As far as Riverside County officials are concerned, the draft environmental impact statement on the proposed Horseshoe Grande casino project falls far short of providing mitigation of the multiple impacts, does not even consider a number of the issues that arise, and contradicts itself in more than one place, according to a resolution approved by the board of supervisors Tuesday.

The resolution calls on the federal government to deny the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians’ petition to add the Horseshoe Grande property to the reservation — which would clear the way for construction of a casino, hotel, and retail complex — at least until the issues raised by county analysis of the document are addressed.

The county asked during an August meeting on the proposed transfer of the tribe-owned land to its Bureau of Indian Affairs trust holdings, effectively annexing it to the adjacent reservation, that the bureau give the county an additional 60 days to analyze the report.

The request was based on the volume of the documents involved in the environmental impact statement as its arrival in midsummer when many experts with responsibility for the analysis were on vacation.

The BIA denied the county petition.

The county board resolution becomes the latest in a string of resolutions from public and private organizations opposed to the project.

The county analysis said three existing neighborhoods would become virtual islands with reservation land on almost every side and access to their homes changed from public roads to reservation roads without assurance that the roads would always be open.

Without establishing residents legal and permanent right to use the reservation roads, the county cannot support the fee-to-trust application, according to the resolution.

In fact, “preliminary and ongoing review of the draft EIS by county staff to date has revealed a large range of deficiencies that render the draft EIS to be wholly inadequate and incomplete in terms of identifying potential environmental effects posed by the project, as well as failing to provide impact mitigation measures to sufficiently address such defects,” said the resolution.

Not only that, but “it is anticipated that further review of the draft EIS by county staff will reveal additional deficiencies,” said the resolution.

But those additional deficiencies cannot be made part of the record if the deadline for comment, which fell this week, is not extended, according to the report.

One of the major inadequately addressed impacts is the anticipated increase in traffic volume, particularly along Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, the extension of San Jacinto’s Main Street north of Ramona Expressway.

The resolution asks that the Soboba tribe be required to improve Soboba Road to an all-weather road able to handle the 30,000 vehicles expected to travel the road daily.

County Transportation Department analysis also suggests that the EIS failed to consider the impact of the increased traffic volume on several other road segments and intersections that aren’t adjacent to the project site.

Traffic volume also creates problems for both the Fire Department and Sheriff’s Department, said the report, though the environmental statement fails to provide mitigation for either.

In fact, the statement says there will be no significant impact on fire service, with which the department disagrees.

It asks for additional stations, firefighters, and equipment, as well as equipment upgrades.

The Sheriff’s Department asks for five additional deputies.

The federally approved multispecies habitat conservation area adjacent to the proposed casino site also gets short shrift in the report, according to the resolution. Under federal law, the statement must consider the impact on the habitat conservation area and provide mitigation if mitigation is even possible.

The same applies to seismic issues, said the resolution, despite the fact that the site sits atop a fault that requires mitigation measures under federal law.

The expected substantial increase in solid waste and wastewater treatment needs get little attention in the report either and need specific and detailed study and mitigation measures, says the resolution.

Until those and other deficiencies are addressed, the resolution recommends that the BIA turn down the fee-to-trust application.

The San Jacinto and Hemet city councils have taken similar stances, with the San Jacinto council taking it a step further by recommending the BIA turn down the application and that the Soboba tribe withdraw it.

The fee-to-trust land is mostly in the city of San Jacinto.