Deborah and Michael Bailey 08/11/2009 

23 local residents Deborah and Michael Bailey 08/10/2009 

24 local residents Deborah and Michael Bailey 08/27/2009 

25 local residents Margaret and Bruce Coston 08/11/2009 

26 local resident Bruce Coston 08/19/2009 

27 local resident Blaine Hunt 08/23/2009 

28 Windsor West Residents Robert E. Crawford 11/19/2009 (after 

comment period 

deadline) 
1

1-1
2

2-1
3

3-1
3-2

3-3
3-3

cont.
4

4-1
5

5-1
6

6-1

6-2
6-2

cont.

6-3

6-4
7

7-1

7-2

7-3
7-3

cont.

7-4
8

8-1

8-2
8-2

cont.

8-3

8-4
8-4

cont.

8-5
8-5

cont.

8-6

8-7
8-8

8-9

8-10

8-11
8-12

8-13

8-14

8-15
8-15

cont.

8-16

8-17

8-18

8-19
8-19

cont.

8-20

8-21
8-21

cont.

8-22

8-23

8-24

8-25
8-26

8-27

8-28

8-29
8-29

cont.

8-30
9

9-1

9-2

9-3
9-3

cont.

9-4

9-5

9-6

9-7
9-7

cont.
10

10-1
10-1

cont.
10-2
10-2

cont.

10-3
10-3

cont.

10-4

10-5

10-6
10-6

cont.

10-7

10-8

10-9

10-10
10-11

10-12

10-13
10-13

cont.

10-14

10-15

10-16
10-17

10-18

10-19

10-20
10-21

10-22

10-23

10-24

10-25
10-25

cont.

10-26

10-27

10-28

10-29

10-30
10-30

cont.

10-31

10-32

10-33

10-34

10-35

10-36
10-37

10-38

10-39
10-39

cont.

10-40

10-41

10-42
10-43

10-44

10-45

10-46

10-47

10-48
10-49

10-50

10-51

10-52

10-53

10-54
10-54

cont.

10-55

10-56

10-57
10-58

10-59

10-60

10-61

10-62

10-63
10-64

10-65

10-66

10-67
10-67

cont.

10-68

10-69

10-70

10-71
10-71

cont.

10-72

10-73

10-74

10-75
10-76

10-77
10-78

10-79

10-80

10-81

10-82

10-83
10-83

cont.

10-84
10-85

10-86
10-86

cont.

10-87

10-88

10-89
10-90

10-91




































11

11-1
12

12-1
12-1

cont.
13

13-1

cont.

13-2

13-3
13-3

cont.

13-4
13-4

cont.

13-5

13-6

13-7
13-7

cont.

13-8
13-9

13-10

13-11
13-11

cont.

13-12

13-13

13-14
13-14

cont.

13-15

13-16

13-17
13-18

13-19

13-20

13-21
13-22

13-23

13-24
13-24

cont.

13-25

13-26
13-27

13-28

13-29
13-29

cont.

13-30

13-31
13-31

cont.

13-32

13-33
13-33

cont.

13-34

13-35

13-36

13-37
13-38

13-39

13-40

13-41
13-41

cont.

13-42

13-43
13-43

cont.

13-44

13-45

13-46
13-46

cont.

13-47

13-48
13-49

13-50

13-51
13-52

13-53

13-54
13-54

13-55

13-56
13-56

cont.

13-57

13-58
13-58

cont.

13-59
13-59

cont.

13-60
13-60

cont.

13-61

13-62

13-63
13-64

13-65

13-66

13-67
13-68

13-69

13-70

13-71






















14

14-1
14-2

14-3
14-3

cont.

14-4

14-5
14-5

cont.

14-6

14-7
14-7

cont.

14-8

14-9

14-10
14-10

cont.

14-11

14-12










15

15-1
16

16-1

16-2
16-2

cont.

16-3

16-4

16-5
16-6

16-7

16-8

16-9

16-10

16-11

16-12

16-13

16-14

16-15
16-16

16-17

16-18

16-19

16-20

16-21

16-22
16-23

16-24

16-25

16-26

16-27

16-28

16-29
16-30

16-31

16-32

16-33

16-34

16-35
16-35

cont.

16-36

16-37

16-38

16-39

16-40

16-41

16-42

16-43

16-44
16-44

cont.

16-45
17

17-1

17-2

17-3

17-4
17-5

17-6

17-7

17-8

17-9

17-10





18

18-1

18-2
18-2

cont.

18-3

18-4

18-5

18-6

18-7

18-8

18-9

18-10

18-11
18-11

cont.

18-12

18-13

18-14
19

19-1

19-2

19-3

19-4

19-5

19-6
19-6

cont.
20

20-1

20-2
20-3
20-3

cont.
20-3

cont.

20-4

20-5

20-6
20-6

cont.

20-7

20-8

20-9
20-9

cont.

20-10

20-11

20-12
20-13

20-14

20-15

20-16

20-17
20-17

cont.

20-18

20-19

20-20

20-21
20-21

cont.

20-22
20-23

20-24

20-25

20-26

20-27
20-28
21

21-1

21-2

21-3
21-4

21-5

21-6

21-7

21-8

21-9
21-9

cont.
22

22-1
23

23-1
24

24-1

24-2

24-3
24-3

cont.

24-4

24-5

24-6
24-7

24-8

24-9

24-10
24-10

cont.

24-11

24-12

24-13

24-14

24-15

24-16













25

25-1
26

26-1

26-2

26-3
26-3

cont.

26-4

26-5

26-6

26-7

26-8
26-8

cont.

26-9
27

27-1
28

28-1

28-2

28-3
28-3

cont.

28-4

28-5


CHAPTER 3.0 

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Analytical Environmental Services 3-1 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

CHAPTER 3.0 

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 

Responses are organized below in two sections. General comments about the project, issues that were 

raised by multiple commenters, and comments that have resulted in substantial alterations to the 

Environmental Assessment (EA) are addressed first in Section 3.1. Section 3.2 provides individual 

responses to each of the 28 comment letters. All of the comments, which have been bracketed for ease of 

reference, are provided in Section 2.0 of this document. Refer to Table 2-1 which provides an index of 

all of the comments received on the EA. Once an issue is addressed, either in the General Responses 

(Section 3.1) or in an individual response to a comment (Section 3.2), subsequent responses to similar 

comments reference the initial response. This format eliminates redundancy where multiple comments 

have been submitted on the same issue. 

3.1 GENERAL RESPONSES 

3.1.1 EXTENSION OF THE COMMENT PERIOD 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS (Comment Letters 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 15, 19, 25 and 27)

Several commenters requested an extension of the original comment period. The public comment period 

for the EA was open for 30 days, beginning on July 30, 2009 and ending on August 31, 2009. 

RESPONSE 

The public comment period was extended to October 9, 2009, more than doubling the original comment 

period. Since the public comment period, the Tribe has purchased an additional 32.12 acres (seven 

parcels) discussed in further detail in Section 1.2 of the Final EA. These seven parcels were added to the 

fee-to-trust application and housing project site plan alternatives. Therefore, Alternative A (Proposed 

Project) consists of placing a 124.14-acre site (14 parcels) into Federal trust status for the Tribe, and 

construction of 147 residential units and associated facilities. 

3.1.2 WATER/WASTEWATER SERVICE AND WASTEWATER 

DISCHARGE 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS (Comment Letters 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 20)

Various comments were received stating that discharge from an on-site wastewater treatment plant would 

pose a threat to the local water quality. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) stated that 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-2 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

since the project is located within a watershed currently listed as impaired, the increase in wastewater 

discharged through project implementation would potentially increase off-site water quality impacts. 

Other commenters said that a connection to the Windsor sewer system should not be considered as an 

option for wastewater discharge. Additionally, concerns regarding connection to Town of Windsor water 

service were raised in the comment letters from the Town of Windsor, Sonoma County, and the Sonoma 

County Water Agency (SCWA). 

RESPONSE 

Existing conditions for the project site with regards to water resources and public services were fully 

described in the EA in Sections 3.2 and 3.9. Potential impacts of the proposed project resulting from 

these issue areas were fully described in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.9 with proposed mitigation in Sections 

5.2 and 5.9. Additionally, a water/ wastewater feasibility analysis for each alternative was provided as 

Appendix B in the EA. Since the publication of the EA, the Tribe has purchased an additional 32.12 

acres (seven parcels) which are proposed for trust status and analyzed for environmental impacts in the 

Final EA. Connection to the Town of Windsor’s water and sewer system is the Lytton Rancheria of 

California’s (Tribe) preferred option (Alternative A) for water supply and wastewater disposal. This 

option would minimize impacts to the environment, as no on-site water supply or wastewater treatment 

facilities would need to be constructed and minimal facilities would be required beyond the distribution 

system components within the project site. The Town of Windsor would require backflow prevention 

facilities at the point of connection, and a meter at each connection would allow the Town to account for 

usage by the proposed project. Connecting to the municipal water system would also reduce potential 

impacts to other nearby groundwater users. 

As noted in Section 1.2 of the Final EA, five Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) comprising 41.23 acres 

are located within the Town of Windsor’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Urban Growth Boundary 

(UGB); APN 066-050-47 is the only parcel which is located within the Town of Windsor town limits. 

Should these parcels be taken into trust, they would no longer be under the jurisdiction of the Town of 

Windsor or Sonoma County. The Town of Windsor generally does not provide water and sewer services 

outside town limits pursuant to its General Plan; any additional service to areas outside the town limits 

may require town approval for the proposed connection. However, water and sewer service have been 

extended to areas outside the city limits in the past by the Town of Windsor, including APN 066-300-028 

within the Proposed Project site. Several subdivision and commercial areas are served outside the 

existing service area for the Town of Windsor. These include the Airport service area, consisting 

primarily of commercial developments, and the Mayacama and Shiloh Estates subdivisions, located 

southeast of the town center. Mayacama and Shiloh service areas are served by a single connection point 

along East Shiloh Road (RMC, 2009). These areas are extensions of 3.5 miles or more from the town 

center, whereas the project site is within one mile of the town center along an existing service route. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-3 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

Furthermore, connection to the Town of Windsor water and wastewater system is technically feasible. 

The primary water supply for the Windsor water system is a system of wells located near the Russian 

River to the northwest of the project site; one production well is located approximately one mile 

northwest of the project site (RMC, 2009). As noted in Section 4.1.9 of the Final EA, water connection 

would occur at the existing 18-inch diameter main in Windsor River Road. Wastewater from the 

proposed project would be conveyed to the Town of Windsor Wastewater Treatment, Reclamation and 

Disposal Facility (WWTRDF) through the Town’s existing municipal wastewater collection system. 

Sufficient capacity to serve the Proposed Project is currently available in the WWTRDF. A sewage pump 

station and approximately 3,200 feet of force main would be constructed to convey the project’s 

wastewater to the Town’s collection system. Connecting the proposed project to the WWTRDF is 

preferred, as it eliminates the creation of a small “stand alone” wastewater treatment facility on the 

project site. 

As stated in the Section 5.2 of the EA, the Tribe would be required to obtain a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) for the 

proposed discharge of tertiary treated wastewater to one of two drainage locations (described in further 

detail in Section 2.2.3 of the Final EA) under the surface water discharge option for Alternative B. The 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) acts as the regulatory authority under the CWA for any 

discharge from a point source to a Water of the U.S. occurring on tribal trust lands. USEPA Region 9 

would act as the responsible agency for issuing the NPDES permit to discharge. In a letter dated July 22, 

2010 from David W. Smith, NPDES Permits Manager, Mr. Smith identified that the USEPA believes that 

the EA provides adequate assessment of the project alternatives and impacts (letter provided as Appendix 

N of the Final EA). Furthermore, a site visit with USEPA staff concurred with the EA’s analysis for the 

need for the NPDES permit for proposed discharge to one of two drainages along the project site under 

the surface water discharge option for Alternative B. The USEPA will consider receiving water quality in 

determining the effluent limitations in the permit. The USEPA reiterated the need for a stream 

characterization and impact assessment to water and biological resources resulting from the proposed 

discharge. This Stream Characterization Report has been completed and is provided as Appendix L of 

the Final EA. 

3.1.3 IMPACT TO ON-SITE OAK TREES 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS (Comment Letters 6, 10, 13, 21, 15-28) 

Various commenters objected to impacts to on-site oak trees, the removal of which could have a 

significant impact on native wildlife dependent upon these trees. The various comments state that 

development on the site should avoid these trees, and if this avoidance is not feasible, then proper 

mitigation must be specified. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-4 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

RESPONSE 

Existing conditions for the project site with regards to biological resources and oak trees were fully 

described Section 3.4 and in the Biological Assessment (Appendix E) for the EA. Potential impacts of 

the proposed project resulting from these issues were fully described in Sections 4.1.4, 4.2.4 and 4.3.4, 

with proposed mitigation in Section 5.4. Section 4.1.4 of the EA and Final EA state that “to the 

maximum extent possible, the Proposed Project has incorporated the mixed oak woodland, oak savannah, 

and riparian woodland habitats into the site design to minimize impacts to these habitats by adjusting the 

locations of lots and structures to avoid more pristine stands of woodlands and exceptionally large 

individual trees, maintain woodland corridors, and establish aesthetic woodland buffer regions around 

development areas.” The following protective measures were proposed in Section 2.1.9 of the EA: 

1. All identified heritage trees would be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. 

2. Native trees with greater than nine inches diameter at breast height (DBH) within the Sonoma 

County valley oak habitat (VOH) Combining District would be preserved to the maximum extent 

feasible. 

3. Native trees with greater than nine inches DBH within mixed riparian habitats would be 

preserved to the maximum extent feasible. 

The Final EA includes additional avoidance and minimization measures for the reduction of impacts to 

on-site oak trees. With the purchase of an additional 32.12 acres (seven parcels) proposed for trust status 

and analyzed for impacts under the Final EA, the site plans for each alternative have been modified. Site 

plan modifications occurred in consultation with Sonoma County to reduce impacts to on-site oak trees; 

approximately 25 homes were relocated from the mixed oak woodland areas in APN 066-300-023 in the 

site plans for Alternatives A, B and C analyzed under the Final EA. Arborist surveys were conducted of 

the project site between 2007 and 2009 to determine notable trees (“heritage” trees, exceeding 33 inches 

diameter at breast height [DBH] as defined by Sonoma County Code) and to thoroughly survey a subset 

of mixed oak woodland for species composition, tree density and overall health. The majority of the 

identified valley oaks within the County’s VOH Combining District would be preserved, owing to project 

design and avoidance of these trees. Approximately 4,528 oak native oak trees over nine inches DBH are 

estimated to be located within the entire project site; of these, 1,717 trees are estimated to be impacted if 

construction of the largest footprint (Alternative B) would occur. Alternative B would result in the 

preservation of approximately 62% of oak trees within the project site. With the consideration of oak 

trees relative to realigned project site plans analyzed under the Final EA, approximately 292 fewer oak 

trees would be impacted under the Final EA (approximately 1,717 trees for Alternative B) compared to 

the EA (2,009 trees for Alternative B). Nonetheless, a mitigation measure has been added to Final EA 

Section 5.4 that requires the re-planting of native oak trees permanently removed as a result of project 

construction at a 1:1 ratio. Replacement oak trees will be planted on Tribally-owned land and other 

parcels in the vicinity of the project site. To ensure the success of planted oak trees, the trees shall be 

monitored for five years, with a survival goal of 60 percent after the first three years. If determined after 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-5 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

the third year of monitoring that the 60 percent survival rate is not being met, additional trees shall be 

planted to ensure an 80 percent survival rate by the end of five years. Additionally, trees removed for 

construction shall be assessed by a qualified biologist to see if the removed tree would be suitable for 

replacement elsewhere. 

An evaluation report titled “An evaluation of the effect that conversion of oak woodlands will have on the 

environment as a result of the proposed Lytton Residential Development” (Merenlender, 2009) was 

incorporated into many of the comment letters claiming that implementation of the project would produce 

significant impacts to oak stands and the environment and that mitigation is required for these tree losses. 

While this document provides a detailed outline for the evaluation of oak tree impacts under CEQA and 

oak woodland impacts within Sonoma County, its conclusions rely on analyses which are not fully 

explained, presented, or disclosed in the document for review and interpretation by the reader. In 

addition, a majority of the State, County and local codes referenced in the report do not apply to 

development on Tribal trust lands. 

The Merenlender report fails to fully demonstrate the scientific criteria and methodologies relative to the 

impact analysis for the project as referenced in, “A Guide for Planner’s to Determine Significant Impacts 

to Oaks as Required by SB 1334 (Public Resources Code 21083.4).” The report does not indicate that a 

site assessment was conducted by the author to determine the species and habitat quality onsite. Likely 

owing to its inclusion in the list of oak trees (Quercus sp.) considered protected under Sonoma County 

Code, Merenlender (2009) claims that Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana) was omitted from the 

botanical species list provided with the EA. Several years of biological surveys (including focused 

arborist surveys conducted by certified arborists and experienced botanists) did not detect this species 

within the project site; furthermore, the project site does not provide suitable habitat for Oregon white 

oak. Moreover, this report identifies the use of biological metrics for the analysis that are not presented in 

the document. In the determination of a significant local core area, the scientific basis and methodology 

for determining the “1,000 meter core area” is not provided, but rather, subjectively illustrated in Figure 1 

of the report. The proposed mitigation for native trees in Section 5.4.2 of the EA considers the overall 

health of the mixed oak woodland present within the project site. From an overall stand health 

perspective, the former grazing land use and lack of management has resulted in an overall fuel build-up 

because trees growing in overcrowded conditions form multiple boles, have an increased susceptibility to 

disease, insect infestations, and parasites (e.g., mistletoe), and have a higher incidence of storm and wind 

damage. These conditions are not ideal from a biological or aesthetic viewpoint. 

Page 11 of the report under the heading “Magnitude of the Expected Impact to Woodlands (A-C)” 

indicates that “the proportion of woodland removal from the site needs quantification but appears to be 

over 80% of the site.” This statement is speculative and inaccurate; quantification of impacts to 

individual trees exceeding nine inches diameter at breast height as well as overall impacts to oak 

woodlands was provided in the EA. As explicitly stated in Table 4-7 of the Final EA, impacts to mixed 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-6 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

oak woodland are limited to 17.04 acres (32%) of the 53.59 acres total onsite; yielding a 48% error of 

assumption in the Merenlender report. If Merenlender (2009) assumes 80% conversion of the woodlands 

onsite, then the subsequent analysis of impacts and assumptions extrapolated from this determination are 

errant and invalid. 

While many commenter’s claim that the removal of oak woodlands onsite is a significant impact, a 

majority of the areas slated for housing are in the eastern area of the project site to avoid both woodland 

and slopes greater than 20 percent. To the maximum extent feasible, the project design was developed to 

reduce impacts to these habitats. In addition, each of the alternatives has been recently redesigned to 

further avoid impacts to oak trees, resulting in an approximately 10 percent reduction in impacts to oak 

trees compared to the EA, as described above and in Table 4.8 of the Final EA. Nonetheless, the Tribe 

will replace impacted oak trees by planting replacement trees, as outlined in Sections 5.3 and 5.4 of the 

Final EA. 

3.1.4 TRAFFIC ISSUES 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS (Comment Letters 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 20 and 26)

Caltrans stated that the use of the traffic model, Traffix, is inadequate. The Traffix model does not show 

appropriate green times or queue lengths at any of the project intersections. Caltrans further suggests that 

the Synchro files be included with the Final EA, including files for all alternatives in the Existing, 

Background, and Cumulative scenarios. Additional commenters, including Sonoma County, Town of 

Windsor and local residents stated that the traffic impacts analysis in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and 

EA was inadequate. Commenters stated that the TIS did not consider potential traffic impacts from 

increased traffic to local Town intersections, the non-residential facilities of the project site, potential 

safety issues, local transit, construction traffic impacts and non-vehicular traffic impacts. 

RESPONSE 

Existing conditions for the project site with regards to traffic and circulation were fully described in 

Section 3.7 of the EA. Potential impacts of the proposed project resulting from these issues were fully 

described in Section 4.1.7, 4.2.7 and 4.3.7 with proposed mitigation in Section 5.7 of the EA. While 

Caltrans guidance for evaluating traffic impacts specifies the Highway Capacity Manual (on which the 

program Traffix is based), the traffic modeling has been expanded (see Final EA Appendix G) using the 

Synchro model at Caltrans-jurisdictional intersections as suggested. The new traffic modeling has 

resulted in the need for additional improvements at the Old Redwood Highway and northbound US-101 

off-ramp to Lakewood Drive intersection, which include construction of an additional southbound left and 

right turn lanes and the re-striping of the northbound off-ramp to include a shared through-left lane. 

These improvements were not found to be warranted until cumulative 2030 conditions were applied, 

therefore they mitigate for cumulative traffic impacts. Mitigation measures in Section 5.7 of the Final EA 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-7 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

have been updated to include these improvements. The Traffix model continues to be used for 

intersections outside of Caltrans’ jurisdiction, as evident by Town of Windsor planning documents for 

existing plus cumulative traffic volumes (Tilton, pers. comm.). The traffic modeling files have been 

included in revised Appendix G of the Final EA. 

An analysis of peak hour trips is most important to the analysis of worst case traffic-related impacts. The 

traffic model estimates were based on cumulative traffic data for the study area roadways and 

intersections provided by the Town of Windsor that considers cumulative development both within the 

Town of Windsor and in the surrounding areas, including Sonoma County. The traffic counts conducted 

would capture the effects of traffic using alternate local roads. Individual traffic impacts have been 

analyzed both for the near term and cumulative conditions in Sections 4.1.7, 4.2.7 and 4.3.7 of the EA. 

As noted in Appendix G of the EA, all residential units were assumed to generate traffic based on the 

rates for single-family dwellings. Events at the proposed community center would be infrequent enough 

that project-related increases in trips at local intersections for these events would be much less than 50 

trips per intersection, and therefore do not warrant further study. Nonetheless, additional mitigation for 

events is included in Section 5.9 of the Final EA to ensure a less than significant impact. An overall 

review of traffic operations and safety was conducted at all of the project driveways, including the two 

project site driveways to be located along Windsor River Road near Eastside Road. The review indicated 

the project would not result in any significant traffic safety or operational problems at any of these 

locations. Based on the proposed project, there is no evidence to suggest any particular need for a transit 

link or any impacts to local transit links from the proposed project. Language regarding potential impacts 

from construction traffic has been incorporated into Section 4.1.7 of the Final EA. It is expected that the 

potential minor increase in pedestrian traffic along Windsor River Road would not justify creation of a 

sidewalk on the south side of Windsor River Road, considering the relatively long walk to any likely 

destinations and given that the existing sidewalk on the north side of Windsor River Road could be 

utilized. Pedestrians and bicycles alike can legally cross at any nearby intersection on Windsor River 

Road. 

3.1.5 INADEQUATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS (Comment Letters 10, 13 and 16)

Several commenters stated that the EA does not include adequate discussion regarding the incorporation 

of various components of alternatives including the proposed banquet hall, multi-purpose room, and other 

non-residential areas nor the foreseeable uses for these facilities. Citing the BIA’s NEPA Handbook (59 

IAM 3-H), the EA should state that “the discussion of the proposed action should clearly answer the 

questions: Who? What? Where? And When?” 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-8 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

RESPONSE 

Since the EA public comment period, the Tribe has purchased an additional 32.12 acres (seven parcels) 

discussed in further detail in Volume II of the Final EA. These seven parcels were added to the fee-totrust application and housing project site plan alternatives to provide additional flexibility for reclaimed 

water reuse and mitigation of potential impacts in response to comments and concerns raised during the 

EA public comment period. As stated in Section 2.1.3 of both the EA and Final EA, the Proposed Project 

would include a Tribal community center, retreat, and a roundhouse. A detailed breakdown of each 

facility is contained in Table 2-2 of the Final EA. As detailed in Table 2-2, the community center would 

include a 4,250 square foot (sf) banquet hall and three 625 sf multi-purpose rooms and the retreat would 

include a 1,000 sf banquet hall. The location of the community center, retreat, and roundhouse is shown 

in Figures 2-1 through 2-3 of the Final EA. As clarified in Section 1.3 of the Final EA, a principal goal 

of the fee-to-trust transfer is to provide central tribal housing as a home base for tribal members, which 

would reverse the current geographic dispersion of Tribal members. Additionally, taking the property 

into trust would allow the Tribe to foster its cultural identity, spiritual values, and traditional religion 

through construction of the roundhouse, retreat and community center. Section 2.1.3 of the EA refers to 

these facilities as “Tribal” which implies that they would be open only to Tribal members. However, this 

section has been revised in the Final EA to clarify this point, and to provide additional details on how the 

facilities would be used. Gaming and public events are not proposed for the site, as described in more 

detail under General Response 3.1.9 below. The site plan is clearly oriented to residential, cultural, and 

park/open space uses and is not suited for commercial uses, given its distance from the highway and lack 

of commercial infrastructure. 

3.1.6 IMPACTS TO WINDSOR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS (Comment Letters 13 and 14)

The Windsor Unified School District (WUSD) and Town of Windsor request that additional analysis of 

impacts be included in the Final EA. These commenters claim that impacts to the WUSD from a 

significant number of new students, the loss of a property tax base, and cumulative impacts could 

potentially arise from project implementation. 

RESPONSE 

Existing conditions of the project site with regard to public services, including public schools, are 

described in Section 3.9 of the Final EA, and potential impacts of the project are clarified in Section 4.1.9 

of the Final EA. Sections 3.9, 4.1.9 and 4.2.9 of the Final EA have been expanded to further clarify 

potential impacts of the Proposed Project to the WUSD. 

As described in Final EA Section 3.9.7, enrollment in WUSD has increased by 30 percent over the past 

decade from 4,250 students in 2000/2001 to 5,515 students in 2008/2009. The average class size in the 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-9 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

WUSD has decreased over the past decade from 25.1 to 2000/2001 to 21.5 in 2008/2009, a 3.6 percent 

decrease. As identified in Section 4.1.9, potential impact to local schools could occur as a result of the 

development of 147 housing units under the Proposed Project if additional students are generated and if 

the schools lack capacity and staff to serve the additional students. As discussed in EA Section 3.9.7, the 

project site lies within the boundary of the WUSD. Schools within approximately one mile of the project 

site that are part of the WUSD include Cali Calmecac Charter School, Windsor High School, Windsor 

Oaks Academy, and Windsor Creek Elementary. 

At the enrollment rates historically observed within the Town of Windsor (Sections 3.9 and 4.1.9), 

Alternative A is projected to result in approximately 89 new students requiring enrollment in WUSD 

upon completion of the project in 2015Given that any anticipated new students would be distributed 

across all grade levels between kindergarten through the continuation school, 89 new students would be a 

nominal impact to WUSD. Additionally, because children of the proposed housing would attend local 

schools, Title VIII of the U.S. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 avoids significant 

impacts to school districts impacted by federal acquisition of land by providing special funding from the 

U.S. Department of Education to school districts impacted by federal acquisition of land where certain 

thresholds are met. The potential increase in enrollment would not significantly affect the ability of 

WUSD to provide education services at existing levels; therefore, no mitigation measures are warranted. 

3.1.7 VISUAL RESOURCES 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS (Comment Letters 10, 13, 16 and 18)

Sonoma County and others commented that the EA should provide a complete analysis of the potential 

visibility of the hilltop structures (roundhouse and western housing structures) from public roads using 

photographic simulation and the actual effects of topography and the trees that will be retained onsite. If 

these structures were to create a visual impact to vehicles along the adjacent roadway, then the EA must 

consider modifying the height, width, location, colors, texture or other design aspects of the proposed 

buildings to reduce their visibility. 

RESPONSE 

Existing conditions for the project site with regards to visual resources were fully described Section 3.12

of the EA, with potential impacts identified in Sections 4.1.12, 4.2.12 and 4.3.12. Photographic 

simulations of the development from off-site locations would not be helpful because the dense tree cover 

on-site and along nearby roadways blocks views of the site. The site plans for each alternative have been 

slightly modified from those in the EA to maximize conformance with Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED) criteria for home sizes, solar orientation and energy consumption. All 

homes would be designed for efficient use of energy and natural resources and would be sized below the 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-10 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

median standard based on LEED for Homes rating system. At least 75 percent of the residences built 

would be single story to minimize visual effects; the proposed retreat facility would also be single-story. 

The proposed Tribal housing for the project site would be at lower densities than the existing tract 

housing northeast of the project site along Windsor River Road. This combined with the preservation of 

oak trees along public roadways would ensure the Tribal housing does not cause significant visual 

impacts. The proposed roundhouse would be located on a southwest-facing hillside and would be 

surrounded by mixed oak woodland forest. The proposed roundhouse is surrounded by an existing 

residence approximately 400 feet to the southwest, vineyards to the south and southeast, and proposed 

tribal housing to the west and north. This facility would not be visible from public roads, owing to 

topography and tree cover. The proposed retreat facility would be designed with the local community 

character and LEED standards in mind. Sample design features for the single-family residential houses, 

including sample floor plans and a demonstration of LEED features have been included in Final EA 

Appendix K. In addition, a photo-realistic architectural rendition of the proposed community center and 

retreat has also been added to Final EA Appendix K. Additional detail regarding proposed green 

building design has been summarized in Section 2.1.9 of the Final EA. 

3.1.8 CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GASES 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS (Comment Letters 10, 13 and 20)

To comply with NEPA standards, the EA should include a complete analysis of greenhouse gases (GHG) 

and potential impacts to climate change from project implementation. 

RESPONSE 

Existing conditions for the project site with regards to air quality were fully described in Section 3.3 of 

the EA. Potential impacts of the proposed project resulting from these issues were fully described in 

Sections 4.1.3, 4.2.3 and 4.3.3, with proposed mitigation in Section 5.3 of the EA. The global warming 

phenomenon is discussed in Section 4.1.3 of the Final EA. Additional mitigation measures for potential 

air quality and global warming impacts have been included in Section 5.3 of the Final EA. The emissions 

reduction that these mitigation measures provide are calculated and presented in Table 5-1 of the Final 

EA. 

The analysis of climate change impacts has been clarified in Final EA Section 4.1.3 to be consistent with 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines for climate change impact analysis. The CEQ 

issued draft guidance on the consideration of climate change in NEPA analyses in February 2010. This 

guidance does not identify a significance threshold, but recommends conducting an analysis of impacts to 

climate change should project greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions exceed 25,000 tons per year (tpy). The 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has recently published local guidelines which 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-11 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

recommend a significance threshold of only 1,100 tpy, much lower than CEQ’s threshold, which CEQ 

clearly states in not intended to be a significance threshold. Nonetheless, the Final EA includes additional 

consideration of local guidelines is provided under Sections 3.3.3 and 4.1.3 of the Final EA based on the 

climate change analysis guidelines provided by the BAAQMD, which were adopted June 2, 2010. The 

analysis includes a revision of the regulatory framework discussion, including federal, State, and local 

regulations, as well as applicable court decisions. The revised analysis calculates project-related GHG 

emissions using emissions factors and equations provided in the BAAQMD guidelines. The threshold of 

significance has conservatively been revised to be consistent with the significance threshold provided in 

the BAAQMD guidelines, which, as noted above is much lower than the CEQ’s threshold. Consistent 

with the BAAQMD guidelines, the revised climate change analysis does not consider biogenic emissions 

in the quantification of project-related GHG emissions. The BAAQMD guidelines define biogenic 

emissions as “Biogenic emissions are defined as carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions resulting from materials 

that are derived from living cells, excluding fossil fuels, limestone and other materials that have been 

transformed by geological processes”. Under the BAAQMD Guidelines the removal of trees from a 

project site should not be considered when determining the significance or environmental impacts of a 

project’s impact to climate change. All GHG thresholds and methodologies from the draft guidelines 

were adopted without change. Additionally, the proposed building development plans have been 

improved from those in the EA to maximize conformance with LEED standards for proposed buildings 

including energy efficiency, solar orientation and green building practices. Please refer to Section 2.1.9

of the Final EA that outlines these building standards. 

3.1.9 POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE ON-SITE GAMING 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS (Comment Letters 10 and 24)

Comments were received including questions and concerns regarding the further use of the project site for 

gaming purposes. The EA does not state whether any of the on-site facilities construction under the 

Proposed Project would be used in the future for Class I, II, or III gaming. 

RESPONSE 

Please see General Response 3.1.5. The usage and square footage for the community facilities are 

clearly set forth in Table 2-2 of the EA, making clear that no gaming is proposed. Gaming uses of the 

facility would not be reasonably foreseeable because the facilities are designed for residential, 

governmental and cultural purposes rather than commercial purposes. Moreover, use of newly acquired 

trust property for gaming purposes must either meet one of the exceptions under the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act (IGRA) Section 20 (25 U.S.C. 2719(a)), or achieve approval under the process identified 

under 25 U.S.C. 2719(b) (hereinafter “two-part process”) which requires approval by the Secretary of the 

Interior and concurrence by the Governor of the State. Both such processes require further 

documentation, submissions and approvals which would be in addition to the current fee-to-trust 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-12 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

application process. In addition, under the current regulations, if a tribe is gaming on other lands, the 

restored lands exception to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) is not available to that tribe. The 

Tribe would therefore have to submit a full request (and likely additional environmental documents) to 

the Secretary of the Interior seeking approval under the two-part process. Thus, gaming uses of the 

property could not be achieved by approval of the fee-to-trust application, but rather further submissions 

and documentation would be required in a separate process. 

3.1.10 GROUNDWATER ISSUES 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS (Comment Letters 10, 13 and 16)

Various comment letters stated that the EA must include an assessment to compare project demands with 

groundwater capacity. This groundwater assessment should analyze the underlying aquifer for both short 

term and cumulative year impacts. The County questioned why a 57 gallons per minute (gpm) demand 

was used in analyzing potential impacts from the use of on-site wells. 

RESPONSE 

Existing conditions for the project site with regards to water resources and groundwater were fully 

described in Section 3.2 of the EA. Potential impacts of the proposed project resulting from these issues 

were fully described in Sections 4.1.2, 4.2.2 and 4.3.2 with proposed mitigation in Section 5.2 of the EA. 

Detailed information regarding the result of pump tests and groundwater level trends is contained in the 

water/ wastewater feasibility and hydrogeologic studies (Appendices B and C of the EA and Final EA). 

The capacity of the on-site test well is 75 gpm, as determined by the pump tests conducted on-site 

(Appendix C). The average demand for the Proposed Project is 57 gpm, as noted in Section 4.2.2 of the 

Final EA and in Appendix B. Section 2.1.9 of the Final EA has been revised to clarify that LEED and 

other water conservation standards at least equivalent to Sonoma County design standards would be 

implemented, with additional mitigation measures for water resources presented in Section 5.2 of the 

Final EA. Additionally, the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) has released a draft Low Impact 

Development (LID) Guidebook (June 2010; SCWA, 2010); the Tribe plans to review the LID documents 

for additional guidance on water efficient development standards. 

Sections 4.2.2, 4.5.2, and Appendices B and C of the Final EA provide an analysis of the impacts to 

groundwater and neighboring wells. As noted in Appendix C, the test well was installed and tested in 

December 2008, thus the results reflect the impacts of all current area groundwater users. The project site 

is located near the west edge of the northern portion of the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin, and very close to 

its boundary with the Healdsburg Area Subbasin. For purposes of thoroughness, the hydrogeologic 

investigation report (Appendix C) provided a discussion of groundwater level trends in both subbasins. 

No local concerns related to overdraft situations in either subbasin have been identified, except for areas 

far to the south of the site and in upgradient regions. Information supporting this assessment is available 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-13 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

from both California Bulletin 118 (Department of Water Resources [DWR], 2004) and from data 

available on the DWR water data library. 

The project site is located towards the northern end of the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin. This subbasin 

trends north-northwesterly, is about 22 miles long, varies in width from less than one mile to about eight 

miles, and is slightly tilted to the west. Surface water collected by the subbasin’s three main creeks 

towards its west side and then discharges to the Russian River. Groundwater near the project site would 

be expected to flow from recharge areas in the north and east to the south and west, while groundwater in 

the southern portion of the basin would flow to the north and west, suggesting different areas of 

groundwater recharge for the northern and southern regions of the Santa Rosa Plain, unless groundwater 

exploitation in one portion of the basin increased to the point that it affected distant portions of the 

subbasin. DWR reported in Groundwater Bulletin 118 (DWR, 2004) that groundwater levels were 

increasing in the northeast portion of the subbasin (closer to the site), while groundwater levels were 

decreasing to the south (more than 15 miles to the south of the Lytton site near Rohnert Park) where 

groundwater exploitation resulted in a localized groundwater overdraft. 

From the perspective of the Santa Rosa Plain subbasin’s overall storage capacity, the impact of the 

proposed project’s groundwater pumping is insignificant. DWR (2004) calculated the subbasin’s 

groundwater storage capacity at 4,313,000 acre-feet (af), with 3,910,000 af held in storage. Average 

annual natural recharge (for the period 1960 through 1975) was estimated to be about 29,300 af, while 

average annual pumping during the same period was approximately 29,700 af. Most groundwater 

pumping, and the areas of groundwater level declines, was reported for the southern portion of the 

subbasin, in areas many miles upgradient from the site. Data from a well located in the Town of Windsor, 

approximately one mile east of the project site, indicates a general rising trend of the water table from 

1976 to 2002 (the most recent date of available data). For a well located approximately one mile 

southwest of the project site, a constant groundwater level has existed since 1992. Limited data from two 

other wells located immediately north and southeast of the site showed annual fluctuations, but no long 

term water level decline. Further, as described in DWR (2004), groundwater level trends in the northern 

Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin (in which the site is located) are “about in balance, with increased water level 

in the northeast (closer to where the site is located) contrasting with decreased ground water levels in the 

south.” 

The proposed supply well would produce 92 af annually, assuming an average groundwater extraction of 

57 gpm to meet the anticipated average water supply demand of the project (Appendix C to the Final 

EA). The Lytton project would, therefore, annually pump approximately 0.002% (two one-thousandths 

of one percent) of the subbasin’s groundwater in storage each year. For a system in dynamic equilibrium, 

recharge equals discharge. Consequently, the proposed project pumping rate would be approximately 

0.3% of the natural discharge from the subbasin. From either of these perspectives, it would be virtually 

impossible to measure any affect on the aquifer as a whole from pumping this volume of groundwater. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-14 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

For the Healdsburg Area Subbasin, DWR (2004) reported that there are insufficient data available in 

order to provide a water budget. Groundwater storage capacity for the basin was estimated at 489,000 af, 

while groundwater in storage for the year 1980 was estimated to be 390,000 af. The proposed project 

would pump approximately 0.002% of the groundwater in storage, an insignificant amount. 

Furthermore, the Town of Windsor’s General Plan does not identify any long-term water level declines in 

the area aquifers, nor does it identify any other deleterious cumulative impacts to them (Town of 

Windsor, 2005). Since analysis of the pumping test results indicate only minor effects to the closest area 

wells (even using conservative assumptions such as no annual recharge to the aquifer), no broader 

cumulative impacts to area groundwater are anticipated. Also, because some recharge to the aquifer 

occurs even during years of lower-than-normal precipitation, and area groundwater levels have been 

reported to be stable in DWR (2004), the calculations were likely overly conservative and actual 

interference drawdown would be less. 

Finally, because the exploratory drilling program indicated that the aquifer in the vicinity of the project 

site is at least 300 feet thick, the amount of drawdown calculated as a result of groundwater extractions on 

the site represents a small proportion of the available drawdown in the aquifer, even at the closest wells. 

Whether an off-site well would experience a noticeable impact would depend on its depth, the depth of 

water in the well, and the depth of the pump. A review of area well logs indicates that most wells extend 

50 to 100 feet below the water table, demonstrably shallower than the specific water-bearing strata 

targeted for development by the proposed project. As a result, drawdown in the aquifer would not reduce 

the usual and customary use of the resource, even for the closest wells. 

3.1.11 INADEQUATE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS (Comment Letter 10, 13, 15, 20)

Commenters state that the EA should include an appropriate range of alternatives, as described in the 

BIA’s NEPA Handbook (59 IAM 3-H). Sonoma County and other commenters state that the No-Action 

Alternative does not properly describe the reasonably foreseeable development that could occur, nor does 

Alternative A serve as a reasonable alternative. Additionally, County and Town of Windsor question the 

purpose and need for the Tribe to construct the proposed housing and community facilities within the 

project site. The County and Town of Windsor further state that an EIS should be required including the 

analysis of an off-site alternative as well as properly described on-site action and no-action alternatives. 

RESPONSE 

The EA and Final EA appropriately consider a reasonable range of alternatives that were determined with 

a consideration for each alternative’s ability to meet the purpose and need (see Section 1.3 of the Final 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-15 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

EA). As explained in General Response 3.1.2, connection to the Town of Windsor water and wastewater 

system from an existing service pipeline along Windsor River Road is feasible and the existing system 

would be able to accommodate the increase in demand. Additionally, Town of Windsor comment 13-139 

states that “the proposed project will make unavailable for future development 92 acres of land adjacent 

to the Town of Windsor, part of which is within the Town’s UGB and has Town services easily 

accessible,” implying that connection to Town services, including water and wastewater is in fact a 

feasible option. Since the EA public comment period, the Tribe has purchased an additional 32.12 acres 

(seven parcels) discussed in further detail in Volume II of the Final EA. These seven parcels were added 

to the fee-to-trust application and housing project site plan alternatives to provide additional flexibility for 

reclaimed water reuse and mitigation of potential impacts in response to comments and concerns raised 

during the EA public comment period. Analysis of off-site alternatives was not considered under the EA 

because the Tribe does not own any other land which would be a viable option for fulfillment of the 

Tribe’s current needs for housing and a stable community, nor are any appropriately sized parcels suitable 

for the proposed housing known to be available for purchase. As clarified in Section 1.3 of the Final EA, 

a principal goal of the fee-to-trust transfer is to provide the land base necessary for tribal housing and to 

decrease the current geographic dispersion of Tribal members. Additionally, taking the project site into 

trust would allow the Tribe to foster its cultural identity, cultural values, and traditional religion through 

construction of the roundhouse, retreat and community center. The Tribe currently owns the Casino San 

Pablo in trust in the City of Richmond, but this area is already fully developed and proposed housing at 

this location is not possible. 

Sonoma County commented that the No Action Alternative inappropriately describes the baseline 

scenario rather than a reasonably foreseeable development scenario in the absence of agency action. The 

commenter is correct that the No Action Alternative often includes “development that is reasonably 

foreseeable on the site if the proposed project never happens.” It is not always reasonable foreseeable 

under NEPA that development will occur under the No Action Alternative, however. This is true even 

where the property in question is zoned for future development. The presence of development zoning is 

not enough to assume development will occur in the future under the No Action Alternative. Of course 

such development is possible, but it is not necessarily reasonably foreseeable. 

3.1.12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAND USE PLANS 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS (Comment Letters 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28)

Several comments state that the EA fails to recognize and address the project's inconsistency with the 

Sonoma County and Town of Windsor General plans. Several commenters also reference paragraph five 

of the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (No.C-86-3660-VRW), Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians et 

al. V. the U.S., et al. and a 2001 BIA letter as they pertain to the BIA processing land acquisitions in 

relation to consistency with Sonoma County land use and zoning designations. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-16 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

RESPONSE 

Existing conditions for the project site with regards to local government and land use plans were fully 

described Section 3.8 of the EA. Potential impacts of the proposed project to land use designations have 

been clarified in Section 4.1.8 of the Final EA. Section 4.1.8 of the Final EA also correctly notes that 

local land use and zoning designations would no longer apply after the land is taken into trust. However, 

the EA appropriately analyzes potential environmental impacts that could result from land use conflicts or 

incompatible land uses. With the exception of the proposed slightly higher density of dwelling units 

exceeding Sonoma County zoning designation (147 housing units under Alternative A, compared to 143 

units allowable under the Sonoma County General Plan and Town of Windsor General Plan), the project 

is generally compatible with both the Sonoma County and Town of Windsor land use designations and 

zoning. According to Sonoma County and Windsor zoning regulations (using Windsor zoning for parcels 

within the Town’s Sphere of Influence), 143 housing units would be allowable on the project site. This is 

substantially similar to Alternative A and B’s proposed 147 housing units and well above Alternative C’s 

proposed 55 units. In addition, an inconsistency with local zoning regulations does not necessarily result 

in any environmental impacts distinct from those caused by the development itself, which are analyzed 

for each alternative throughout Section 4.0 of the Final EA. 

The Stipulation for Entry of Judgment in the Scotts Valley case (attached to the Tribe’s fee-to-trust 

application as Exhibit J) does address future land acquisition at Provision 5. However, Provision 5(b) 

does not state that if the Tribe were to acquire property “outside the boundaries of their former Rancheria 

property in Alexander Valley” that they would have to follow the County’s General Plan (emphasis 

added). Rather, Provision 5(b) states: 

With respect to land within the exterior boundaries of the former Lytton Rancheria, a description 

and map of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, the above-referenced policy and guidelines 

would preclude the Secretary from accepting such land in trust for any use that is inconsistent 

with the Sonoma County General Plan (emphasis added). 

Since none of the land which is the subject of this Environmental Assessment or the Tribe’s Fee-to-Trust 

Application is within the exterior boundaries of the former Rancheria, that provision of the stipulated 

agreement is not applicable. 

Similarly, Provision 5(c) of the Stipulation, which addresses lands within Alexander Valley, is not 

applicable because the lands proposed to be acquired in trust are outside Alexander Valley, as clear from 

the map delimiting the Alexander Valley area attached as Exhibit C to the Stipulation. Also, with respect 

to comments on the land into trust process generally, the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) (25 U.S.C. § 

461 et seq.) provides the Secretary of the Interior with the discretion to acquire in trust title to land or 

interests in land. The Secretary bases the decision to make a trust acquisition on the evaluation of the 

criteria set forth in Title 25, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 151 and any applicable policy. 

NEPA review is one of the prerequisites to trust acquisition. Thus, NEPA documents and findings are 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-17 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

considered by the Secretary in making a decision on trust acquisition. For the purpose of NEPA analysis 

it is assumed that the project site can be taken into trust should the Secretary decide to approve one of the 

alternatives in the EA that includes trust acquisition. However, it is acknowledged that the Secretary will 

undertake a detailed review of the Tribe’s final application that considers NEPA as well as several other 

considerations prior to approving any trust acquisitions. The purpose of NEPA is to determine potential 

environmental impacts of such a trust acquisition, not to determine the Secretary’s decision making 

process in deciding whether or not to take land into trust. 

3.1.13 PUBLIC/ COUNTY SERVICES 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS (Comment Letters 10, 13, 16 and 26)

Various comments received during the comment period state that the EA failed to recognize and address 

the potential increase in demand of county services (police, fire, parks, and other service) and the 

decrease in County revenue through the removal of the property from the County tax rolls. 

RESPONSE 

Existing conditions for the project site with regards to county services were fully described in Section 3.9 

of the EA. Potential impacts to county services as a result of the proposed project were fully described in 

Section 4.1.9, 4.2.9 and 4.3.9, with proposed mitigation in Section 5.9 of the EA. Appendix I of the EA 

included the agreement between the BIA and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 

(CAL FIRE) to provide services on tribal land. Section 3.9.6 of the Final EA states that the nearest CAL 

FIRE station is located at 1745 Redwood Drive in Healdsburg, approximately 5.5 miles north of the 

project site. This seasonal fire station would provide wildfire protection to the project site during the 

summer months, when regional wildland fires most commonly occur. Section 3.9.6 of the Final EA has 

been clarified to state that a year round staffed CAL FIRE station is located north on Highway 101 in the 

City of Cloverdale. With the implementation of the protective measures and mitigation measures 

described in Section 5.9 of the Final EA, potential impacts to fire protection and emergency medical 

services would be no greater than other non-tribal developments. 

As stated in Section 3.9.5, under Public Law 280, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office would have partial 

jurisdiction of law enforcement on the project site. These potential calls for service would not be 

disproportionate to other residential or commercial development in the County, as the residential units 

within the Proposed Project are assumed to generate similar call rates as other County single-family 

dwellings. 

The Tribe proposes to provide a park for alternatives A-C for Tribal use. As this park would be the 

closest to Tribal residences, it is reasonable to assume that this park would be the primary one utilized. 

Therefore use of local parks outside the proposed project would not be significant. Even so, the closest 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-18 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

Sonoma County Regional Park to the project site is Riverfront Park on Eastside Road along the Russian 

River. The park charges a user fee of $6 per vehicle, which would be charged to project residents and 

non-residents alike. 

 

Please see EA Section 4.1.6 for an analysis of potential impact from removing the subject parcels from 

local tax rolls. These impacts are appropriately noted to be less than significant based on context and 

intensity, a 0.02 percent impact to the County’s overall tax revenue. These minimal effects due to the loss 

of local tax revenues as a result of transferring the land into trust could be offset by increased local, state 

and federal tax revenues resulting from construction of the Project. Taxes are paid in all other 

circumstances, including off-site sales tax revenue generated by tribal member purchases in the Town of 

Windsor and Sonoma County, as well as all activity generated during construction and operation of the 

Proposed Project ancillary facilities, such as potential jobs at the proposed wastewater treatment and 

reclamation facility (under Alternatives B and C). 

3.1.14 CUMULATIVE ISSUES 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS (Comment Letters 10, 13, 16, 18, 20 and 26)

Various commenters state that the EA fails to consider past projects in the cumulative environment. 

Several commenters state that an EIS should disclose all applicable past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable projects, while fully analyzing and mitigating the resulting cumulative impacts. Commenters 

state that cumulative impacts for several environmental issues are understated for the full geographical 

zone that the impact could affect. Additional analysis should be undertaken regarding the potential for a 

new fire station and a new high school. 

RESPONSE 

Section 4.5 of the EA contains analysis of potential impacts from development of the proposed project 

“... when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless what agency 

(federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions”. NEPA does not require that a 

comprehensive listing of all past development projects be included in an EA or EIS, unless such 

information is necessary to describe the cumulative effects of all past actions combined. This would be 

extremely lengthy and would add little value to the NEPA analysis process. Instead, the EA includes a 

description of the general setting and various specific surveys which document the current environmental 

condition that is the result of past cumulative development. 

Additional clarification has been added to Section 4.5 of the Final EA to describe past land uses 

documenting the current environmental setting. As stated in Section 4.5 of the EA, and additionally 

researched in January 2010, no building permits have recently been filed with the City of Windsor for 

development projects in the vicinity of the project site. Additionally, no significant development has been 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-19 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

proposed within unincorporated County in the vicinity of the proposed project. Marginal information 

regarding two projects listed in Section 4.5 of the EA and Final EA, the Retail Tractor Facility and the 

Senior Citizen Community Complex was available in Town of Windsor documentation. Additional 

details regarding cumulative impacts from the Eastside Road Storage Project approved by the Town of 

Windsor in October 2008 have been added to Section 4.5 of the Final EA. Regarding the cumulative fire 

protection environment; a new Windsor Fire Protection District fire station (Station #2) has been 

constructed at 8600 Windsor Road. The project site is within the five minute service range as required 

within the Windsor General Plan, and provides service to the west side of town.

Please see General Response 3.1.6 regarding schools. If an area high school, specifically a school within 

the Windsor Unified School District, were to be constructed prior to the cumulative year, the potential for 

a negative impact from project implementation would decrease. As no plans for an additional high school 

are available for review, it is assumed that the project is not a foreseeable action, and therefore, not 

deemed necessary as an addition to the cumulative analysis. 

3.1.15 NON-CIRCULATION OF APPENDICES F & J 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS (Comment Letters 3, 9, 12)

Comments state that the EA failed to provide Appendix F and Appendix J to the public during the 

comment period. 

RESPONSE 

Appendix F (Cultural Resources Study) was not included in the EA because it contains confidential 

information. It is the policy of the BIA to exclude this information from public review given the sensitive 

nature of cultural resources pursuant to Section 9 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 

U.S.C. 470hh(a)). Nonetheless, the results of the cultural resources study and Addendum report are 

summarized in Section 3.5 of the Final EA in sufficient detail for the public review of the environmental 

impact analysis. 

In an attempt to streamline the lengthy EA for public review consistent with CEQ NEPA Regulations (40 

C.F.R § 1500.4), the contents of Appendix J (Phase I Environmental Site Assessments) were noted in the 

Table of Contents as being “Bound Under Separate Cover” and were not included in the Appendix that 

was distributed to the public. The contents of Appendix J were available at the offices of the BIA upon 

request and the BIA provided copies of Appendix J to all those that requested a copy. A total of five 

copies of Appendix J were mailed out during the comment period. Note also that the findings and 

recommendations contained in Appendix J are summarized throughout the Final EA where applicable. 

In response to this comment, the contents of Appendix J have been added to the Final EA. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-20 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

3.1.16 EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION/NON SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS 

Many of the comments received were expressions of opinion either for or against the Proposed Project. 

Letters and emails formed the bulk of such comments. Many other comments were received which do not 

raise a substantive environmental issue. 

RESPONSE 

To warrant a response in the Final EA, comments must fulfill two minimum requirements: 1) the 

comments must raise a substantive environmental issue, and 2) they must be related to either the decisions 

to be made by the Lead Agency based on the EA, or to the expected result of these decisions. Responses 

are not required for comments failing to raise substantive environmental issues, such as comments merely 

expressing an opinion. 

3.2 INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES 

This section provides direct responses to individual comments received from public agencies, 

governmental bodies, organizations, as well as private citizens during the comment period. All of the 

comments, which have been bracketed and numbered for ease of reference, are provided in Section 2.0 of 

this document. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 1 – U.S. CONGRESS 1ST DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE 

MIKE THOMPSON 

1-1 Please see General Response 3.1.1. A separate response letter has also been sent to 

Representative Thompson, dated August 26, 2009, which provides additional responses. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 2 – U.S. CONGRESS 6TH DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE 

LYNN WOOLSEY 

2-1 Please see General Response 3.1.1 and 3.1.15. A separate response letter has also been sent to 

Representative Woolsey, dated September 4, 2009, which provides additional responses. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 3 – U.S. SENATOR DIANE FEINSTEIN 

3-1 Please see Responses to Comments 3-2 and 3-3 below for responses to specific issues raised in 

the letter forwarded by Senator Feinstein. 

3-2 Please see Response to Comment 3-3 for specific responses to this summary comment. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-21 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

3-3 Please see General Reponses 3.1.1 and 3.1.15. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the EA was 

published in both the Windsor Times and the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. A Notice of 

Completion (NOC) was provided to the State Clearinghouse. A separate response letter has also 

been sent to Senator Feinstein, dated August 28, 2009, which provides additional responses. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 4 – CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE 

4-1 Please see General Response 3.1.1 regarding extension of the comment period. A separate 

response letter has also been sent to the Governor’s Office, dated August 10, 2009, which 

provides additional responses. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 5 – CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF PLANNING 

AND RESEARCH - STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 

5-1 Comment noted. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 6 – CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 

6-1 Comment noted. 

6-2 All of these concerns are fully addressed in the Biological Assessment (BA) prepared for the 

project presented as Appendix E of the EA. This BA addresses all Federally listed plant and 

animal species noted by the commenter with the potential to occur onsite. The analysis of 

impacts in the BA also fully addresses the requirements outlined in the Santa Rosa Plain 

Conservation Strategy (SRPCS). According to the SRPCS, the project site is located outside the 

known range of California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense - CTS) and outside of the 

proposed critical habitat for the species; in addition, there is no suitable breeding habitat for CTS 

within the project site. A letter initiating Section 7 consultation for the project was submitted by 

the BIA to the USFWS in August of 2009 along with the BA. The USFWS has yet to formally 

reply to this request for consultation. 

Further, additional rare plant surveys occurred in spring 2010 pursuant to the SRPCS and the 

USFWS programmatic Biological Opinion for the California Tiger Salamander and three 

endangered plant species on the Santa Rosa Plain (USFWS, 2007). All botanical surveys 

conducted between 2007 and 2010 have yielded negative results, and are fully detailed in the 

Technical Memorandum for Botanical Surveys, provided as Attachment E to the BA. Mitigation 

for the federally listed plant species addressed in the SRPCS, if they were to be found during 

future botanical surveys, is outlined in Section 5.4.3 of the Final EA. Please also refer to 

Response to Comment 21-7. 

6-3 Please see General Response 3.1.3. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-22 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

6-4 Mitigation measures in Section 5.4.4 of the EA fully address impacts to migratory nesting birds. 

No Federally listed bat species were identified to occur in the vicinity of the project area. 

California Species of Special Concern are discussed for impacts under Section 4.1.4 of the Final 

EA. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 7 – CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

7-1 Comment noted. 

 

7-2 As noted in the Traffic Impact Study (Appendix G of the Final EA), the planned improvements 

include construction of an additional southbound left and right turn lanes and the re-striping of 

the northbound US-101 off-ramp to include a shared through-left lane. These improvements were 

not found to be warranted until cumulative 2030 conditions were applied (see Appendix G of the 

EA). Please see General Response 3.1.4 for a discussion of the revised traffic modeling 

included in Appendix G of the Final EA. As explained in more detail in Appendix G, these 

improvements are currently planned but may not be fully funded by 2030. They are therefore not 

assumed as background conditions in the Traffic Impact Study and a proportionate share 

contribution to these improvements is included as a mitigation measure for cumulative 2030 

impacts in Section 5.7 of the EA. 

7-3 The traffic counts were conducted in the third week of September in 2008. All counts were 

conducted on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (the 16th through the 18th). Please see 

General Response 3.1.4. 

7-4 Comment noted. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 8 – CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY 

CONTROL BOARD- NORTH COAST REGION 

8-1 Comment noted. Please see General Response 3.1.2 and Final EA Section 1.2 regarding 

additional parcels that have been added to the site and analyzed for environmental impacts in the 

Final EA. 

 

8-2 The EA did not identify any significant impacts after mitigation, thus, an EIS is not necessary. 

Please see General Response 3.1.2 regarding the inclusion of an off-site sewer hookup 

alternative. In addition, a second on-site wastewater disposal option for Alternative Bhas been 

added to the Final EA which would allow the full development of the site without wastewater 

discharge to surface waters (please refer to Section 2.2 of the Final EA). 

8-3 The analysis of environmental impacts from stormwater both during and after construction is 

included for each alternative in Section 4.1.2, 4.2.2 and 4.3.2 of the Final EA. The analysis of 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-23 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

environmental impacts for wastewater discharge, including impacts to water resources and 

biological resources, is contained in Sections 4.1.4, 4.2.4 and 4.3.4 of the EA. Mitigation 

measures necessary to protect water quality are enforceable under the federal Clean Water Act 

(CWA). Assuming the commenter is referring to Best Management Practices (BMPs) necessary 

to protect water quality, monitoring of those BMPs would occur as required under the federal 

CWA. Please refer to General Response 3.1.2 and the Final EA regarding analysis of impacts 

from the proposed discharge of tertiary treated water to one of two locations, as further detailed in 

the Stream Characterization, Lytton Residential Development (Appendix L of the Final EA). 

Language regarding the enforceability of mitigation measures has been added to Section 5.0 of 

the Final EA. 

 

8-4 Contrary to the contention of the commenter, Section 401 of the CWA is a federal requirement 

and would continue to apply on trust land. Federal laws equivalent to all of the state requirements 

noted by the commenter would also continue to apply on trust land. These include NEPA and 

storm water permitting under the federal CWA. Please see Response to Comment 8-3 regarding 

enforceability and monitoring of mitigation. While it is correct that the California Regional 

Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) would not possess jurisdiction over trust 

lands, the USEPA would maintain jurisdiction over the site. Even on trust lands the USEPA 

possesses the authority to enforce water quality objectives under the North Coast Region Water 

Quality Control Plan, monitor operations, conduct inspections, issue fines, and order that 

operations be curtailed or ceased. Please refer to General Response 3.1.2 regarding USEPA 

concurrence with the Proposed Project. 

8-5 Please see General Response 3.1.2 regarding treated wastewater discharge to surface waters. 

 

8-6 Stated compliance with federal requirements through adoption of BMPs is appropriately included 

as mitigation in the Final EA. A stormwater pollution prevention plan is required by the Final EA 

Section 5.2 and the federal CWA. Please see Response to Comment 8-3 regarding 

enforceability of mitigation and BMPs. 

8-7 The referenced BMPs in EA page 2-6 are appropriately included in Section 2.1.9 because they 

are protective measures incorporated into the project design. They are specifically referenced in 

Section 5.2 of the Final EA. Please see Response to Comment 8-3 regarding enforceability of 

mitigation and BMPs. 

 

8-8 The applicable jurisdiction falls to the federal government on all lands held in federal trust by the 

United States. Thus, waters of the state are considered separately from waters of the U.S. in the 

EA. Nonetheless, impacts to all surface waters, groundwater, and species habitat, including 

waters of the state, are considered in EA Sections 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 4.2.2, 4.2.4, 4.3.2, and 4.3.4. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-24 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

8-9 Please see Response to Comment 8-8 regarding analysis of waters of the state on trust lands. 

8-10 Please see Response to Comment 8-8 regarding analysis of waters of the state on trust lands. All 

potential wetlands are thoroughly discussed and evaluated in the wetland delineation conducted 

for the project site. All wetlands on-site are seasonal or intermittent in nature, and the majority of 

potential waters identified were ephemeral drainages, none of which support fish and very few 

aquatic invertebrates. These drainages are best classified according to the State Water Resources 

Control Board and the California Department of Forestry Stream Classification system as Class 

III streams (watercourses that have the capability of transporting sediment downstream to Class I 

or II waters and where no aquatic life is present). Recommended setbacks for these streams are 

25 feet (slopes less than 30%) and 50 feet (when slopes exceed 30%) (CDF, 2008 and CDFG, 

NMFS, 2002). Slopes within the project site range from 5 to 30 percent, with the majority of 

proposed development planned in areas with slopes between 5 and 15 percent. Thus, the 

proposed setback of 50 feet from potential wetlands and drainages is sufficient and justified. 

8-11 Please see Response to Comment 8-5. 

8-12 Comment noted. Please see General Response 3.1.2 regarding the inclusion of an off-site sewer 

hookup alternative as well as General Response 3.1.11 pertaining to alternative locations to 

fulfill the Tribe’s purpose and need. 

8-13 Comment noted. Please see Response to Comment 8-2. 

8-14 Comment noted. 

8-15 Comment noted. Please see Response to Comment 8-5. 

8-16 A requirement to include an energy dissipater to prevent erosion of the drainage ditch resulting 

from the discharge has been added to Section 5.2 of the Final EA. 

 

8-17 Please see Response to Comment 8-5. Also note that the McLaughlin pit was a gravel pit that 

was excavated into alluvial terraces in the Russian River flood plain. Numerous flooded gravel 

pits exist along this stretch of the river that were excavated up to 90 feet below the land surface. 

The pit lake west of the site is, at its closest point, only 160 feet from the river bank, and is 

separated from the river by a berm of un-mined gravel. The pit lakes result from mining below 

the water table, while the river exists because its channel is also deeper than the elevation of the 

water table. In this respect, they are both surface expressions of the water table elevation. During 

periods of high runoff, the river may temporarily have a higher elevation and river water would 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-25 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

flow towards the pit; alternatively, during dry periods, the pit water and aquifer may flow towards 

the river. In either case, the overall groundwater flow gradient would be in a downstream 

direction and mostly parallel the river. Because of this, water moving downgradient through the 

pit area would gradually commingle with other nearby water migrating through the aquifer 

materials, and eventually the river itself. 

The City of Healdsburg has for some time discharged treated effluent to a similar flooded gravel 

pit located north of the site. The United States District Court ruled at that site that since the pond 

and the river overlie the same unconfined aquifer and the land separating the two is saturated 

below the water table, that the underground aquifer is in effect “a slow-moving, underground 

tributary of the river” and “the pond is an open way station on the underground tributary” 

(Northern California River Watch v. Healdsburg, Case No. 04-15442 [9th Cir. 2007]). 

8-18 No reference to an effluent storage pond could be found on page 1-5 of the EA. Table 3-7 of the 

Final EA’s Appendix B has been revised to correct the typographical error and now shows 23.36 

million gallons of effluent generated per year. Table 3-7 of the revised Appendix B also contains 

sufficient and additional detail to demonstrate that the proposed effluent storage ponds for the 

first and section options for Alternative B and C as well as reclaimed water irrigation land area 

are adequately sized, including precipitation data, effluent generation, evapotranspiration, and 

irrigation efficiency. 

8-19 Please see Response to Comment 8-18. 

8-20 Section 2.3.3 of the Final EA states that no surface water discharge would occur due to the use of 

seasonal reclaimed water irrigation for Alternatives B and C. However, the commenter correctly 

notes that the protective measures were not included to ensure no discharge occurs during the 

irrigation process. Thus, Sections 2.2.6 and 5.3 of the Final EA have been revised to include 

appropriate measures. 

8-21 Compliance with standards equivalent to the landscape irrigation standards in the State Water 

Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Recycled Water Policy (as referenced in State 

Water Board Resolution No. 2009-0011) has been added to Sections 2.2.6 and 5.3 of the Final 

EA. 

8-22 As noted in Section 4.2.2 and Appendix B of the Final EA, the on-site wastewater treatment and 

Reclamation Facility (WTRF) effluent would be treated to meet or exceed Title 22 standards. 

Sections 2.2.6 and 5.3 of the Final EA have been revised to include appropriate measures to 

control irrigation spray. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-26 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

8-23 Please see Responses to Comments 8-20 and 8-21. 

8-24 Section 2.1.9 of the Final EA has been revised to clarify that water conservation standards at least 

equivalent to Sonoma County design standards would be implemented, and installation of lowflow water fixtures would be performed. Additionally, Section 5.3 of the Final EA has been 

revised to ensure water conservation measures are implemented. 

8-25 The referenced statement is based on the degraded biological condition found in the receiving 

water, which could be alleviated somewhat by the introduction of increased flows of high quality 

effluent. Nonetheless, mitigation measures have been added to Section 5.3 of the Final EA to 

ensure that wastewater management programs would be implemented. 

8-26 The salinity concentration effect resulting from effluent storage has been accounted for in EA 

Appendix B as reflected in the text of Table 3-7. As noted in Table 3-7, effluent TDS at the 

time that the effluent is land applied is estimated to be 468 mg/L based on the estimated 

groundwater TDS of 270 mg/L plus the difference in TDS of 198 mg/L between potable water 

and recycled water and dilution effect of infiltration and inflow (I/I), reported by the 2008 Water 

Quality Comparison Report (Town of Windsor, 2008). 

An estimated “salt balance” for the site relative to the effluent reclamation aspect of this project 

has been added to the revised Appendix B of the Final EA. As shown, the salt balance is based 

on 1) the entire effluent TDS of 468 mg/L, not just the salinity, 2) average rainfall and ETo 

conditions for the Windsor area, 3) a native oak woodland ETo of 16”/year, 4) an average rainfall 

runoff coefficient of 0.25 for native vegetation and landscaped areas, and 0.30 for the overall 

suburban area developed, 5) no net salt uptake and removal by vegetation (i.e., lawn clippings 

and mulched, not removed), 6) soil dissolution occurs at a rate of 200 lb/Mgal of dissolution 

occurring in water percolating to groundwater, and 7) stormwater leaving the effluent reclamation 

at a TDS of 150 mg/L (compared to 64 mg/L for areas without salt addition from effluent). 

As shown in the revised Appendix B of the Final EA, the TDS of percolate leaving the project 

site would increase as a result of both 1) irrigation of the property, and 1) recycling effluent to 

satisfy those irrigation needs. However, even with the increase, the percolate TDS would still be 

well below the 500 mg/L water quality objective. 

Regarding anti-degradation, methods to reduce effluent salinity and/or percolate salinity include: 

• Reduce effluent salinity by installing reverse osmosis (RO) treatment. RO treatment has 

not been shown to be a cost effective mitigation measure for small WWTPs such as the 

one proposed for the project, or used by Windsor. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-27 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

• Reduce water conservation measures in homes. This does not change the mass of salt 

involved, but reduces its concentration. Reducing water conservation is contrary to State 

policy, and therefore, is not recommended. 

• Reduce use of products in the home such as food, shampoo, cleaners, etc. This is a life 

style issue that is difficult to implement. Nonetheless, Section 5.3 of the Final EA has 

been clarified to include public education programming to increase public awareness of 

salt issues to attempt to reduce effluent salinity. 

• Reduce effluent irrigation efficiency so that a lower percentage of applied effluent is 

evapotranspirated to the atmosphere. This practice leaves more water with the effluent 

salt mass, and thereby reduces the salinity of the percolate. Reducing irrigation efficacy 

is possible, but runs contrary to State water conservation policy, and therefore, is not 

recommended as an anti-degradation measure. 

In summary, the proposed project appears to include a reasonable balance of environmental and 

water resource preservation measures (as clarified in Sections 2.1.9, 2.2.6 and 5.3 of the Final 

EA), including the following. 

• Water conserving fixtures to reduce water use but not to an extreme extent causing very 

high contaminant concentration in the wastewater. 

• Effluent reclamation to the extent feasible to reduce effluent discharges to surface waters, 

and to conserve freshwater for higher or better uses. 

• High irrigation efficiency to maximize beneficial use of available water resources. 

• Community education to reduce needless introduction of medicines and contaminants to 

the wastewater. 

These project components are consistent with the requirements of State Board Resolution 68-16, 

the State’s Anti-Degradation Policy. 

8-27 Clarification to the proposed wastewater collection system is provided in the revised Appendix B

and described in further detail in the Final EA Section 2.0. Under Alternatives B and C, the 

Lytton community would maintain and operate the entire wastewater treatment and reclamation 

system from house service through disposal on tribal land. This situation is different from the 

usual participants of STEP systems consisting of private property owners and a separate, 

independent utility. The Lytton community would act more like a privately-owned community in 

which the tribe has sole responsibilities for the utilities on tribal land. Regarding wastewater 

treatment and reclamation facility system design, operation, and maintenance, additional BMPs 

have been added to Section 2.2.6 of the Final EA as recommended to minimize chances of 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-28 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

system failures. In addition, a mitigation measure has been added to Final EA Section 5.2 that 

requires the development of a contingency plan to ensure untreated wastewater is not released to 

the environment in the event of a malfunction of the wastewater treatment and reclamation 

facility. 

8-28 Comment noted. Additional BMPs regarding wastewater treatment and reclamation have been 

outlined in Sections 2.2.6 and 5.3 of the Final EA. 

8-29 This identified cleanup site is referenced in Section 3.11 of the EA. No effect would occur as a 

result of this site, as cleanup of the site was ongoing at the time the Phase I Environmental Site 

Assessment was conducted. 

8-30 Specific responses to this summary comment are provided above. Please refer to General 

Response 3.1.11 regarding project alternatives. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 9 – SONOMA COUNTY COUNSEL 

9-1 Comment noted. Please see General Response 3.1.1 regarding the extension of the comment 

period. 

 

9-2 Comment noted. Please see General Response General Response 3.1.15 regarding Appendices 

F and J. 

9-3 Comment noted. Please see General Response General Response 3.1.1 regarding the extension 

of the comment period. 

9-4 Comment noted. Please see General Response General Response 3.1.1 regarding the extension 

of the comment period. 

9-5 Comment noted. Please see General Response General Response 3.1.1 regarding the extension 

of the comment period. 

9-6 Comment noted. Please see General Response General Response 3.1.1 regarding the extension 

of the comment period. 

9-7 Comment noted. Please see General Response General Response 3.1.1 regarding the extension 

of the comment period. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-29 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 10 – SONOMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

10-1 As stated in the EA, no significant effects would occur after the implementation of mitigation 

measures stated in EA and revised in Section 5.0 of the Final EA. Thus, an EIS is not warranted. 

10-2 Please see Response to Comment 10-1. Specific responses are provided below to this summary 

comment. 

 

10-3 Please see General Response 3.1.5 regarding the intended uses of the proposed buildings. 

10-4 Please see General Response 3.1.4 regarding traffic modeling and 3.1.5 regarding the project 

description. 

10-5 Please see General Response 10-3. 

10-6 Please see General Responses 3.1.5 regarding the project description, 3.1.11 regarding the range 

of project alternatives and 3.1.12 regarding local land use plans. 

10-7 Please see General Response 3.1.11. 

10-8 Please see General Responses 3.1.2 and 3.1.11 regarding the feasibility of Alternative A. 

10-9 Please see General Response 3.1.11 regarding the range of project alternatives. 

10-10 Please see General Response 3.1.11 regarding the range of project alternatives. 

10-11 Please see General Responses 3.1.11 regarding the range of project alternatives and 3.1.12

regarding local land use plans. 

10-12 Please see General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak trees. 

10-13 Please see General Response 3.1.3 and Response to Comment 13-11 regarding analysis of 

impacts to biological resources. 

10-14 Please see General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak trees. 

10-15 As stated in Section 6.7 of the BA (Appendix E of the EA), “If avoidance of the special-status 

plant habitat is not feasible, the Tribe must mitigate for impacts to the this habitat according to the 

mitigation ratios outlined in the Programmatic Consultation for USACE 404 Permitted Projects 

that May Affect Four Endangered Plant Species on the Santa Rosa Plain, California (File Number 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-30 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

223420N) (USFWS, 2007).” Floristic survey efforts were conducted according to the SRPCS 

Protocol (USFWS, 2005a) and occurred within the appropriate bloom periods for all potentially 

occurring special-status plant species. A more explicit description of the methodology and results 

of the floristic surveys that have been conducted within the project site to date are included in the 

Technical Botanical Memorandum listed as Attachment E of Appendix B of the Final EA. One 

additional year of protocol level surveys is required for some of the more recently acquired 

parcels. An update to the Technical Botanical Memorandum will be completed following these 

surveys. Focused botanical surveys also included the search for non-federal special-status plants. 

No state listed wildlife species were determined to have the potential to occur within the project 

area. It is appropriate that the EA focus on sensitive species in an attempt to determine the 

significance of impacts; no federally sensitive animal species were found to have potential to 

occur within the project site. Nonetheless, the Section 3.4 of the Final EA and Appendix E

contain a detailed description of the biological setting, including a notation of all wildlife 

observed on-site and a map illustrating terrestrial and aquatic habitat types. Please also refer to 

Response to Comment 21-7. 

10-16 Comment noted. Please refer to Attachment B of the BA (Appendix E to the Final EA) for 

discussion and evaluation of critical habitats for salmonids. Furthermore, a Stream 

Characterization report was prepared for the project discussing the potential for salmonids to 

occur and is provided as Appendix L of the Final EA. In addition, the following regulations 

apply to all listed salmonids in the Russian River Watershed, as published in the Federal Register 

on Sept. 2, 2005 (70FR52488 - 52627): 

§ 226.211 (d) Exclusion of Indian lands. Critical habitat does not include occupied 

habitat areas on Indian lands. The Indian lands specifically excluded from critical habitat 

are those defined in the Secretarial Order, including: (1) Lands held in trust by the United 

States for the benefit of any Indian tribe; (2) Land held in trust by the United States for 

any Indian Tribe or individual subject to restrictions by the United States against 

alienation; (3) Fee lands, either within or outside the reservation boundaries, owned by 

the tribal government; and (4) Fee lands within the reservation boundaries owned by 

individual Indians. 

While the project site itself does not contain designated critical habitat, waters both upstream and 

downstream of this designated tribal land holding are designated critical habitat. 

10-17 Comment noted. While the site is located within a historic range for the California red-legged 

frog (Rana draytonii- CRLF), there are no documented CNDDB occurrences of CRLF within five 

miles of the project site. There is no suitable breeding habitat onsite based upon the wetland 

delineation and characterization of the aquatic features onsite (please refer to Appendices E and 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-31 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

L of the Final EA). There is no critical habitat designated in the project site; the closest critical 

habitat unit is SOL-1, approximately 15 miles southeast of the project site. In addition, the 

USFWS does not consider CRLF in its Biological Opinion for the SRPCS (USFWS, 2007), 

therefore it has been concluded that CRLF does not have the potential to occur onsite. 

10-18 The EA determined that the referenced species do not have the potential to occur within the 

project site; nonetheless, further clarification regarding potential for the referenced species to 

occur is provided in Attachment B to Appendix E of the Final EA. The commenter notes a 

“rocky perennial stream environment” when in fact fine sediments (<0.06 millimeters [mm]) 

were the most dominant substrate observed, composing 73% of the (n=105) random observations 

during the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Surface Water Ambient Monitoring 

Protocol (SWAMP) survey of the stream (Stream Characterization: Appendix L of the Final EA). 

In addition, fine gravels (2-16 mm) constituted 17 percent of the substrate observations; woody 

debris (<0.03 meters) constituted five percent of the substrate observations; sand (0.06-2 mm) 

comprised four percent of the observations; while two observations of coarse gravels constituted 

one percent of the observations made within the unnamed tributary to Windsor Creek. The 

commenter’s claim that suitable habitat exists for the noted species is not supported by actual 

field conditions and observations. In addition, the results from this Stream Characterization and 

assessment indicated that instream habitat complexity was lacking and that most instream habitat 

attributes such as large woody debris (>0.3 meters), undercut banks, and boulders were 

completely absent from the unnamed tributary; while overhanging vegetation, emergent 

vegetation, filamentous algae, and live tree roots were sparsely (<10 percent) observed in the 

study reach. The results from this survey are indicative of a low quality stream habitat that would 

not be suitable for the presence of the noted species. Further, none of these species were 

observed during numerous biological site surveys covering over a three year period. 

10-19 Within the project site, the Unnamed Stream tributary to Windsor Creek does not provide the 

threshold habitat requirements (flow volume and duration, substrates, instream habitat 

complexity, dissolved oxygen, benthic diversity or temperature) for spawning, rearing or a 

migration corridor for salmonids (BA: Appendix E; Stream Characterization: Appendix L to 

Final EA). In addition, it is stated in Section 4.1.4 that “to the maximum extent possible, the 

Proposed Project has incorporated the mixed oak woodland, oak savannah, and riparian woodland 

habitats into the site design to minimize impacts to these habitats by adjusting the locations of lots 

and structures to avoid more pristine stands of woodlands and exceptionally large individual 

trees, maintain woodland corridors, and establish aesthetic woodland buffer regions around 

development areas.” Also, please see General Response 3.1.3 regarding potential impacts to onsite oak trees. 

10-20 Please see Response to Comment 8-10 regarding setback requirements. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-32 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

10-21 Please see Responses to Comments 8-1 through 8-30 from the RWQCB comment letter. The 

on-site irrigation and storage areas have been appropriately sized according to the water balances, 

and detailed monthly balance data with consideration of precipitation ETo, irrigation efficiency 

and irrigation demand, as demonstrated in the revised Appendix B of the Final EA. 

10-22 Please see Response to Comment 10-21. Table 3-7 in Appendix B of the Final EA has been 

revised to utilize Windsor evapotranspiration data. 

10-23 The commenter appears to be referencing Section 1.6.1 of Appendix B of the EA. The reference 

to Sonoma County, 2007 is included in the references section (Section 5) of Appendix B. 

According to the references section, this is a reference to “Permit and Resource Management 

Department, Policy and Procedure, Regulations for Design, Construction, Repair and Operation 

of Non-standard Sewage Disposal Systems Pursuant to Sonoma County Code Chapters 7 and 

24.” 

10-24 The commenter appears to be referencing Section 1.6.2 of Appendix B of the EA. Please see 

Response to Comment 10-23. 

 

10-25 The design occupancy estimated in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 in EA Appendix B is 636 for Alternatives 

A and B, and 246 for Alternative C. These estimates of design occupancy in the community were 

developed from two separate approaches that yield similar results: 

 Estimated Quantities of Sewage Flow - Using County flow generation standards, total 

development peak day wastewater flows are estimated to be 63,600 gpd (Alt A & B) and 

24,600 gpd (Alt C). If estimated overall wastewater flow is 100 gpd/capita including 

flow allowances for common facilities, the peak day “occupancy” estimates are 636 

people (63,600 gpd ÷ 100 gpd/capita = 636 capita) and 246 people (24,600 gpd ÷ 100 

gpd/capita = 246 capita). 

 Per Dwelling Population Allowance - Occupancy of newer developments is often a little 

over four capita/EDU, even though overall community occupancy may be around 3.2 

capita/EDU. This is because typical “newer developments” attract families. The high 

capita/EDU figure for newer developments, then, decreases over time as the children 

leave home. The Lytton housing project is not a typical “newer development” attracting 

families, it is planned to serve a specific community from young to old. The number of 

people who will reside in the planned 2 to 4 bedroom homes will change over the life of 

the project. However, as a worst-case estimate, using 147 EDUs (Alt A & B) and 57 

EDUs (Alt C) and 4.2 capita/EDU results in estimated occupancies of 617 people (Alts A 

& B) and 240 people (Alt C), plus possibly some day workers using community facilities. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-33 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

 The larger results from these approaches are used as the design occupancy for this analysis. 

10-26 Section 2.2 of the Final EA has been expanded to discuss the proposed WTRF as well as each 

wastewater alternatives, including those that maximize on-site storage and reuse. Revised 

Appendix B of the Final EA contains detailed information on the proposed WTRF, including the 

proposed treatment technology, and the number and size of components. Please see General 

Response 3.1.2 regarding treated wastewater discharge to surface waters. 

10-27 Please refer to the Stream Characterization report prepared for the Final EA (Appendix L) 

regarding potential impacts to nearby surface water features. Please see General Response 

3.1.10. The test well installed at the project site was designed to produce water from a deeper, 

semi-confined portion of the aquifer that is isolated from a shallower groundwater zone by a thick 

clay or mudstone horizon. As described in EA Appendix C, the shallow monitoring well, which 

is screened above the clay horizon, showed no measureable response during the pumping test, and 

only responded to small changes in barometric pressure. Creeks in the project area flow mostly 

in response to precipitation events, so their source of water is unrelated to that which would be 

produced from a production well at the site. Since the evaluation used conservative assumptions 

such a no annual aquifer recharge, the influence on the unconfined aquifer in the area of the 

shallow creek would likely be less. 

Similarly, the Russian River and McLaughlin Pond represent the water table and are developed in 

shallow deposits of sand and gravel that have very high permeability. It is uncertain if the 

stratigraphy identified in the Lytton test wells extends laterally under the river and pond area, or 

if the shallow fluvial aquifer materials are isolated from the deeper strata. Either way, because of 

the high permeability and unconfined conditions near the river, there would likely be no 

measureable response in the aquifer to pumping from a production well at the Lytton site. 

Although the Lytton production well would draw in water radially from all directions, two noflow aquifer boundaries were identified in the analysis of the pumping test data. These 

boundaries are likely faults or other lateral discontinuities that restrict the lateral movement of 

groundwater. As described in the report, the exact location and orientation of the boundaries are 

unknown, but a reasonable location for one boundary would be the northwest-trending ravine that 

exists to the southwest of the well site. This feature parallels many other regional faults and 

would tend to hydraulically isolate the well site from the river valley directly west of the site. 

Because the eastern margin of the river valley begins about 1,000 feet to the west of the site, in 

the absence of a barrier, the interference analysis provided for impacts to shallow wells would 

apply. This analysis predicted approximately 2.5 to three feet of drawdown at that distance, again 

in the absence of recharge. This restriction is particularly unlikely in the Russian River valley 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-34 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

aquifer, because it is in direct hydraulic connection to the river and receives some annual recharge 

from the river. 

10-28 Please see Response to Comment 10-27 above as well as General Response 3.1.10 regarding 

groundwater issues. 

 

10-29 For all alternatives evaluated, potable water would not generally be used for common area 

landscape irrigation. As stated in the revised Appendix B of the Final EA, if common area 

landscaping irrigation is required under Alternatives B and C it would be supplied with reclaimed 

water from the on-site wastewater treatment plant. Section 2.1.5 of the Final EA has been 

revised to clarify that the Tribe proposes to utilize Town of Windsor reclaimed water for its 

landscape irrigation needs. Irrigation land requirements for worst case conditions are stated in 

Table 4-12 in Section 4.2.2 of the Final EA, as well as in Appendix B, Table 3-7 of the Final 

EA. 

10-30 Please see General Response 3.1.10 regarding groundwater issues and the revised Appendices B

and C of the Final EA regarding water demand estimates. 

10-31 Please see General Response 3.1.10 regarding groundwater issues and the revised Appendices B

and C of the Final EA regarding water demand estimates. All hydrogeologic test data is provided 

in Appendix C of the Final EA. The test well at the site was constructed to a depth of 420 feet 

below the ground surface (bgs) and the initial static water level was measured at 126.4 feet bgs. 

The static water level in the shallow monitoring well was measure at 102.27 feet bgs. The test 

well was subjected to both a step test and a constant-discharge test. The step test included four, 

one-hour-duration tests at rates of up to 272.8 gpm. Drawdown at the end of that test was 27.39 

feet. A 72-hour constant-discharge test was then completed at a rate of 150.3 gpm. Drawdown at 

the end of that test was 25.7 feet. Modeling of the test results indicated that a production well at 

the site could sustain continuous pumping of 75 gpm for a period of one year without drawing the 

water level down below the top of the recommended well screen. This amount of drawdown is 

not considered excessive because it amounts to about 10% of the aquifer thickness and because 

drawdown would be maintained above the screen interval. The continuous rate was calculated at 

57 gpm. 

10-32 Please see General Response 3.1.10 regarding groundwater issues and Response to Comment 

10-31 above. 

10-33 Please see General Response 3.1.10 regarding groundwater issues. A complete description of 

the methods used to estimate drawdown at various distances and screen depths is provided in the 

Hydrogeologic Investigation Report, Appendix C of the Final EA. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-35 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

10-34 Please see General Response 3.1.10. The appendices to the Hydrogeologic Investigation Report 

have been provided to Sonoma County as requested, and are available in the revised Appendix C

of the Final EA. 

10-35 Please see General Response 3.1.10 regarding groundwater issues and implementation of Low 

Impact Development (LID) features. 

10-36 Although not required by NEPA, the Tribe has agreed to make the well utilized for monitoring 

during the hydrogeologic investigation available for use in the ongoing regional monitoring 

program. A mitigation measure has been added to this effect in Section 5.2 of the Final EA. 

10-37 Please see General Response 3.1.8 regarding greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and 

revised Sections 3.3, 4.0 and 5.3 of the Final EA. 

10-38 Please see General Response 3.1.8 regarding greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and 

revised Sections 3.3, 4.0 and 5.3 of the Final EA. 

10-39 Please see General Response 3.1.8 regarding greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and 

General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak trees. 

10-40 Please see General Response 3.1.8 regarding greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and 

revised Sections 3.3, 4.0 and 5.3 of the Final EA. 

10-41 Please see General Response 3.1.8 regarding greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and 

revised Sections 3.3, 4.1.3, 4.2.3, 4.3.3 and 5.3 of the Final EA. 

10-42 Please see General Response 3.1.8 regarding greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and 

revised Sections 3.3, 4.1.3, 4.2.3, 4.3.3 and 5.3 of the Final EA. 

10-43 Please see General Response 3.1.5 and Comment 10-1. It is not known the specific number of 

members that would use the community facilities. However, the use of on-site facilities for tribal 

gatherings and events would not be a frequent occurrence. When such gatherings occur, a large 

proportion of the attendees would travel only a short distance from their residences on-site, or 

from other locations within the County. 

10-44 The EA includes a comprehensive analysis of air quality impacts that is consistent with the 

requirements of NEPA. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-36 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

10-45 As stated in Section 2.0 of the Final EA, the community center, round house, and retreat would 

only be open to Tribal members and their guests; therefore, no vehicle trips were assigned to 

these facilities. Please refer to the revised Appendix G of the Final EA. Because no trips were 

assigned to these facilities, they were not included in the URBEMIS air quality model. The 

community center, round house, and retreat would not generate substantial criteria pollutants or 

GHGs. 

10-46 The project site is partially in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) and partially in 

the North Coast Air Basin (NCAB). The SFBAAB is under the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD, 

while the southern portion of the NCAB is under the jurisdiction of the Northern Sonoma County 

Air Pollution Control District (NSCAPCD). Section 3.3 of the Final EA has clarified the location 

of the project site with regards to the air basin and air quality management district. It should be 

noted that once the project site is taken in to trust it would no longer be under the jurisdiction of 

the NSCAPCD and BAAQMD, but rather under the jurisdiction of the USEPA. 

10-47 Please see Responses to Comments 10-1 and 10-44. The recommended additional fugitive dust 

mitigation measures have been added to Section 5.3 of the Final EA. The federal designation for 

particulate matter (PM2.5 ) has changed from attainment to nonattainment in the SFBAAB. Due to 

this change, the Final EA has been revised to include an analysis of PM2.5 in Section 4.1.3. 

10-48 Please see Responses to Comments 10-1 and 10-44. The air quality impact analysis provided in 

Section 4.1.3 includes a comprehensive analysis of ozone impacts consistent with NEPA. 

Impacts due to project-related ozone emissions on the ambient air quality in the SFBAAB were 

determined to be less than significant. 

10-49 Please see Responses to Comments 10-1. Section 3.3.6 of the Final EA has been revised to note 

the nearest sensitive receptors to the project site with the inclusion of seven new parcels, as well 

as the reference receptors, located 50 feet from the site. Appropriate changes have been made to 

Section 4.1.3, 4.2.3 and 4.3.3 of the Final EA based on this information. 

10-50 Please see Response to Comment 10-44. 

10-51 As noted in the Section 4.1.3 of the EA, conformity would be in question only for ozone 

emissions. Therefore, particulate matter 10 microns in size and carbon monoxide emissions were 

included in the URBEMIS model results in Appendix D but not included in the main text of the 

EA. Please refer to Response to Comment 10-47 regarding the analysis of particulate matter 2.5 

microns in size in the Final EA. In addition, operational emissions would be primarily associated 

with motor vehicle use, for which ozone precursors are the primary emissions. Particulate matter 

emissions would be far below federal de minimus levels, even assuming a nonattainment 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-37 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

designation. Carbon monoxide emissions are localized and would not require comprehensive 

analysis unless the project results in a significant unavoidable traffic impact, which it does not. 

10-52 Pre and post construction hydrology maps and calculations were prepared to compare flows at 

known and similar release points at the perimeter of the project site. With this analysis structure 

in place, the capacity/adequacy of the proposed storm drain infrastructure could be analyzed. The 

hydrology maps and calculations have been modified in Appendix A of the Final EA to include 

additional areas on-site that drain to the northwest. 

10-53 Sonoma County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) guidelines allow for a 

choice of either flow based or volume based treatment. As noted in Response to Comment 10-

52, the project’s pre vs. post calculations were based on a flow based treatment method. The 

calculations have been updated in Appendix A of the Final EA based on volume-based treatment 

methods to be consistent with Chapter 11 and 11a of the newly adopted County Grading 

Ordinance. As a part of the volume based treatment method, flow paths have been added to each 

tributary area and time of concentrations have been calculated for the upper-most watersheds. 

Use of bio retention ponds, bio swales, and rain gardens would detain and reduce the velocity of 

storm runoff, resulting in stormwater discharges that approximate pre-development conditions 

(Final EA Appendix A). Post construction hydrology maps have been enlarged in Appendix A

of the Final EA as requested. 

10-54 The slopes of the tributary areas range between 3 and 20 percent. With an assumed average slope 

of 8 percent, the pre construction runoff coefficient would decrease from 0.50 to 0.38. The added 

increase in the difference between pre and post construction would be accounted for by the bio 

retention ponds, bio swales, and rain gardens noted in Response to Comment 10-53. 

10-55 As noted in EA Appendix G, the study intersections were chosen based on their proximity to the 

site, Caltrans guidelines, and their potential to be impacted by the project. The project-related 

increase in trips at the intersections noted by the commenter would be much less than 50 trips per 

intersection and therefore do not warrant further study. Please see General Response 3.1.4. 

10-56 There is no evidence to suggest any particular need for a transit link. As noted in Appendix G of 

the Final EA, all residential units were assumed to generate traffic based on the rates for singlefamily dwellings. In the absence of an applicable traffic mitigation fee, individual impacts have 

been analyzed both for the near term and cumulative conditions in Sections 4.1.7, 4.2.7, 4.3.7,

and 4.5.7 of the EA. Mitigation measures are included in Section 5.7 of the EA that would 

ensure a less than significant impact. 

10-57 Please see Response to Comment 10-56. Section 3.7.1 of the EA and Appendix G describe the 

local transit network, including Sonoma County Transit Routes 60 and 66. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-38 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

10-58 Please see Response to Comment 10-1. References to the 2020 General Plan would not affect 

the analysis of impacts in any way that would result in new significant impacts; thus no change to 

impacts has been made, but the reference to the 2020 General Plan was updated. 

 

10-59 Please see Response to Comment 10-49. Section 3.10.3 of the Final EA has been revised to 

note that the nearest sensitive receptor is located 50 feet from the site. Additional noise 

mitigation measures have also been added to Section 5.10 of the Final EA. 

10-60 Please see Response to Comment 10-59. 

10-61 An increase in traffic noise that is not noticeable is not a significant increase. Thus, it is not 

necessary to perform the additional analysis suggested by the commenter. 

10-62 The referenced General Plan standards are noted in Section 3.10.2 of the EA. However, the 

reference to 65 decibels (dBA) in Section 4.0 of the EA is to the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) guidelines. Nonetheless, even were a standard of 60 dBA used, the significance 

conclusion would not change. 

 

10-63 Potential noise impacts from the water treatment facility are analyzed in Sections 4.2.10 and 

4.3.10 of the EA. Additional analysis has been added to these sections and an additional 

mitigation measure regarding this impact has been added to Section 5.10 of the Final EA. 

10-64 Please see General Response 3.1.13 regarding county services. 

10-65 Please see General Response 3.1.5 regarding the project description. Additional mitigation 

regarding coordination with the local Sheriff’s office during events has been added to Section 5.9

of the Final EA. 

10-66 The recommended wording change from Sonoma County Sherriff’s Department to Sonoma 

County Sheriff’s Office has been made throughout the Final EA. 

10-67 Mitigation measures have been added to Section 5.9 of the Final EA requiring development 

generally consistent with Sonoma County Fire Safe Standards and requiring the preparation of a 

vegetation management plan. Please see General Response 3.1.13 regarding public services. 

10-68 As noted in Appendix B of the EA, water facilities would be designed to ensure a fire flow of 

2,500 gpm with a 400,000 gallon storage tank. An additional mitigation measure has been added 

to Section 5.9 of the Final EA consistent with the recommendation for fire hydrant spacing. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-39 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

10-69 The word “Uniform” has been removed from Section 2.1.9 of the Final EA to ensure the measure 

refers to the code adopted in Sonoma County. 

10-70 The recommended requirement for fire alarm and suppression systems has been added as a 

mitigation measure to Section 5.9 of the Final EA. 

10-71 Propane would be delivered to the buildings through individual contracts as needed, similar to the 

existing arrangement with rural homeowners and businesses not served by natural gas. All 

standard safety measures regarding propane use would be implemented by the propane providers. 

10-72 Please see Response to Comment 10-67. 

10-73 Sections 4.2.11 and 4.3.11 of the EA analyze potential impacts from on-site hazardous materials 

storage. Mitigation measures in Section 5.11 of the EA would ensure a less than significant 

impact. 

10-74 Please see General Responses 3.1.6 regarding potential impacts to the Windsor Unified School 

District and 3.1.13 regarding county services. 

10-75 The paragraph has been revised as recommended, and additional revisions were also made due to 

the additional parcels which have been added to the project site. 

10-76 Section 3.0 has been revised to describe the accurate number of existing residences within the 

project site. 

10-77 General Plan and Zoning designations are graphically shown in Figure 3-6 of the EA and are 

consistent with the designations displayed by the commenter. Section 3.8 of the Final EA has 

been revised to clarify the permitted uses under the land use and zoning designations. 

10-78 Please see Response to Comment 10-1 and General Responses 3.1.6 and 3.1.13. The noted 

General Plan policies are directed to the County but are not binding on Indian tribes or on federal 

trust land. 

10-79 The land use and zoning designations, as well as the extent of Windsor jurisdiction has been 

clarified in Section 3.8 of the Final EA. Town of Windsor land use designations are clearly 

shown in Figure 3-7 of the EA and are consistent with the designations displayed by the 

commenter. 

 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-40 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

10-80 For a description of the soils on-site, please refer to Section 3.1 of the EA. For a description of 

the agricultural setting, please see Section 3.8.3 of the EA. 

10-81 Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government and land use plans. 

10-82 As the County General Plan defines densities as dwelling units, so were the densities calculated 

for the project site. Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government and land 

use plans. 

10-83 Please see Response to Comment 10-1 and General Responses 3.1.2 regarding water and 

wastewater discharge and 3.1.12 regarding local government land use plans. 

10-84 Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government and land use plans. 

10-85 The requested edit has been made to Section 3.12 of the Final EA. 

10-86 The General Plan objectives described in detail by the commenter are currently summarized in 

Section 3.12 of the EA. This summary is adequate for the analysis of impacts in Section 4.0 of 

the EA. 

10-87 Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government and land use plans and 3.1.7 

regarding visual resources. There are no homes proposed to be constructed within the designated 

Scenic Landscape Unit (APNs 066-300-028 and 066-300-033). 

10-88 Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government and land use plans and 3.1.7 

regarding visual resources. 

10-89 Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government and land use plans and 3.1.7

regarding visual resources. 

10-90 Please see General Response 3.1.14 regarding cumulative issues. 

10-91 Please see above specific responses to this summary comment. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 11 – TOWN OF WINDSOR PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE 

SPECIALIST 

11-1 Please see General Response 3.1.1 regarding extension of the comment period. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-41 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 12 – RICHARD RUDNANSKY, WINDSOR TOWN 

ATTORNEY & WINDSOR WATER DISTRICT 

GENERAL COUNSEL 

12-1 Please see General Response 3.1.1 regarding extension of the comment period and 3.1.15 

regarding non-circulation of Appendices F and J. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 13 – WINDSOR TOWN MANAGER 

13-1 Please see General Response 3.1.1 regarding extension of the comment period. Specific 

responses are provided below to this summary comment. 

13-2 Comment noted. 

13-3 Please see General Response 3.1.5 regarding the project description and 3.1.11 regarding the 

range of project alternatives. The purpose and need statement in Section 1.3 of the EA notes the 

need for a long-term, viable, and sustainable solution to the Tribe’s lack of a land base. 

 

13-4 Please see General Response 3.1.11 regarding project alternatives. 

13-5 Attempting to develop the property without taking the land into trust would not meet the Tribe’s 

need to develop a Tribal land base. Please see General Response 3.1.11 regarding project 

alternatives and 3.1.12 regarding local government and land use plans. 

13-6 Please see General Response 3.1.11 regarding project alternatives. 

13-7 Please see General Response 3.1.8 regarding climate change and greenhouse gases. Additional 

water conservation, LEED standards and disabled persons accessibility BMPs have been added to 

Section 2.0 of the Final EA. Section 2.0 of the EA contains a BMP stating that the Tribe would 

comply with design standards equivalent to all building codes adopted in Sonoma County. Note, 

however that the purpose of the BMPs in Section 2.0 is not to ensure that all impacts are 

mitigated, but to note the BMPs that would be followed as part of each alternative development. 

Please see Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of the EA for an analysis of potential impacts and for a 

description of mitigation measures necessary to ensure a less than significant impact. 

 

13-8 Please see General Response 3.1.2 regarding water/wastewater service from the Town of 

Windsor. 

13-9 Comment noted. Please see General Response 3.1.1 regarding extension of the comment period. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-42 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

13-10 The biodiversity document noted by the commenter was issued as guidance and explicitly states 

that; 

“The report does not establish new requirements for such analyses. It is 

not, and should not be viewed as, formal CEQ guidance on this matter, 

nor are the recommendations in the report intended to be legally 

binding. The report does not mean to suggest that biodiversity analyses 

should be included in every NEPA document, without regard to the 

degree of potential impact on biodiversity of the action under review.” 

As stated in Section 3.4.3 of the EA; State and/or California Native Plant Society (CNPS)-listed 

species typically do not receive specific protection on trust lands and are not necessarily afforded 

protection under the FESA. However, State and CNPS listed species were evaluated in terms of 

their overall contribution to the biodiversity of the project site and for the purpose of providing 

general information that is pertinent to the Proposed Project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and CNPS database research lists of 

regionally occurring special-status species are included for reference purposes in the BA (EA 

Appendix E), with an overall evaluation of the potential for State and CNPS-listed species to 

occur within the project site provided in Attachment B to the BA. In addition, please see 

Response to Comment 21-7 with reference to the evaluation of Federal, State and CNPS listed 

species. 

13-11 The commenter implies, but does not substantiate their claim, that the Description of the Effected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences sections of the EA fail to meet the requirements 

set forth in the BIA NEPA handbook; Sections 4.4 E (4) and 4.4 F (as referenced in Comment 

13-10). Section 3.4 of the EA sufficiently details the effected environment to the level of detail 

required in Section 4.4 E (4 a-d) of the BIA NEPA handbook as all terrestrial and aquatic 

habitats, federally threatened or endangered species and State or CNPS-listed species were 

evaluated in terms of their overall contribution to the biodiversity of the project site and for the 

purpose of providing general information that is pertinent to the Proposed Project. Impacts 

discussion for non-federal special status species has been expanded in Section 4.1.4 of the Final 

EA. The USFWS, CNDDB, and CNPS database research lists of regionally occurring specialstatus species are included for reference purposes in the BA (EA Appendix E), with an overall 

evaluation of the potential for State and CNPS-listed species to occur within the project site 

provided in Attachment B to the BA. 

In addition, the significance criteria used in the EA (as referenced by the commenter) evaluates 

all habitats and biological communities onsite including oak woodlands, wetlands as well as all 

regionally occurring special status species and migratory birds. Further, Section 3.4.4 of the EA 

(discussion of special status species) clearly does not limit the evaluation of potentially occurring 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-43 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

species to only federally listed species (Table 3-9), as noted in Table 3-10 - Regionally 

Occurring Non-Federal Special Status Species. Therefore, the analysis of biological resources 

was not limited to only federally protected species or habitats as suggested by the commenter. 

Please see Response to Comment 10-15. 

13-12 The commenter incorrectly references the text from Section 3.4.3, p. 3-22 of the EA which reads; 

“State and/or CNPS-listed species typically do not receive specific protection on 

Indian trust lands and are not necessarily afforded protection under the FESA. 

However, State and CNPS listed species were evaluated in terms of their overall 

contribution to the biodiversity of the project site and for the purpose of 

providing general information that is pertinent to the Proposed Project.” 

In addition, please refer to Responses to Comments 13-10, 13-11, 13-12 and 21-7 related to 

biological impact analyses and significance criteria used in the EA. 

13-13 Comments noted. It is accepted that potential offsite project related impacts may be pursuant to 

State, County and local regulations. The commenter implies that pollutants will be discharged 

from the project to downstream receiving waters which will impact fisheries resources and 

federally-designated Critical Habitat in the Russian River. The commenter fails to identify the 

source or constituents of these “pollutants,” therefore a detailed response cannot be offered. 

Please refer to Responses to Comments 10-16, 10-18 and 10-19 regarding potential impacts to 

salmonids. Additionally, please refer to the Stream Characterization report provided as 

Appendix L of the Final EA, which addresses all potential impacts to aquatic resources of the 

waters downstream of the project site relative to tertiary treated wastewater disposal to onsite 

surface waters. 

13-14 Please refer to the Stream Characterization report provided as Appendix L of the Final EA, 

which addresses all potential impacts to aquatic resources of the waters downstream of the project 

site relative to tertiary treated wastewater disposal to onsite surface waters. USEPA NPDES 

permits in the Russian River watershed typically adhere to the water quality standards set forth in 

the North Coast Basin Plan. This ensures that the design of the treatment facility will meet these 

standards, therefore no significant impact would occur. Please also see Response to Comment 

8-5. 

13-15 Please see General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak trees. 

13-16 Comment noted. Development of the project will require a USEPA general construction permit 

and the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan as described in Sections 2.1.9
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-44 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

and 5.2 of the EA. In addition, the Grading and Drainage Report provided as Appendix A of the 

EA details the effects of the development on stormwater flows both pre and post construction for 

alternatives A-C. The implementation of the measures outlined in the sections of the EA noted 

above will ensure that potential impacts associated with sediment transport in storm flows are 

reduced to less than significant. Sections 4.1.2, 4.2.2, and 4.3.2 of the Final EA includes an 

analysis of the impacts of stormwater runoff on surface water quality. Mitigation measures 

contained in Final EA Section 5.2 would ensure impacts to stormwater runoff are less than 

significant. 

13-17 Please see General Response 3.1.8 regarding climate change and greenhouse gases. 

13-18 Please see General Response 3.1.8 regarding climate change and greenhouse gases. 

13-19 Please see General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak trees. Impacts to trees 

exceeding nine inches diameter at breast height were evaluated, as detailed in Section 4.1.4 and 

Table 4-8 of the Final EA. 

13-20 Please see General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak trees. As the proposed 

project is surrounded to the north and south by agriculture (primarily vineyards) and on the east 

by the Town of Windsor, wildlife movement is presumed to be concentrated along the western 

end of the project site towards the Russian River riparian corridor. As the proposed 

developments for all alternatives is focused on the central and eastern portions of the project site 

(little development is proposed on the western-most portion of the site), impacts to habitat 

corridors and wildlife movement would be less than significant. Please refer to General 

Response 3.1.2 regarding potential impacts to surface waters and Response to Comment 13-13

regarding potential impacts to watersheds. 

13-21 Comment noted. Please see General Response 3.1.4 regarding traffic impacts and modeling. 

13-22 Please see General Response 3.1.5 regarding the project description, 3.1.4 regarding traffic 

issues and Response to Comment 10-43. 

13-23 As stated in Appendix G of the EA, “It should also be noted that an overall review of traffic 

operations and safety was conducted at all of the project driveways including the two minor 

driveways that would be located near the intersection of Windsor River Road and Eastside Road. 

The review indicated the project would not result in any significant traffic safety or operational 

problems at any of these locations.” Please see General Response 3.1.4 regarding traffic impacts 

and modeling. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-45 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

13-24 There would not be enough pedestrian traffic to justify additional sidewalks given the relatively 

long walk to any likely destinations and given that the existing sidewalk on the north side of 

Windsor River Road could be utilized. Pedestrians can legally cross at any nearby intersection on 

Windsor River Road. 

13-25 It is common that cycle lengths are adjusted as traffic volumes at an intersection increase or 

decrease given that cycle length timing is a relatively easy way to optimize intersection 

operations. Thus, it is reasonable and common for traffic studies to assume that cycle lengths will 

be optimized in analyzing intersection operations. Please see General Response 3.1.4 regarding 

traffic impacts and modeling. 

13-26 Please see Response to Comment 13-23. The referenced safety evaluation included a line of 

sight analysis which revealed no line of sight issues. Appendix G of the Final EA has been 

modified to clarify that the safety analysis included a line of sight analysis. 

13-27 Please see Response to Comment 13-23. Appendix G of the Final EA has been modified to 

specifically note that left-turn pockets are not required. 

13-28 Comment noted regarding the minor typographical errors in Appendix G of the EA, which do not 

result in any errors in the analysis. Nonetheless, the referenced error has been corrected 

throughout the Final EA as suggested. 

13-29 Please see General Response 3.1.2 regarding water and wastewater service. 

13-30 Please see General Responses 3.1.10 regarding groundwater issues and 3.1.14 regarding 

cumulative issues. 

13-31 Please see General Response 3.1.10 regarding groundwater issues and Responses to Comments 

8-24 and 10-21. Should the project be connected to the Town of Windsor water system, the 

Town would have the ability to enforce water conservation measures through the control of the 

water supply to the project subject to the agreement for services between the Town and the Tribe. 

13-32 Please see General Response 3.1.10 regarding groundwater issues and Responses to Comments 

8-4, 8-24, and 10-21. 

13-33 Please see General Response 3.1.2 regarding wastewater discharge and Responses to 

Comments 8-5 and 8-6 regarding enforceability of the USEPA-issued NPDES permit, which 

would take into consideration potential erosional impacts to adjacent roads. As stated in Section 

4.1.2 of the EA, the proposed effluent discharge would not have any significant stormwater or 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-46 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

flooding impacts especially considering the BMPs that would ensure pre-project level drainage 

from the site (see Appendix A of the EA). Nonetheless, an additional mitigation measure has 

been added to Section 5.2 of the Final EA to require that wastewater discharges be reduced or 

eliminated during the issuance of an urban and small stream flood advisory by the National 

Weather Service. 

13-34 Please see Response to Comment 13-33. 

13-35 Please see Responses to Comments 13-32 and 13-33. 

13-36 Please see Responses to Comments 13-31, 13-32, and 13-33. 

13-37 As refined in Section 2.2 of the Final EA, reclamation and reuse will be a portion of any project 

that includes on-site wastewater treatment. Please see Responses to Comments 8-8 and 13-32. 

 

13-38 Please see above responses to this summary comment, General Response 3.1.2 regarding 

water/wastewater service, as well as Response to Comment 8-2. 

13-39 Please see General Responses 3.1.11 regarding project alternatives and 3.1.12 regarding local 

governmental land use plans. 

13-40 Please see General Responses 3.1.12 regarding local governmental land use plans and 3.1.12

regarding county services. 

13-41 Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local governmental land use plans and 3.1.7

regarding visual resources. 

 

13-42 Please see General Responses 3.1.10 regarding groundwater and 3.1.12 regarding local 

governmental land use plans, as well as Responses to Comments 7-2, 10-56, and 13-33. 

 

13-43 Please see General Response 3.1.12. As clarified in Section 4.1.8 of the Final EA, the 

development would be generally compatible but not specifically consistent with surrounding land 

uses, which are largely residential with a mixture of agricultural and open space land uses. 

13-44 Comment noted. Specific responses are provided below to this summary comment; please see 

General Response 3.1.13 regarding public services.. 

13-45 Section 4.1.9 of the EA includes an estimate of solid waste that would be generated on a regular 

basis by the project components, including the community center. NEPA does not require 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-47 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

speculation on solid waste that would be generated infrequently from unknown events or 

gatherings. Section 4.1.9 of the EA states that most Tribal members that would be project 

residents and employees already are expected to already live within the County. The EA does not 

claim that Tribal members reside solely in Sonoma County. 

13-46 Contrary to the contention of the commenter, Section 4.1.9 of the EA states only that the solid 

waste would be sent to landfills used by Windsor Refuse and Recycling. Please see Response to 

Comment 13-45. Windsor Refuse and Recycling collection trucks hold 25 cubic yards of waste 

or around 10 tons (20,000 pounds) of compressed waste. Using information provided in Section 

4.1.9 of the EA (Alternative A contains the highest amount of solid waste production), the project 

could produce approximately 8,700 pounds per week. This waste would amount to less than half 

of one collection truck trip per week. An additional truck trip of no more than one truck per week 

would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. 

Section 3.9.3 of the EA contains a discussion of the affected environment. It does not purport to 

contain any impact analysis. Such analysis is confined to Section 4.0. Nonetheless, although AB 

939 requirements would technically not apply on trust land, Windsor Refuse and Recycling 

would have the ability to enforce solid waste reduction measures through the control of solid 

waste collection, subject to the agreement for services with the Tribe. In any case, the 

development would not affect diversion goals as waste from tribal land is classified as out-ofstate waste and is not calculated in local waste diversion statistics. 

 

13-47 Section 4.1.9 of the EA correctly states that the project would include recreation areas and multiuse trails and not that Windsor parks would not be used, but that no adverse impacts would occur 

at local parks. 

13-48 Comment noted. Please see Response to Comment 13-47. 

13-49 Comment noted. Please see Response to Comment 13-47. 

13-50 Please see Response to Comment 13-47. Tribal members residing outside of the Town of 

Windsor city limits would be subject to the same restrictions on uses (or additional fees) that the 

Town has the ability to impose on non-tribal members residing outside of the city limits. 

13-51 Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government and land use plans and

Response to Comment 13-47. 

13-52 Comment noted. Please see Response to Comment 13-47. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-48 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

13-53 Comment noted. Please see Responses to Comments 13-47 and 13-50. 

13-54 Please see above for specific responses to this general comment on parks and recreation. 

Regarding law enforcement services, Section 3.9.5 of the EA correctly notes the extent of Public 

Law 280 jurisdiction, which does not extend to civil law authority. U.S. Marshals may provide 

support for areas of law enforcement not subject to Public Law 280 jurisdiction. An analysis of 

law enforcement services impacts is contained in Section 4.1.9 of the EA. Also, see Response to 

Comment 13-47. 

13-55 The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is the local agency that 

would provide service to the site and would therefore be impacted most directly by the project. 

Thus, reimbursement for services under the agreement attached as Appendix I of the EA would 

ensure no significant impacts to fire protection services. 

13-56 Section 4.1.9 of the Final EA further notes that several ambulance companies provide services in 

the area. Furthermore, ambulance services are generally privately funded. Thus, ambulance 

companies are able to respond to increases in demand with additional resources. 

13-57 Please see General Response 3.1.6 regarding impacts to local schools. 

13-58 As noted in Section 5.12 of the EA, no visual resources mitigation measures are required for the 

EA. Please see General Response 3.1.7 regarding visual resources. 

13-59 High-density residential zoning is contained elsewhere within the Town of Windsor UGB 

northeast of the project site. Language has been revised to reference low-density residential 

zoning in Section 3.6.1 and 3.8 of the Final EA. Please see Section 4.1.6 of the Final EA for an 

analysis of property tax impacts, which are appropriately noted to be less than significant based 

on context and intensity. The fact that Sonoma County does not keep all of the property taxes 

collected only further supports a conclusion that the impact is less than significant given that the 

amounts collected are diffused through several divisions of government. Statements of 

demographic trends, lifestyles, and community infrastructure and impacts to the same are 

discussed throughout Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of the EA as relevant to the analysis of environmental 

impacts required by NEPA. Please also see General Response 3.1.11 regarding project 

alternatives and 3.1.12 regarding local government land use plans. 

13-60 Please see Response to Comment 8-3 regarding responsible entity and enforceability of 

mitigation measures. 

13-61 Please see General Response 3.1.8 regarding climate change and greenhouse gases. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-49 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

13-62 Please see General Response 3.1.8 regarding climate change and greenhouse gases. 

13-63 Please see General Response 3.1.8 regarding climate change and greenhouse gases. 

13-64 Please see General Response 3.1.8 and Response to Comment 8-2. 

13-65 Comment noted. 

13-66 Please see General Response 3.1.14 regarding cumulative issues. 

13-67 Comment noted. Please see General Response 3.1.14 regarding cumulative issues. Many 

impacts to resources, including water resources, traffic, noise, and air quality are by nature 

cumulative in analysis. Thus, cumulative analysis is contained in other portions of Section 4.0 of 

the EA besides Section 4.5. For example, rather than attempting to analyze traffic impacts as 

compared to isolated standards of significance based on project trips generated, impacts to 

cumulative intersection traffic were considered. Cumulative air impacts are further discussed in 

Section 4.5.3 but reference cumulative discussion elsewhere in Section 4.0 of the Final EA. 

13-68 Please see General Response 3.1.14 regarding cumulative issues and Response to Comments 

10-15, 10-19 and 13-20. Please see revised Sections 4.1.4 and 4.5.4 of the Final EA for an 

analysis of biological impacts in the area due to cumulative development. 

13-69 Please see General Response 3.1.14 regarding cumulative issues and Response to Comment 8-

2. 

13-70 As noted in Section 4.6.1 of the EA and further discussed in General Response 3.1.2 regarding 

water/ wastewater service, utility infrastructure would not be significantly improved or expanded 

to increase service availability to any areas surrounding the project site. In addition, the areas 

within Town of Windsor UGB and Sonoma County General Plan jurisdiction would not be 

required to adjust their plans. Thus, there would be no significant growth inducing impacts. 

13-71 Please see specific responses above to this summary comment. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 14 – WINDSOR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

14-1 Comment noted. Please see Responses to Comments 14-4 through 14-11 below. 

14-2 Comment noted. The project site has been expanded, as described in Section 1.0 of the Final EA. 

Since the public comment period, the Tribe has purchased an additional 32.12 acres (seven 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-50 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

parcels) discussed in further detail in Section 2.0 of the Final EA. These seven parcels were 

added to the fee-to-trust application and housing project site plan alternatives. Therefore, 

Alternative A consists of placing a 124.14-acre site (14 parcels) into Federal trust status for the 

Tribe, and construction of 147 residential units and associated facilities (Section 2.0). 

14-3 Comment noted. Please see General Response 3.1.6. Please see Responses to Comments 14-4

through 14-11 below. 

14-4 As stated in Section 3.6.2 of the Draft EA, “statistical information for the Lytton Rancheria was 

obtained from the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Population and Labor Force Report, 2005 (U.S. 

Department of the Interior, 2005),” which represents the most recent tribal demographic data 

available. The Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Population and Labor Force Report does not include an 

estimation of the number of school-aged children within the Tribe. Section 4.1.9 of the Final EA 

has been expanded to further clarify the number of students anticipated to enroll in the Windsor 

Unified School District (WUSD) as a result of the Proposed Project. At the enrollment rates 

historically observed within the Town of Windsor, the Proposed Project is anticipated to result in 

approximately 89 new students requiring enrollment in WUSD upon completion of the project in 

2015; however, because some of the residents may be relocating from within the Town of 

Windsor, this is considered a worst-case estimate of potential impacts to enrollment (Final EA

Section 4.1.9). Please see General Response 3.1.6 for further discussion of potential impacts to 

the WUSD. 

14-5 Please see General Response 3.1.6 regarding potential impacts to the WUSD. 

14-6 As stated in Section 3.6.2 of the Draft EA, there were 123 individuals under the age of 16 in 

2005, which may include individuals too young to attend school. As discussed in Response to 

Comment 14-4, a more accurate estimate of the number of school-age children in the Tribe is not 

available. At the enrollment rates historically observed within the Town of Windsor described in 

Section 4.1.9 of the Final EA, the Proposed Project is anticipated to result in approximately 89 

new students requiring enrollment in WUSD upon completion of the project in 2015; however, 

because some of the residents may be relocating from within the Town of Windsor, this is 

considered a worst-case estimate of potential impacts to enrollment (Section 4.1.9; Final EA). 

Given that any anticipated new students would be distributed across all grade levels between 

kindergarten through the continuation school as well as across several schools within the WUSD; 

89 new students would be a nominal impact to WUSD. The potential increase in enrollment 

would not significantly affect the ability of WUSD to provide education services at existing 

levels. Please see General Response 3.1.6 for further discussion of potential impacts to the 

WUSD. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-51 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

 The Commenter cites a projected increase in enrollment that is based off of information in the 

Facilities Utilization Master Plan (FUMP) for 2006-2011, which has since been revised and 

updated with more recent information. According to the WUSD’s most recent FUMP (2011 

through 2015), 1,236 new housing units were identified as proposed new development projects as 

of October 1, 2010 (WUSD, 2010a). According to recent correspondence with the WUSD, only 

permitted projects are included in these estimates; projects in the planning phase, without a 

permit allocation by the Town of Windsor, have not been included (WUSD, 2010b). However, as 

acknowledged in the 2011-2015 FUMP, there may be additional development beyond the number 

of housing units identified. As stated by the WUSD, California Basic Educational Data System 

(CBEDS) data depicting recent trends in WUSD enrollment was used to forecast the number of 

students through the 2019/2020 school year (WUSD, 2010b). In order to accommodate the 

sustained growth in enrollment that is projected in the FUMP, it must be assumed that there will 

be other development projects that are currently unpermitted but will be constructed in Windsor 

prior to 2020. Therefore, currently unpermitted development projects, such as the Proposed 

Project, have been indirectly accounted for in the FUMP in order to sustain the projections 

contained therein. 

14-7 Please see General Response 3.1.6. As stated in Section 1.4 of the EA, an EA is used to 

determine whether the Proposed Action will result in adverse effects to the environment. Under 

NEPA, the Affected Environment is defined as the existing environment to be affected by a 

proposed action (40 CFR 1502.15). Therefore, in compliance with NEPA, the EA serves to 

analyze potential impacts to the environment compared to the conditions prior to the project’s 

construction. 

14-8 Please see Response to Comment 14-7 regarding the analysis of existing conditions in the EA. 

Additionally, the market value for each of the 147 projected housing units has not been estimated; 

the market value for the units would vary relative to the size and features of each unit. 

14-9 Please see General Response 3.1.6, and Response to Comment 14-7 regarding the analysis of 

existing conditions in the EA. 

14-10 Please see General Response 3.1.6 and Response to Comment 14-6. As concluded in Section 

4.1.9 of the Final EA, the potential increase in enrollment in the WUSD would not be anticipated 

to significantly affect the ability of WUSD to provide education services at existing levels; 

therefore, no mitigation is necessary. There are no plans for expansion or additional development 

in the near or distant future. Although future development is possible, it is not reasonably 

foreseeable under NEPA. NEPA does not require speculation on the type and scope of 

development which may or may not occur at some point in the future. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-52 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

14-11 Please see Response to Comment 14-10. 

14-12 Comment noted. Please see Responses to Comments 14-4 through 14-11 above. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 15 – BILL MCCORMICK 

15-1 Please see General Response 3.1.1 regarding extension of the comment period. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 16 – BILL MCCORMICK, WINDSOR WEST RESIDENTS 

COMMITTEE 

16-1 Please see below for specific responses to this summary comment. 

 

16-2 Comment noted. Long term, cumulative impacts are analyzed in Section 4.5 of the EA. Please 

see General Responses 3.1.1 regarding extension of the comment period and 3.1.16 regarding 

expressions of opinions, as well as Response to Comment 3-3. Electronic copies and a limited 

number of paper copies of the EA were distributed to the public upon request at no cost. In 

addition, paper copies of the EA were available for public review at the Lytton Rancheria Tribal 

Administration Office in Santa Rosa and at the Windsor Public Library in Windsor. Finally, the 

EA was published on the internet on the AES website. 

16-3 NEPA does not require the analysis of purely economic impacts. Nonetheless, please see the 

analysis of socioeconomic and land use impacts for each alternative in Sections 4.1.6 and 4.1.8 of 

the EA. As noted in the EA, no significant socioeconomic impacts or land use conflicts would 

occur under any of the development alternatives. Effects on property values are difficult to 

determine without speculation, which NEPA does not require. It is possible that the introduction 

of a new, attractively designed housing development would increase the value of neighboring 

properties attracting buyers preferring to live in an upscale residential neighborhood or attracting 

investors intending to subdivide larger parcels to develop properties for rural residential purposes, 

consistent with land use regulations. Another possibility is that the development will both detract 

and attract prospective buyers of neighboring properties, tending to neutralize the effect on 

property values. 

 

16-4 Please see Response to Comment 8-2 and General Response 3.1.5 regarding the project 

description. 

16-5 Please see Responses to Comments 10-75 and 10-76. 

16-6 Please see General Response 3.1.2 regarding water/ wastewater service.
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-53 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

16-7 Please see Responses to Comments 13-23 and 13-26 regarding traffic on Windsor River Road 

and line of sight. 

16-8 Please see General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak trees. 

16-9 An analysis of impacts to visual resources is contained in Sections 4.1.12, 4.2.12 and 4.3.12 of 

the EA. 

16-10 Please see Responses to Comment Letter 8 for responses to the RWQCB’s comments on the 

EA. Please also see General Response 3.1.2 regarding wastewater discharge.

16-11 Please see Response to Comment 10-73. 

16-12 Please see Response to Comment 8-18. As noted in Appendix B of the EA, the on-site seasonal 

storage basin has been sized to accommodate flows consistent with 100-year annual rainfall 

conditions, with an additional two feet of available freeboard during such a year. Thus, even 

during winters with well above normal precipitation (more than double the normal annual 

rainfall) there would be more than enough capacity to ensure that overflow does not occur. 

 

16-13 Comment noted. 

16-14 Comment noted. Impacts to groundwater and surface water from Alternatives B and C would be 

less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures detailed in Section 5.2 of the EA. 

16-15 Comment noted. 

16-16 Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local governmental land use plans. 

16-17 Comment noted. Please refer to General Responses 3.1.6 regarding impacts to local school and 

3.1.13 regarding public services. 

16-18 Please see Response to Comment 16-9. 

16-19 As noted in Section 3.1 of the EA, a geologic/geotechnical investigation and report was 

performed for the EA. This report has been provided as Appendix M of the Final EA. Contrary 

to the contention of the commenter, the report was conducted on the 62 acre upland portion of the 

site, which was subjected to more detailed geotechnical review due to the varied topography and 

proposed housing and road alignments. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-54 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

16-20 As noted in Section 3.1.4 of the EA, soil types on site and surrounding the site were largely found 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service soil survey to 

have “moderately high” hydraulic conductivity. Only one soil type on the site (Alluvial LandClayey approximately two percent of the site) was found to have “very high” hydraulic 

conductivity. In addition, BMPs required by Section 5.1 of the EA will ensure focused on-site 

testing will occur prior to construction. 

 

16-21 As described in Section 3.1.4 of the EA, sufficient data is available to determine the risk of 

liquefaction is low without conducting several subsurface explorations throughout the site. 

Although the reference to the USGS landslide potential assessment is made in Section 3.1.4 of 

the EA, the EA goes on to describe two specific landslides that have occurred on-site. Thus, the 

EA does not rely wholly on the USGS landslide potential assessment. 

16-22 Please see Response to Comment 13-33. 

16-23 Please see Response to Comment 13-33. Potential impacts to flooding are analyzed under 

Sections 4.1.2, 4.2.2, and 4.3.2 of the EA. 

16-24 Please see EA Sections 4.1.2, 4.2.2, and 4.3.2 and the Stream Characterization report (Appendix 

L of the Final EA) for an analysis of impacts to surface water quality. Additionally, please refer 

to General Response 3.1.2 regarding wastewater discharge. 

16-25 Appendix B of the EA notes that treatment to remove arsenic and manganese would be required 

before on-site water sources could be used for drinking water and to comply with drinking water 

standards. Section 2.2.2 of the Final EA has been revised to discuss this treatment facility. 

16-26 Please see Response to Comment 10-49. The number of sensitive receptors fitting this 

description has been revised in Section 3.0 of the Final EA in response to comments and the 

addition of seven parcels to the fee-to-trust application. 

16-27 Comment noted. Please refer to Response to Comment 6-2. 

16-28 Please refer to Responses to Comments 13-10, 13-11, 13-12 and 21-7 with reference to the 

current botanical survey results outlined in Attachment E to the BA (Appendix B to the Final 

EA) for the evaluation of State and CNPS listed plant species. 

16-29 Please refer to Responses to Comments 16-28 above. Please also see Responses to Comments 

8-3, 10-16, 10-18, 10-19 and 13-13 regarding analysis of impacts to aquatic species. The 

commenter has misinterpreted the text from the EA document. The commenter’s quote of the EA 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-55 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

text reads “there is not enough habitat complexity to support aquatic organisms”, when in fact the 

text in the document reads “As detailed in the BA (Appendix E), the aquatic habitats onsite do 

not provide enough habitat complexity to support a diverse assemblage of aquatic organisms.” 

The Biological Assessment is a document prepared for consultation with the USFWS strictly for 

federally listed species with the potential to occur onsite; no federally listed bat species were 

identified to have the potential to occur onsite. 

16-30 Comment noted. The purpose of the EA cultural resources analysis is to analyze the potential for 

impacts to existing cultural resources, not to determine the Tribe’s historic or prehistoric 

connection to the land. 

16-31 Comment Noted. The commenter is correct in that the project area may be underlain by the Glen 

Ellen geological formation, which has the potential to contain fossils. A search of the UCMP 

database shows that of the 503 localities that contain paleontological remains in Sonoma County 

only one locality of the Glen Ellen formation produced fossils. Field reconnaissance surveys of 

the project area that took place between 2007,and 2010 did not reveal the presence of any 

paleontological resources within the project area. It remains unlikely that excavation for the 

Project, which includes shallow surface grading and trenching for utilities, will reach a depth as 

to impact paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are unearthed during ground 

disturbing activities, mitigation measures included in Section 5.5 will reduce the project’s 

impacts to a less than a significant level. 

 

16-32 The information in the EA is correct in its statement that “Densities for development in Rural 

Residential (RR) areas range from 1 to 20 acres per dwelling (SCZC, 1993a).” This statement in 

the EA does not directly state the project site has a one to 20 housing to acreage ratio. Zoning 

density for RR, under Sonoma County, on the project site is designated at 1 dwelling per 5 acres. 

Please refer to General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government and land use plans. 

Five parcels are within the Windsor UGB and four are designated as an “Agricultural Buffer” 

with on-site storm water detention. However, as stated in the Town of Windsor General Plan 

2015 Policy B.2.2, “If however, the existing agricultural property lies inside the Urban Growth 

Boundary and is anticipated to be converted to another non-agricultural use designation according 

to the General Plan, then the buffer would be temporary. When the interim agricultural area is 

converted to the non-agricultural use designation, the intermediate buffer area may convert to its 

underlying land use designation.” 

16-33 Use of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form (Appendix H of the EA) is an integral part 

of the Farmland Protection Policy Act’s purpose to minimize the impact of federal programs on 

farmland. The lack of a local site assessment does not invalidate the results of the rating. The 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-56 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

updated rating form with the addition of seven parcels totaling 124.12 acres is provided in 

Appendix H of the Final EA. 

16-34 Please see Section 4.5.10 of the EA for an analysis of cumulative noise impacts. The noise 

generated on-site would not significantly increase in the future. Please see Section 4.1.10 of the 

EA for an analysis of expected on-site noise generation. 

16-35 Please see Section 4.1.12 of the EA for an analysis of impacts to visual resources, and General 

Response 3.1.7 pertaining to visual resources. Please also refer to Responses to Comments 10-

87 and 16-9. 

16-36 Please see Response to Comment 16-35. 

16-37 Please see Responses to Comment Letter 14 for responses to comments from the WUSD. 

Please also General Response 3.1.6. 

16-38 A robust 72-hour step drawdown test was conducted as detailed in Appendix C of the EA. A 72-

hour test is more than sufficient to characterize the effect of proposed water supply wells on the 

water table. Please also refer to General Response 3.1.10 regarding groundwater issues. 

 

16-39 Please see Response to Comment 8-2 and General Response 3.1.2 regarding wastewater 

discharge. 

16-40 Please refer to Response to Comment 8-26. As noted elsewhere in Section 4.2.2 and in Section 

5.0 of the EA, proper treatment and application of wastewater would occur, ensuring no 

significant impacts to groundwater quality. 

16-41 Please see Sections 4.2.3 and 4.3.3 of the EA for an analysis of odor impacts from the proposed 

WTRF, concluding that the proposed use of an odor control system would ensure the minimal 

release of odors. 

16-42 As noted in Appendix B of the EA, dewatered biosolids will be hauled off-site to a landfill. 

16-43 Please see Section 4.0 of the EA for an analysis of potential impacts to fire protection services, as 

well as General Response 3.1.13 pertaining to public services. Please also see Responses to 

Comments 10-64, 10-68, 10-72 and 13-55. 

16-44 An analysis of peak hour trips is most important to the analysis of worst case traffic-related 

impacts. Please see Sections 4.1.10, 4.2.10, and 4.3.10 of the EA for an analysis of noise impacts 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-57 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

due to increased traffic on local roadways. Please also see Responses to Comments 10-56, 13-

23 and 13-26. 

 

16-45 Comment noted. Please see above specific responses to this summary comment. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 17 – ROBERT E. CRAWFORD, MEMBER OF WINDSOR 

WEST RESIDENTS COMMITTEE 

17-1 Please see General Response 3.1.1 regarding extension of the comment period. 

17-2 Comment noted. It is not possible to respond to this comment without further information 

regarding the reasons behind the commenter’s statement that the Tribe’s application and EA are 

fatally flawed. 

17-3 Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government land use plans. Further, the 

Final EA provides that fire alarm and suppression systems installed shall conform to design 

standards equivalent to the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes as amended 

and adopted by Sonoma County, that on-site development shall be generally consistent with 

Sonoma County Fire Safe Standards Sections 13-54 through 13-59, and that all structures would 

be constructed in accordance with design standards equivalent to all Building Codes, as adopted 

or supplemented by Sonoma County (Final EA Sections 2.1.7, 2.1.9, 4.1, 4.2.9, 4.3.8, 5.9). 

 

17-4 Comment noted. Please see General Response 3.1.11 regarding project alternatives and purpose 

and need of the Tribe. 

17-5 Please see General Response 3.1.1 regarding extension of the comment period. 

17-6 Please see General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak trees. 

17-7 Please see General Response 3.1.1 regarding extension of the comment period. 

17-8 Please see General Response 3.1.2 regarding water and wastewater service. 

17-9 Please see General Response 3.1.11 regarding project alternatives. 

17-10 Please see General Response 3.1.1 regarding extension of the comment period. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-58 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 18 – ROBERT AND DONNA CRAWFORD, WINDSOR WEST 

RESIDENTS COMMITTEE 

18-1 Comment noted. Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government and land use 

plans. 

18-2 Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government land use plans and Response to 

Comment 17-3 regarding local building and fire codes. 

18-3 Impacts from both the construction and operation phase of the proposed project are fully 

discussed throughout Section 4.0 of the EA. Mitigation measures for both the construction and 

operation phase are discussed to fully mitigate impacts to less than significant levels in Section 

5.0 of the EA. 

18-4 Please see Response to Comment 13-33 and General Response 3.1.2 regarding wastewater 

discharge. 

18-5 Section 4.0 of the EA contains a thorough and accurate analysis of potential impacts to visual 

resources, including impacts to local residents. 

18-6 Please see Responses to Comments 10-59, 10-61 and 16-34. 

18-7 Please see revised Section 4.1.8 of the Final EA for an analysis of potential conflicts between 

residential and agricultural land uses. As noted in Section 4.1.8, the Sonoma County Right-toFarm Ordinance would continue to protect neighboring farmers from potential nuisance lawsuits. 

18-8 An analysis of wetland impacts, both on-site and potential off-site indirect impacts, is contained 

in and clarified in Section 4.1.4 of the Final EA. Mitigation measures described in Section 5.4.1

of the Final EA would ensure impacts to wetlands are less than significant. 

18-9 Please refer to Responses to Comments 13-10, 13-11, 13-12 and 21-7 with reference to the 

current botanical survey results outlined in Attachment E to the BA (Appendix B to the Final 

EA) for the evaluation of State and CNPS listed plant species. Potential impacts to protected 

species are discussed in further detail in Section 4.1.4 of the Final EA. Section 5.4 of the EA 

contains mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate impacts to these species. 

18-10 Please see General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak trees. 

18-11 Comment noted. Please see General Responses 3.1.11 regarding project alternatives and 3.1.12

regarding local government and land use plans. Please also refer to Section 4.0 of the EA for an 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-59 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

analysis of potential impacts related to the community center, access, and local agencies and 

Response to Comment 13-3. 

18-12 Please see General Responses 3.1.2 regarding water and wastewater service, and 3.1.11 

regarding project alternatives. 

18-13 Please see General Response 3.1.2 regarding water and wastewater service and Response to 

Comment 13-70. 

18-14 Please see above specific responses to this summary comment, as well as General Response 

3.1.12 regarding local government and land use plans. Please also see Response to Comment 8-

2. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 19 – DENISE AND JANE KRAL 

19-1 Please see Sections 4.1.7, 4.1.10, 4.2.7, 4.2.10, 4.3.7, and 4.3.10 of the EA for a thorough 

analysis of traffic and noise impacts. Please refer to General Response 3.1.4 regarding traffic 

modeling, and Responses to Comments 10-59 and 16-34 regarding noise impacts 

19-2 Please see General Response 3.1.6 regarding impacts to local schools. 

19-3 Please see General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak trees. 

19-4 Please see General Response 3.1.2 regarding wastewater discharge, Responses to Comment 

Letter 8 from the RWQCB, and Responses to Comments 10-16 and 10-18. 

19-5 Please see Sections 4.1.4, 4.2.4, and 4.3.4 of the EA for an analysis of impacts to wildlife. Please 

also refer to General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak trees, and Responses to 

Comments 6-2, 10-15, 13-11 and 13-12. 

19-6 Comment noted. Please see Sections 4.1.10, 4.2.10, and 4.3.10 of the EA for an analysis of 

impacts to noise, which would be less than significant after the implementation of mitigation 

measures in Section 5.10 of the EA. Please also see Response to Comment 19-1 and General 

Response 3.1.1 regarding extension of the comment period. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 20 – LAW OFFICE OF ROSE M. ZOIA (ON BEHALF OF THE 

WINDSOR WEST RESIDENTS COMMITTEE) 

20-1 Comment noted. Please see below specific responses to this summary comment. 

 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-60 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

20-2 Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government land use plans. 

20-3 Comment noted. Please see Response to Comment 8-2. 

20-4 Please refer to Responses to Comment Letters 10, 13, 16, 24, and 26 for responses to the 

comments submitted by Sonoma County and Sonoma County Water Agency, the Town of 

Windsor, Bruce Coston, William McCormick, and Deborah and Michael Bailey. 

 

20-5 Please see General Response 3.1.2 regarding water service. 

20-6 Please see General Response 3.1.2 regarding wastewater service. Also, please see Section 4.1.2 

of the Final EA for a revised analysis with clarification of details of potential impacts from an onsite WTRF. 

20-7 Please see General Response 3.1.8 regarding climate change and greenhouse gases. 

20-8 Please see General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak trees. Please also refer to 

Sections 4.1.4, 4.2.4, and 4.3.4 of the Final EA and Responses to Comments 6-2, 10-15, 13-11

and 13-12 regarding analysis of impacts to biological resources.

20-9 Please refer to Responses to Comments 6-2, 10-15, 13-11 and 13-12 regarding analysis of 

impacts to special-status plant species, as well as biological resources. Additionally, please see 

Response to Comment 21-7 detailing the special status plant surveys conducted onsite to 

determine presence/absence (and results outlined in the updated Attachment E to the BA: 

Appendix E to the Final EA). 

20-10 Please see General Response 3.1.6 regarding impacts to school and revised impacts analysis in 

Section 4.1.9 of the Final EA. 

 

20-11 Sections 4.1.7, 4.2.7, 4.3.7 and revised Appendix G of the Final EA conclude that impacts to 

intersections are significant but can be mitigated. Please see General Response 3.1.4 regarding 

traffic and traffic modeling. Mitigation measures are clarified in Section 5.7 of the Final EA. 

20-12 We agree with the commenter that the cited intersection of Windsor River Road and US-101 

Northbound off-ramp should be and was included in Appendix G of the EA, analyzed as 

intersection number nine. Further clarifications on impact analysis have been made regarding this 

intersection in Sections 4.1.7, 4.2.7, and 4.3.7 of the Final EA. Please see General Response 

3.1.4 regarding traffic and traffic modeling.
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-61 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

20-13 The traffic model estimates were based on cumulative traffic data for the study area roadways and 

intersections provided by the Town of Windsor that considers cumulative development both 

within the Town of Windsor and in the surrounding areas, including Sonoma County. The traffic 

counts conducted would capture the effects of traffic using alternate local roads. Please refer to 

General Response 3.1.4 regarding traffic and traffic modeling, as well as Responses to 

Comments 7-2 and 13-23. 

20-14 Mitigation measures have been clarified in Section 5.7 of the Final EA that would ensure impacts 

to the cited intersection are less than significant. 

20-15 Language regarding potential impacts from construction traffic has been incorporated into 

Section 4.1.7 of the Final EA. Please also refer to Response to Comment 18-3. 

20-16 Please see Response to Comment 20-13. 

20-17 Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government and land use plans. The threat 

of nuisance lawsuits is a common complaint and potential impact on agricultural operations after 

the introduction of additional nearby residential housing. This impact is analyzed in Section 

4.1.8 of the EA. No other potentially impacts on neighboring agricultural operations are expected 

(nor are any suggested by the commenter). Please also refer to Response to Comment 18-7. 

20-18 Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government and land use plans. 

20-19 The analysis of impacts to farmland was conducted in a manner consistent with the Farmland 

Protection Policy Act, as described in Sections 3.8.3, 4.1.8, 4.2.8, and 4.3.8 of the EA. The 

“acres irrigated” section of part II in the farmland conversion impact rating form found in 

Appendix H of the EA refers to the total acreage irrigated in the region (78,265 acres), not the 

amount irrigated on the site. Please also refer to Response to Comment 16-33. 

20-20 Please see above specific responses to this summary comment. Please refer to Response to 

Comment 20-8 and General Responses 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.1.6, 3.1.8, and 3.1.12. 

20-21 Please see General Response 3.1.14 regarding cumulative analysis, as well as Responses to 

Comments 7-2 and 13-67. 

20-22 Federal conformity criteria upon which future cumulative emissions were measured account for 

the cumulative condition of air basins. Please see clarifications on air cumulative analysis 

Section 4.5 of the Final EA as well as Response to Comment 13-67. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-62 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

20-23 As described in Section 4.5.4 of the EA, cumulative biological and visual impacts would be less 

than significant. This analysis considers both likely impacts from cumulative development as 

well as the project’s contribution to this impact. Please refer to Responses to Comments 6-2, 

10-15, 13-11, 13-12 and 21-7. 

20-24 Please see General Response 3.1.14 regarding cumulative analysis, as well as Responses to 

Comments 7-2 and 13-67. Please also see Response to Comment 20-13. 

20-25 The project’s cumulative contribution to loss of significant farmland would be minimal as 

analyzed in Section 4.5.8 of the EA. Please see General Response 3.1.14 regarding cumulative 

analysis, as well as Response to Comment 20-19. 

20-26 The referenced analysis properly considers both likely impacts from cumulative development as 

well as the project’s contribution to these impacts. Please see General Response 3.1.14

regarding cumulative analysis, as well as Responses to Comments 7-2 and 13-67. 

20-27 Section 4.5.10 of the Final EA has been revised to provide more detail to the cumulative noise 

analysis presented in the EA. Please also see Response to Comment 13-67. 

20-28 Please see General Response 3.1.11 regarding project alternatives. 

 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 21 – CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCLETY 

21-1 Comment noted. 

21-2 The commenter does not identify the stated evidence to substantiate his claim that the project 

would have significant adverse impacts to the natural environment. In addition, the unmitigable 

impacts claimed by the commenter are not identified; therefore, no substantive responses can be 

given to address these claims. Please refer to General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to onsite oak trees, as well as Responses to Comments 6-2, 10-15, 13-11, 13-12 and 21-7 regarding 

impacts to biological resources. 

21-3 A detailed BA was included as Appendix E of the EA which addresses biological, ecological and 

hydrologic impacts to plants and wildlife. Provided as Attachment E to the BA, the Technical 

Memorandum outlining years of surveys consistent with SRPCS and USFWS plant survey 

protocols did not identify the presence of federally listed plant species within the project site. In 

addition, this report addresses all the species noted in the CDFG comment letter and in the 

SRPCS programmatic biological opinion (USFWS, 2007). Please refer to General Response 

3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak trees, as well as Responses to Comments 6-2, 10-15, 13-

11, 13-12 and 21-7 regarding impacts to biological resources. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-63 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

21-4 Comment noted. The current document under review is the EA. There is no such requirement 

for a third party contract to prepare an EA. 

21-5 Comment noted. The commenter relies on information that has not been fully validated; please 

refer to General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak trees.

21-6 Comment noted. As the commenter insinuates “destruction of the oak woodland” and 

“replacement of the entire habitat”, please refer to General Responses 3.1.3 regarding impacts to 

on-site oak trees, and 3.1.11 regarding project alternatives. 

21-7 Comment noted. A Technical Memorandum outlining the results of years of focused botanical 

surveys was provided as Attachment E to the BA (Appendix B of the EA). This report has been 

updated based on the acquisition of seven additional parcels as well as recent bloom-period 

surveys in spring and summer 2010. Section 4.4 of this Technical Memorandum details that: 

For the purposes of this report, special-status is defined as those plant species that are of 

management concern to state and/or federal resource agencies, and includes those plant species 

that are: 

• Listed as endangered, threatened, or candidate for listing under the FESA; 

• Listed as endangered, threatened, rare, or proposed for listing, under the CESA; 

• Designated as endangered or rare, pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (Section 

1901); 

• Designated as fully protected, pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (Section 3511, 

Section 4700, or Section 5050); 

• Designated as species of special concern by CDFG; and 

• Plants that meet the definitions of rare, threatened, or endangered under CEQA, including 

plants listed by CNPS to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” (Lists 1A, 1B, 

and 2). Local or regional agencies may consider plant species that CNPS believes require 

additional information (List 3) and plant species that have been placed on a watch list 

(List 4) by CNPS. 

In this technical memorandum AES staff determined that the project site contains suitable habitat 

for ten special-status plant species (federal, state and CNPS listed species). Based upon the 

results from botanical surveys spanning four years (2007-2010), none of these species have been 

documented to occur onsite. Therefore, all special status plant species with the potential to occur 

onsite were evaluated for presence or absence, with the results being negative. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-64 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

Please also refer to Responses to Comments 6-2, 10-15, 13-11 and 13-12 regarding impacts to 

biological resources. 

21-8 Comments noted. The commenter is inaccurate in stating that vernal pools are present onsite. 

For all other wetlands identified onsite the requirements as outlined in the SRPCS Programmatic 

Biological Opinion (USFWS, 2007) have been adhered to, while the avoidance, minimization and 

mitigation of impacts will be consistent with this guidance as well as the guidance provided by 

the USACE with regards to the fill of wetlands under Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA. 

Therefore, in accordance with these requirements, impacts to wetlands will be reduced to less 

than significant levels. Please also see General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak 

trees, Response to Comment 21-7 above regarding impacts to biological resources and 

Responses to Comments 10-19 and 13-20 regarding habitat connectivity and wildlife corridors. 

21-9 Provided with the Technical Memorandum (Attachment E to the BA; Appendix B of the EA) are 

the qualifications for personnel conducting the focused plant surveys. Please see General 

Response 3.1.16 regarding non-substantive comments. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 22 – DEBORAH AND MICHEAL BAILEY 

22-1 Please see General Responses 3.1.1 regarding extension of the comment period and 3.1.15 

regarding non-circulation of Appendices F and J. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 23 – DEBORAH AND MICHEAL BAILEY 

23-1 The provided address was added to the distribution list as requested. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 24 – DEBORAH AND MICHEAL BAILEY 

24-1 Comment noted. 

24-2 Please see General Responses 3.1.1 regarding extension of the comment period and 3.1.15 

regarding non-circulation of Appendices F and J. 

24-3 - 24-5 Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government and land use plans. 

24-6 Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government and land use plans. The Lytton 

Band of Pomo Indians regained its status as a federally recognized Tribe in 1991. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-65 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

24-7 Contrary to the commenter’s claim, the Casino San Pablo site was never the “home reservation” 

of the Tribe. Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government and land use 

plans. Please also refer to General Response 3.1.16 regarding non-substantive comments. 

24-8 Please see Section 4.0 of the EA for an analysis of noise impacts. Mitigation measures are 

clarified in Section 5.10 of the Final EA that would ensure noise impacts are less than significant. 

Please also refer to Responses to Comments 10-59, 10-63 and 16-34. 

 

24-9 Please see Responses to Comments 13-16 and 13-23. BMPs would ensure pre-project level 

drainage conditions from the site during operation of the proposed project (please refer to 

Appendix A of the EA). 

24-10 Please see General Response 3.1.2 regarding water and wastewater service. 

24-11 Please see General Response 3.1.10 regarding groundwater issues. 

24-12 Please refer to General Response 3.1.2 regarding wastewater discharge, as well as Response to 

Comment 3-3. Please see Responses to Comment Letter 8 from the RWQCB. Finally, please 

also refer to Section 6.0 of the EA for a list of agencies consulted during the NEPA process. 

24-13 As noted in Appendix B of the EA, the reclaimed water would not percolate into the soil, but 

would be distributed on-site for irrigation purposes. Nonetheless, hydraulic conductivity of soils 

onsite was assessed; please see Responses to Comments 8-18, 8-26 and 16-20. 

 

24-14 Please see General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak trees, Responses to 

Comments 21-7 and 18-9 regarding impacts to biological resources and Responses to 

Comments 10-19 and 13-20 regarding habitat connectivity and wildlife corridors. 

24-15 Please see General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak trees. 

24-16 Please see Response to Comment 8-2. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 25 – MARGARET AND BRUCE COSTON 

25-1 Please see General Response 3.1.1 regarding extension of the comment period. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 26 – BRUCE COSTON 

26-1 Please see below specific responses to this summary comment. Please also refer to Response to 

Comment 16-3, as well as General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government land use plans. 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-66 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

26-2 Comment noted. Please see General Response 3.1.1 regarding extension of the comment period. 

26-3 Comment noted. If the plant species in question are not identified to occur onsite based upon 

extensive protocol level surveys as required by the SRPCS, mitigation would not be required. 

The listing of potential habitat onsite for these SRPCS species precludes the findings of the 

completed rare plant surveys. As a separate action by moving to take the land intro trust, Section 

7 consultation was initiated by the BIA with the USFWS in August of 2009. While this Federal 

action requires Section 7 consultation outside of the scope of programmatic BO, the surveys used 

to determine presence/absence were congruent with these strategies for consistency. Please also 

refer to Responses to Comments 6-2, 10-15, 13-11, 13-12 and 21-7 regarding impacts to 

biological resources. 

26-4 Please see Response to Comment 21-9. 

26-5 Please see General Response 3.1.6 regarding potential impacts to local schools. 

26-6 Please see General Response 3.1.13 and Response to Comment 13-59. Possible minimal 

increases in tax revenues in the future would not change the analysis of impacts in the EA. Note 

that updated tax records are assessed in Sections 4.1.6 and 4.2.6 of the Final EA. 

26-7 Please see Responses to Comments 24-9 and 24-13. 

26-8 Please see Section 4.0 of the EA for a thorough analysis of traffic and noise impacts. Please refer 

to General Response 3.1.4 regarding traffic modeling, and Responses to Comments 10-59, 10-

63 and 16-34 regarding noise impacts. 

26-9 Please see Response to Comment 8-2. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 27 – BLAINE HUNT 

27-1 Comment noted. Improvements to reduce vehicle speed as recommended by the commenter were 

not determined to be necessary to reduce environmental impacts, as analyzed in Sections 4.1.7,

4.2.7, and 4.3.7 of the EA. Please also refer to Response to Comment 13-23. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 28 – ROBERT CRAWFORD, WINDSOR WEST RESIDENTS 

COMMITTEE 

28-1 A separate fee-to-trust application to be processed by the BIA has been prepared, for which this 

EA is the accompanying NEPA environmental document. The fee-to-trust application will be 
3.0 Responses to Comments 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-67 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

revised with the proposed addition of another seven parcels (32.12 acres) for a total acquisition of 

124.12 acres. 

28-2 Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government land use plans. 

 

28-3 Please see General Response 3.1.12 regarding local government land use plans.

28-4 Please see General Response 3.1.3 regarding impacts to on-site oak trees and 3.1.1 regarding 

addition of new parcels for full consideration of environmental impacts under the Final EA. 

28-5 Comment noted. Please see Responses to Comment Letter 13 for responses to comments 

submitted by the Town of Windsor. 
CHAPTER 4.0 

REFERENCES
Analytical Environmental Services 4-1 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

CHAPTER 4.0 

REFERENCES 

California Department of Forestry (CDF). 2008 California Forest Practice Rules, California Code of 

Regulations, Title 14, Section 916.5, 936.5,956.5 Procedures for Determining Watercourse and 

Lake Protection Zone Widths and Protective Measures [All Districts]. California Department of 

Forestry, Sacramento, California. Available online at: 

http://www.fire.ca.gov/resource_mgt/downloads/2008FPRulebookwithDiagramswithoutTechRul

eNo1.pdf#page2. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2002. 

Guidelines for Maintaining Instream Flows to Protect Fisheries Resources Downstream of Water 

Diversions in Mid-California Coastal Streams. June, 2002. 

Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. Bulletin 118. Available at: 

http://www.dpla2.water.ca.gov/publications/groundwater/bulletin118/basins/pdfs_desc/1-

55.01.pdf. Accessed: October 2008. 

Merenlender, A. 2009. An evaluation of the effect that conversion of oak woodlands will have on the 

environment as a result of the proposed Lytton Residential development. Report prepared fo the 

county of Sonoma, County Counsel’s Office. September 1, 2009. 

RMC. 2009. Town of Windsor Water Master Plan Update (Draft Report). Prepared as update to the 

2000 Water Master Plan for the Town of Windsor, June 2009. 

Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). 2010. Low Impact Development Guidebook: Approaches to 

Water Conservation, Water Reuse and Stormwater Management. Draft, June 2010. Available 

from http://www.scwa.ca.gov/lid/ last accessed November 10, 2010. 

Sonoma County Zoning Code (SCZC). 1993a. Article 16: AR Agriculture and Residential District. 

Available at: http://www.sonoma-county.org/prmd/docs/zoning/article_16.htm. Accessed: 

October 2008. 

Tilton, A. G. 2008. Personal Communication via email between Stephen Abrams (Abrams Associates 

Traffic Engineering) and Allan G. Tilton (Whitlock and Weinberger Transportation, Inc.) 

September 25, 2008 

Town of Windsor, California. 2005. Town of Windsor General Plan, 2015. Last revised: 2005. 

Available at: http://www.ci.windsor.ca.us/index.asp?NID=385. Accessed: September 2010. 
Analytical Environmental Services 4-2 Lytton Property Residential Development 

May 2011 Final Environmental Assessment 

Town of Windsor, California. 2008. Town of Windsor Water Quality Comparison Report, 2008. 

Available from http://www.ci.windsor.ca.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=961 Accessed: 

September 2010. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Programmatic Biological Opinion for U.S. Army Corps 

(Corps) of Engineers Permitted Projects that May Affect California Tiger Salamander and Three 

Endangered Plant Species on the Santa Rosa Plain, California (Corps File Number 223420N). 

Sacramento, California. 

Windsor Unified School District (WUSD). 2010a. Facilities Utilization Master Plan: 2011-2015. 

October 1, 2010. Available online at: www.wusd.org/files/FUMP_PDF_Version.pdf. Accessed 

on November 15, 2010. 

WUSD. 2010b. Personal Correspondence with Sheryl Feldman. Administrator’s Secretary, 

Superintendent’s Office. Windsor Unified School District. November 29, 2010.