Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8 attachment 1 Initial Master Plan CEQA TRUCKEE DONNER_ PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT vs 1, Y N.r s TDPUD Electric Sphere of Influence- F, x A _ "4 # � kH@ VI�t9jLJ cif&e ,. ry >��` i Pafi Cll�.#iJflli�ati�ffi C, C'aant C3UL'a1fJDrp fi Major Rmtk Prepared For Prepared By Board of Directors Inland Ecosystems, Inc. Truckee Donner Public Utility District 3239 Reno Vista Drive 11570 Donner Pass Road Reno, NV 89612 Truckee, CA 96161-4947 December 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Title 1 2. Lead Agency Name and Address 1 3. Contact Person and Phone Number 1 4. Project Location 1 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address 1 6. General Plan Designation 1 7. Zoning 1 8. Project Purpose 1 9. Project Characteristics 2 10. Public Participation 12 11.Environmental Setting of the Project 12 12. Agency Approvals and/or Permits Required for the Project 12 13. Envirorunental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project 12 14. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 13 14.1 Aesthetics 13 14.2 Agricultural Resources 14 14.3 Air Quality 15 14.4 Biological Resources 17 14.5 Cultural Resources 24 14.6 Geology and Soils 26 14.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 28 14.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 30 14.9 Land Use and Planning 33 14.10 Mineral Resources 33 14.11 Noise 34 14.12 Population 35 14.13 Public Services 36 14.14 Recreation 37 14.15 Transportation/Traffic 37 14.16 Utilities and Service Systems 39 14.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance 40 15. References 41 16. Report Preparation 41 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The Truckee area and the District's 2014 Electric System Master Plan projects listed by area location 1 through 7. LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix B. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and U.S.Fish and Wildlife listing of Special-status Species for Truckee and Surrounding Region Appendix C. Special-status Wildlife and Plant Species and the Potential to Occur at or near the 2014 Electric System Master Plan project sites Truckee Donner Public Utility District ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY/ PROPOSED NIITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Prepared pursuant to Article V of the Environmental Guidelines of the District) 1. Project Title: 2014 Electric System Master Plan 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District 11570 Donner Pass Road Truckee, CA 96161-4947 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Sanna Schlosser, P.E. Electric Engineer (530) 587-3896 4. Project Location: The electric system encompasses the District's service areas in Nevada and Placer Counties 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District 11570 Donner Pass Road Truckee, CA 96161-4947 6. General Plan Designation: General plan designations vary throughout the project area. The system improvements proposed in the 2014 Electric System Master Plan are intended to provide an adequate level of service to customers that will be needed to accommodate development consistent with the General Plan of the Town of Truckee. 7. Zoning: The 2014 Electric System Master Plan utilizes existing zoning as defined by the Town of Truckee. This includes all zoning districts within the District's sphere of influence. 8. Project Purpose: The purpose of this document is to disclose the environmental impacts and provide the Truckee Donner Public Utility District, Board of Directors the required level of analysis to adopt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the 2014 Electric System Master Plan (Master Plan). The Master Plan is an update to the District's existing Plan adopted in 2009 under CEQA guidelines and referenced as State Clearinghouse Number 2009062076. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 December 2014 The 2014 Master Plan provides the District with an updated planning tool to (1) evaluate the performance of existing and projected system configurations to determine if the electric system is adequate to meet the demands of the District's customers; and (2) anticipating areas where growth is likely to occur and identifying system improvements necessary to serve such growth. Evaluation includes the availability of supply, overhead and underground transmission and distribution systems, substations, switch gear and transformers. Complementary to this purpose is the goal of completing improvements in the most economic manner possible. Service reliability and quality of service are at the very essence of operation of the District's electric system. The District provides electrical set-vice to consumers through four substations with sixteen distribution feeders. The Tahoe-Donner substation serves the northwest area; the Donner Lake substation serves the area surrounding Donner Lake; the Truckee substation serves the downtown, Gateway and northeast area; and the Martis Valley substation serves the southeast area. The Glenshire service area has one distribution feeder served from NV Energy. Figure 1 is a map of the Truckee area and the District's 2014 Master Plan projects listed by area locations 1 through 7. 9. Project Characteristics: A copy of the 2014 Electric System Master Plan is available at the District office, 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee. There is a number of electric system projects in the Plan designed to improve the quality of service to customers. The Master Plan lists the recommended projects and costs associated with each project. The projects utilize current technologies and include overhead rebuilds, underground rebuilds in existing conduit systems, and new underground projects within the District's service area. The implementation of individual projects spans a multi-year capital improvement period and will be phased in based on priority and economic drivers. All individual proposed projects will require a separate decision by the District's Board of Directors. The following projects will be completed under the 2014 Master Plan and listed below according to area locations 1 through 7. (1) TAHOE DONNER SERVICE AREA • Rebuild overhead line for all of Northwoods Boulevard except for the sections between Slalom Way and Fjord Rd; and Lamplighter Way to the Northwoods Clubhouse. • Rebuild overhead line from Tahoe Donner substation at Skislope Way to Teton Way. • New overhead getaway from Tahoe Donner substation to Skislope Way along driveway. • Install optical communication lines on existing poles and conduits. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 December 2014 l — N � ��i O03 N p 3 CC t t 5t � , ' N O l c� rA v c� CA {iI In �t k z - .� N �" n cu las it ' t A "�j +� ry O c� c� O ti u r/�� { % Q Cd i-1 i a t } y • ;=4 � �y N .•�bQ W VUO CD to fs 1 2t N +� cn cn � \ *�"�,+ •r > � s ,r,�r� zj Z t V � � � � � � A-1 V N bA $-'i CCl)Q r ' W O �lj VJ N It qs , d S� � O cn O v N O N O U cz 11 �;,� '' "r a cr ,—i W y O • ^" W .� ;_, • '"" coo cz eYll� ti 3 t � '�.� h✓� ' C3 Cd Cd T aLv t+ w ' v" " O —V-{ cz� Cd tO CC W M O O O O O o m t t a a} t S O 'C3 rC3 O O i�01 -a a3 rU ' O on 11t t ti ; I , ;AA el 15,%Nkt an t t } t i t� tt4 +, �TI • • • �..i • • • • • � . (4) WEST RIVER STREET SERVICE AREA • Rebuild overhead line along West River Street between Bridge Street and McIver Crossing(coordinates with 2015 Town of Truckee Project to widen West River Street). • Install optical communication lines on existing poles and conduits. (5) LAUSANNE WAY AND EUER VALLEY ROAD • Rebuild overhead line along Lausanne Way from intersection with Euer Valley Road north to Basel Place to Mougle Lane and north to approximately 11575 Sitzmark Way. • (Tentative): Build new underground line along Euer Valley Road between Lausanne Way and Trails End Road. Alignment would likely occur in conjunction with Town of Truckee road project. • Install optical communication lines on existing poles and conduits. (6) PROSSER SERVICE AREA • Rebuild single phase overhead line as three phase line starting just east of the intersection of CA89N and Rainbow Drive heading north-northwest along a dirt access road and parallel to CA89N until the overhead line intersects Greenwood Drive (approximately 2,850'). The overhead line then heads northwest to Greenwood Drive (approximately 1,400') continuing northeast to Pine Forest Road (approximately 1,400'). • Install optical communication lines on existing poles and conduits. (7) GLENSHIRE, MARTIS VALLEY,AND TRUCKEE SERVICE AREAS • Install new underground cable in existing conduit along Glenshire Drive between approximately 750' northeast of 12854 Glenshire Drive to 14629 Glenshire Drive. • Rebuild and add equipment to overhead line from Glenshire Drive to District owned recloser (approximately 900'). • (Tentative):New underground or overhead line from vault at 14629 Glenshire Drive along driveway to TDPUD GL-1 (approximately 500' south/southwest). • Replace cable (in existing conduit) under road crossing from Legacy Trail to under SR267 underpass. • MV-C1: Rebuild 71 feet of transmission line in existing conduit. • Install optical communication lines on existing poles and conduits. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 December 2014 .. IN 1 N if 0 `IN e% `a, 10� Kee I if U life, � . fee ON 1% St �v w f bI + 4ef N , el life elf, 1 Q+ p c„ ' . j S d yard '; >, ; eii is NI I I % Y Ut II%N , a V1 s � f . r " ti iNe, t �}iii ,3 O bA 'F H J. .� ! ! +' I if I eve NI ifNe�` . . NNf, d m 'o t sQ �jSf3 , � .r � k � 1 f o a el if f Ni I tr ; , i " \ m IN if filill r N ye11 si4 R „ �? I % k � O C \ 1 > m o a l4if ! stew ©r �` �Ict k I � c rJ al.r11% CC cC 1 1lff IN ! file ❑ 's '` t ❑ . "' iI zi o C ! t: 1 0 txt 3 c yeve to; St A �1 \ t4 rr Cd l � � ee �[e N I If = . fee � . .. «.t # 4* : 4 � , ,, . �,. , % ,,. > +- ce Neo fie . ...� . r o IN — N. i ��l ` r ° � v _. . Al> if f a z {t'x tYl e a ' lif - ` ;., tw III �� wif eff f _... . = , . . . . . _ _ .,. ,w __ ___ . . . .�� fir' i Douuer sub stahoIm , y 'iLl � onner Lako e {lam ! Laa'w Late 1 ✓X Y j. F > ✓ 1 1 Looking south along South Shore Drive. s r � a Donner Lake t substation during �� ao improvements approved under the 2009 Master Plan. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 6 December 2014 3 t i n- u Ile I I `., ee It Ave %11�tl tit t it o ttr { } CD � IQ V%%Ift }, CD tiogi '�tt in r �`� {ts@it � ?J Ot v mt lw Av }t � ` tt 3 r'O el Vista Ave W to 5 Nl }, slf } � } r t� a }'tit ; �4z::� #tse i �I I IV �It tt 4f ,' .. `tt }fir #1{t� {9si it :}YL A iaiil ^' 00 t �tii �t U1 cc t?` y l� si e- i tt ei iii ltf .t� It tl !Y ti +t G� cx ltl .` t n x � , a� a 11% ;i Il It r 4 j _ t 3 � U bIx Ile S I 1 ' 4 �1 E 1Ike, . o tK WDC6 cd pq tt1ijit,k} i 1 `a? St 11 tIv, Ixt bA bbb = 00 Z tX " O _ U t \ t 0 y,,CI Itit i� bAtt tIt pO, 5t % all cad O T 1 t a 1Y }3 t S } f ✓` � - ,; � Truckee 5 ii � iry V �Y �' 1'js / � .r.v✓� 4 F/ F { ! X r» x'✓ » fr -r Looking west along West River Street. s Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2014 1 . 1UN ek O M1/T % kk� 444 y � i 1 � , t „ , k f $t o Q a� U N ell Ev lY 1 � ,t' y � q *� � , z� „ r z� ` ZSI I Ike Ilkle? W V, x .. Il, , eC ke kV IV I , %k I"tle,Irt`j IV I l 1 ti y W e, iI'll ell � 1� k a � �ell �; 4� klex, 12 4l4 �` i ,;�� lt�� �q 3 v ( t ,. O R7 le ell kL ellQ , r � fy k �r � ° k Y t t r� %IV el"IlkleVt �` ( cC ell I Iek, M* r W Q`I n a ' ` rMV nk t ,� � . I IA Ike a s IR,�^ r"y n ,�j} ttltitt cC 0 kzVT �� „ ° .W. lz 11 I IV 11 VI lIl en o Ilk o°n d a k%% mi o ��. , _ a ° o V ell o 11 IV I III IS I, ti C: 4 ` V% v' Vk y.� � . 11 l >. � .� . _ . . �� � .r k u. .� , _.. w� � ti i i - Ins Rd d 1 a Looking north adjacent to SR89 and Looking north adjacent to SR89 and distribution corridor. `t distribution corridor. igl Ill Looking east along Greenwood Drive and distribution corridor. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 10 December 2014 Glenshire Drive ] M-, Nre cl( RZ gi�j ay, 'J, E ,......... gp' Polaris' ERPL!oolf ing east al MD)!riv!e distribution corridor. ong Glenshire Looldng southwest along Glenshire corridor. Looldng south along Berkshire Circle corridor. log Initial Study/proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration I I December 2014 10. Public Participation: This Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for a 30-day public review period beginning December 4, 2014 and ending on January 3, 2015. Written comments may be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on January 3, 2015 to: Sanna Schlosser, P.E. Electric Engineer Truckee Donner Public Utility District 11570 Donner Pass Road Truckee, CA 96161-4947 Comments may also be provided at a public hearing scheduled for December 17, 2014 at the Truckee Donner Public Utility District located at 11570 Donner Pass Road in Truckee. Based on public review and comment of this Initial Study, the District as lead agency, may prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration to mitigate the effects of potential project impacts. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) have been prepared to help ensure that each mitigation measure, adopted as a condition of project approval,would be implemented (See Appendix A). 11. Environmental Setting of the Project: The Town of Truckee is situated on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains at the base of Donner Summit from approximately 5,600 feet to 7,600 feet above sea level. The area is surrounded by mountainous terrain and is heavily treed with various species of native pines. Pronounced summer and winter seasons generally characterized the region. Most precipitation occurs during the months of November through April in the form of snow or mixed rain. Truckee contains a rich biological, cultural and historical resource heritage. Land use includes residential subdivisions, commercial and retail centers, and recreational facilities. 12. Other Agency Approvals and/or Permits Required for the Project: No other agencies are required to approve or give a permit for the adoption of the 2014 Master Plan update. Some agencies may become involved in the implementation of Master Plan projects by approving or permitting construction of some of the individual improvements proposed. These agencies may include the Town of Truckee, Nevada County, and possibly other resource agencies depending on changing environmental regulations. 13. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the Initial Study checklist contained in Section 14. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/ Soils ❑ Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/ Service Sys 12 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2014 14. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: Pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, a brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. Where applicable, select Checklist categories have additional background as an Existing Setting where the category is one potentially affected by project activities. 14.1. AESTIIETICS -- Would Potentially Less Than Less Than No the project: Significant Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a)Have a substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ❑ ❑ ❑ limited to,trees, rock croppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ❑ ❑ ❑ of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which ❑ ❑ ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Existing Setting: Truckee's scenic resources include sweeping scenic views and vistas of the forested hillsides, meadows, expansive open space areas, downtown historic center and residential neighborhoods. and natural features like the Truckee River and Donner Lake. Response to Questions: (a)-(d): The 2014 Electric System Master Plan projects will not have an adverse effect on a scenic vista or scenic resources and would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area. Some electrical facilities such as substations, overhead lines, and poles are visible to the public, but they are not considered aesthetically offensive nor have negative aesthetic impact. No new source of substantial light or glare would be created. Therefore, there would be no impact. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 December 2014 14.2. AGRICULTURAL Potentially Less Than Less Than No RESOURCES -- In determining Significant Significant With Significant Impact whether impacts to agricultural Impact Mitigation Impact resources are significant Incorporated environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site assessment Model (1997)prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime farmland, ❑ ❑ ❑ Unique farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning ❑ ❑ ❑ for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the ❑ ❑ ❑ existing environment,which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? Response to Questions: (a)—(c): The 2014 Electric System Master Plan projects are not within any agricultural area and would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or with a Williamson Act contract and,therefore,there would be no impact. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 14 December 2014 14.3. AIR QUALITY -- Where Potentially Less Than Less Than No applicable, the significance criteria Significant Significant With Significant Impact established by the applicable air Impact Mitigation Impact quality management or air Incorporated pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct ❑ ❑ ❑ implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ ❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑ ❑ ❑ criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d)Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors ❑ ❑ ❑ affecting a substantial number of people? Existing Setting: Air quality in the Truckee area is subject to federal, State, and local regulations for regulated pollutants. The Federal Clean Air Act (federal CAA) governs air quality in the United States. The federal CAA establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six "criteria" pollutants: carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particulates, sulfur dioxide, and lead. These are considered the most prevalent air pollutants that are known to be hazardous to human health. In addition to being subject to federal requirements, air quality in California is also governed by the California Clean Air Act (California CAA). The California CAA is administered by the California Air Resources Board at the State level and by the Northern Sierra Ai Quality Management Districts (NSAQMD) at the regional and local levels. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 December 2014 The Town of Truckee has local regulations and planning in place to address air quality. The 1999 Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan is the adopted clean air plan in Truckee. Considerable effort is put into focusing on particulate matter as the pollutant of greatest concern in the Town. The plan identifies wood smoke from residences, re-entrained dust from roadways, and construction activities as the primary sources of particulate matter (PM) emissions and has led to the Town's adoption of measures to reduce sources of controllable PM emissions, which are open wood burning devices such as fireplaces and wood stoves. Other recommended control strategies are focused on reducing emissions from construction activities, operations of large land use projects, road surfacing, street sanding, and roadway sweeping (General Plan, 2006). Federal and state air quality standards for important pollutants are summarized in Table 1. The table also summarizes some of the health and atmospheric effects of these pollutants and their major sources. In general, the State standards are more stringent particularly for particulate matter(PM2.5 and PM10)pollutants. Table 1. State and National Criteria Air Pollution Standards,Effects, and Sources. Averaging State National Pollutant Health and Atmospheric Pollutant Time Standard Standard Effects Z, Major Pollutant Sources Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm High concentrations can directly affect Formed when reactive organic gases and 8 Hour 0.08 ppm lungs, causing irritation. Long-term nitrogen oxides react in the presence of exposure may cause damage to lung tissue. sunlight Major sources indude on-road motor, vehicles, solvent evaporation, and commercial J industrial mobile equipment Carbon 1 Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Classified as a chemical asphyxiant,carbon Internal combustion engines, primarily Monoxide 8 Hour 9.0 ppm 9 ppm monoxide interferes with the transfer of gasoline-powered motor vehicles. fresh oxygen to the blood,and deprives sensitive'tissues of oxygen. Nitrogen' 1 Hour 0.25 ppm Irritating to eyes; and respiratory tract. Motor vehicles,petroleum-refining operations, Dioxide Annual — 0.053 ppm Colors atmosphere reddish-brown. industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads. Sulfur 1 Hour 0.25 ppm — Irritates upper respiratory tract;injurious to Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur Dioxide 3 Hour — 0.5 ppm lung tissue.Can yelioW the leaves of plants, recovery plants,and metal processing. 24 Hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm destructive to marble,iron,and steel.Umits Annual — 0.03 ppm visibility and reduces sunlight Respirable 24 Hour 50 pg/M3 150 pgim3 May irritate eyes and respiratory tract, Dust and fume-producing ;industrial and Particulate Annual 20 pg1ma 50 pglm' decreases in lung capacity, cancer and agricultural operations, combustion, Matter Increased mortality. Produces haze and atmospheric photochemical reactions, and (PM10) limits visibility. natural activities (e.g. wind-raised dust and oceansprays). Fine 24 Hour — 65 pg/d Increases respiratory disease, lung Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, Particulate Annual 12 uglms 151g/m3 damage, cancer, and premature death. equipment,and industrial sources;residential Matter Reduces'visibility and results in surface and agricultural burning; Also, formed from (PM2.5) soiling. photochemical reactions of other pollutants, including nitrogen oxides,sulfur oxides,and organics. Lead Month 1.5 pole — Disturbs gastrointestinal system, and Present source: lead smelters, battery Quarter 1.5 pg1m3 causes 'anemia, kidney disease, and manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past' neuromuscular and neurological source:combustion of leaded;gasoline. dysfunction, Note:ppm=parts permidim;pgW=microvams per cnbicmeter. Source:C&omia Air Rrs =Boaroh pl/www.arb.cagw/ags/aags2p Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 16 December 2014 Response to Questions: (a)-(b): The Town of Truckee Planning Division is responsible for the Town's air quality planning and enforcing air quality programs (www.townoftruckee.com). The various projects outlined in the 2014 Master Plan would not conflict with an applicable air quality plan or violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore,there is no impact. (c): The 2014 Master Plan projects will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Therefore,there is no impact. (d)-(e): Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where people reside or where members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants are located (e.g., children, the elderly, hospital patients, and people with illnesses). Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the electric system projects include residential and commercial areas. All equipment will be properly tuned. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. These impacts would be less than significant. 14.4. BIOLOGICAL Potentially Less Than Less Than No RESOURCES -- Would the Significant Significant With Significant Impact project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse ❑ ® ❑ ❑ effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ effect on any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 December 2014 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated c) Have a substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native residents or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local ❑ ❑ ❑ policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of ❑ ❑ ❑ an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Environmental Setting: The Truckee area is rich in biological resources which include a wide range of flora and fauna. Important habitat types found within the Town and surrounding area include Jeffrey Pine Forest and Great Basin Sage Scrub. Jeffrey Pine Forest is dominated by Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine and provides habitat for many wildlife species, including raptors, songbirds, small mammals, and reptiles. Riparian, aquatic and wetland resources are another important habitat and include the Truckee River, Donner Lake, numerous creeks, and reservoirs which provide foraging habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms. Several special status habitats, plant species, and wildlife species have been identified in the Truckee area. The Town's important biological resources and habitat areas are mapped on Figure 4.3-1 accessible from the 2025 General Plan. Important biological resources include both vegetation and habitat areas, as well as wildlife corridors and migration routes that traverse the Town. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 18 December 2014 G BCT » }1 j� �tlP s P1 r ta i P+ "� �"t ,lk ikry r 1.�o- .,} ti r;Y'?y.t 'Yh''"r•,,.. ett"Ft .?� s c $ , ., '";, CW iu : ..n�,' "'" c (e 1 n >,� 1 Ti L iF � �,tr{ Pt r'i tjs4 �Yrz, y . � 1 3 : "• to ''��a. r .�, (( E $Y�I '"' CD »?:> i r w �::..., .1i��,, „ , , > ya»x # t y 1` r i F t 6 . rir at t sl}i it$f��� t t .,3�e k>o•,� 9 uL1ky;,£ is � P'l t 1 l } r s. • �. v tt z 1 ww A dQ `14y."+ � , »jv( , y � i} , � •rt•i,S! ?�" .. ! ;��x� }�£ 44 V* 5ry[�5�yyr t� e.. ,.c sim;;•,= ' .e M�R 1 :. ,r' A S£ k F Y } {' per'! I , • J .' � ,s a .-ry a?i^�` I.�t"i. y�ry r��`t�� � j,.S� X ` \ J }rp '4ti, 'S ' 1 t ..,n...<.z,:,t.ti y ��. i j � ,..,,kxnt»jAy�YMi�. «�,,�'ti� t ,��)7 �i •s ,,,,,s„ .�.I f s tiiP e? to � � .1 :, h n■■ rn 1. a t6�'f&�,+� s, `f{ ..,x; t ,t.+r»*vti �#t r'4A;� e y �� -, •i -a 1 ".tr r'�':�y °"' u ~-: xV'{. .»$. Ua: Seri,.,_iY2 ��Fu F y�,{}silk: 1�,:, t . eXi i4 '�i" ,�,�'' y� 4Y�.: n h , ?Fr» CD » » C �;» IK'.tt`z �`gRt " ua�t � k s t t ?,"•'`' 'i ? .c;:�. � i ,..-E;=;,;':��."„ - ;.,:",...;, t"',}L , <::'„ 'i "u"',:.»:`tul�'� } i,.Ali ,aa"G�k<,it t <,: ,r .. ;,,; S �rt�h � ♦ xs ik*"� i 'ny{�W' �Sq,��t e�� i At S„ '`t°r � <; � ail V"� ...2�r�,,.,�l ;...: :'a',e '"' a}n" A � A DPB xt*.a•».< t � i t 4���} *.a to# :. �!a �'� ,i``� 1k��aK t *: ty y ,v-: 'l, .,rani`*.Y'w.; .� r,n(f kr��9 St�S rx� " rV£7a �` ae.'Ax4\�.: ; tit �h't`'`a�}' �'� ,;tp ,.;}t�kt ,t F �r�ryy k »�}) 1W `a?u*«N"� "{{� ��`ai� y .r�.,',•, tyy iy till} 4" �j�� yt y fi s 1 t x i£ It}tits i ks :M"fl �+ � # Ji fp1 'C4 i 3tS~ d'a�}?,li ,ei s Q u fr (( i+. ((, YW ro � ' ` r; ..��<` y�1 �'��.�k� f. 1p 1z!i C t11�tt�xi'yE z 'xi 4 ,i�ii£ F {,£'° < y.x. , S ;�7 {" t„t ,t ( ,«tul .j t1 lip i• »y.. d t � lhn't r 5 j , . F,'{ - .;..', .` . �s" ;fit to{� txl t �1 s ` LCT � <<, �W t k, 89 4 a + = I WF k �ti ct ::,tF u r4 t�t S .....a+*. SNM�Oi�j ®i? 0 0S 1 Milks y.. Irces Sensitive Spedes from CNDDS.2004,Deer Migration data from Nevada County, 1996;land Cover from USGS, 1998. mia Natural Divers Database Species Occurrences Ve tationT e I Land Use Deer Migration FIGURE:4.3.1 �' SP 8e yp e•• gration Route/Area California Wolverine SO Starved Daisy Cropland and Pasture d Donner Pass Buckwheat SNRF ;Sierra Nevada Red fox ? lake or Reservoir CD Great Basin Sucker Trout TYC Tahoe Yellow Cress Developed BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 6 Iahontan Cutthrcot Trout WF Willow Flycatcher ® Bare Exposed Rode AND HABITAT AREAS Oregon Fireweed YW -Yellow Warbler Evergreen Forest Land oNorthern Goshawk Herbaceous Rangeland Mbmd Rangeland Plumas lvesia TOWN OF T R U C K E E Sierra Nevada Mountain Beaver NonforestedWetlands 2025 GENERAL PLAN: EIR Shrub and Brush Rangeland There are several habitat types which the 2014 Electric System Master Plan projects will occur. Most of the project sites are adjacent to busy roadways in Tahoe Donner; at the west end of Donner Lake; along West River Road; within Prosser; and along Glenshire Drive (See Photos in Section 9). Other project sites including Euer Valley Road and the northeast area of the Glenshire corridor are adjacent to relatively rural areas. The following Table provides the various project sites, dominant habitat type, and biological sensitivity of the project locations. Site Project and Location Dominant Biological Habitat type Sensitivity (1) Tahoe Donner Overhead lines Northwoods Blvd; Residential Low Service Area Skislope Way; overhead gateway roadways substation to Skislope. (2) Donner Lake Overhead line South Shore Drive Residential Low Service Area between Donner Pass Rd and Maple roadway St; substation work. (3) Gateway Service Donner Pass Road overhead freeway Residential Low Area crossing and ovehead line between and Northwoods Blvd. and Frates Lane; commercial Safeway shopping center, PUD roadway headquarters, Spring Lane between Levon Avenue and Donner Way. (4) West River Street Overhead line between West River Commercial Low Street between Bridge Street and roadway McIver Crossing (coordinates with Town widening of West River Street). (5) Lausanne Way Overhead line along Lausanne Way Residential Low to and Euer Valley from Euer Valley Rd. north to Basle and rural medium Road Place, Mogul Lane, and Sitzmark roadway Way. New underground line along Euer Valley Rd. between Lausanne Wat and Trails End Rd (tentative and would coordinate with Town road project). (6) Prosser Service Overhead line just east of Rainbow Residential Low Area Drive to Greenwood Drive and roadways and northeast to Pine Forest Road. dirt access (7) Glenshire,Martis, Underground cable in existing conduit Residential Low to and Truckee along Glenshire Drive; rebuild roadway medium Service Areas overhead line from Glenshire vault to recloser; new underground or overhead line from vault at 14629 Glenshire to TDPUD GL-1; replace cable in existing conduitunder SR267, MV-Cl rebuild 71 feet of line in existing conduit. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 December 2014 Habitat types where electric system projects would occur include a Jeffrey Pine—Fir community characterized by Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), white fir(Abies concolor), and Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii)with a sparse understory of mixed-montane chaparral, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation. This is a common vegetation type within the Truckee area including the Glenshire, Prosser, Sierra Meadows and Gateway subdivisions. Understory species include bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) and green-leaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula). The Great Basin Scrub vegetation type typically consists of stands of bitterbrush with an understory of perennial grasses and fortis. Great Basin Scrub occurs on dry slopes and flats. Common species include big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamms nauseosus) and wax current (gibes cereum). This habitat readily intersperses with the Jeffrey pine-fir community throughout the area. Meadow habitats persist throughout the Truckee region including the Glenshire, Tahoe Donner and Sierra Meadows subdivisions. Dominant species include mostly annual grasses and forbs and some wet montane meadow species. Wetlands provide habitat for numerous species such as sedges (Carex spp.), curly dock (Rumex crispzts), rushes (Juncos spp.), and spikerushes (Eleocharis spp.). Special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the State and/or federal Endangered Species Acts or other regulations, as well as other species that are considered rare enough by resource agencies to warrant special consideration and include: • plant and wildlife species that are listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.11 for wildlife, 50 CFR 17.12 for plants; various notices in the Federal Register for proposed species); • species that are listed, or proposed for listing by the state of California as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act(California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 670.5); • wildlife species identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as species of concern(wildlife species that do not have state or federal threatened or endangered status but may still be threatened with extinction); • wildlife species that are designated as fully protected by CDFW (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 670.5); • plants considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)to be rare,threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; and • plant species that meet the definition of rare or endangered under the California Environmental Quality Act(1970). Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 December 2014 A biological survey was conducted along the proposed alignment on October 27, 2014. Pre-field research included a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service database for all records of special-status plant and animal species occurring within the USGS 7.5 minute Truckee, Norden, Mattis Peak, Boca, Hobart Mills, and Independence Lake 7.5 minute USGS quadrangles for Nevada and Placer Counties. Appendix B provides the list of state and federal listed endangered, threatened, special-status species, and CNPS list 1 and 2 with potential to occur within the project areas and considered in this analysis. This list of species was then used to focus the biological investigations on species with any potential to occur at the project sites. The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan evaluation of biological sensitive resources (www.townoftruckee.com) was also referenced. Inland Ecosystems' understanding of the habitat requirements for species potentially utilizing the project area was also a factor considered in the impact assessment. Response to Questions: (a);(d): The biological analysis included a habitat assessment, potential for special-status species, and an assessment of noxious weeds at the project sites. Based on the surveys, no state and/or federal listed endangered, threatened, special-status species, or CNPS list 1 and 2 with potential to occur within the project areas would be affected as a result of project activities. The majority of the project sites are in close to busy roadways and commercial and/or high density residential areas and there is no suitable habitat at the project sites. Select photos of the project sites are provided in Section 9. The special-status species with the potential to occur in the area of the 2014 Electric System Master Plan project sites and a determination regarding potential impacts to these species is provided in Appendix C. While not identified during the survey, numerous raptor species could potentially nest in the vicinity of the project sites prior to electric system improvements given that the Master Plan projects cover an extended time period. Raptor nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and by Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. Disturbing an active raptor nest would violate Department of Fish and Game Codes and would be considered a potentially significant impact. The nests of all migratory birds are also protected under the MBTA, which makes it illegal to destroy any active migratory bird nest. The project locations with suitable habitat for potential special status species include the area along Etter Valley Road (tentative project ivith the Toivn of Truckee) and in the northeast corridor of the Glenshire Drive alignment(See Photos on pages 9 & 11). The District will have a qualified biologist conduct a raptor and migratory bird survey prior to the initiation of project activities specifically along Euer Valley Road and in the northeastern section of the Glenshire Drive corridor. Should any migratory birds be observed prior to construction, the District will immediately consult with the CDFW to obtain guidance on minimizing any potential impact. Project activities will not interfere with any other migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites. Electric system projects associated with implementation of the 2014 Master Plan would not adversely affect biological resources. Mitigation measures are incorporated that would minimize Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 22 December 2014 effects on biological resources. Implementation of the mitigation measures outlined below will ensure the protection of any sensitive species would reduce potential impacts to a less-than- significant level. (b)-(c): The project actions included in the 2014 Master Plan are primarily located adjacent to high road density areas, commercial properties, and residential homes with little or no surrounding natural habitat value. The projects would not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive habitat in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project actions would not have an adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as there are no wetlands or waters of the state at any of the project sites. Therefore, there would be no impact. (e)-(f): The 2014 Master Plan projects will not conflict with local policies protecting biological resources or conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved conservation plan. The projects are consistent with the environmental plans and policies of the Town of Truckee. Therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measure(s) - The 2014 Electric System Master Plan projects include several Best Management Practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures related to the protection of plants and wildlife including the following specific mitigation measure: (a);(d):The District will have a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction raptor and migratory bird survey prior to the initiation of project activities or other site disturbances particularly along Euer Valley Road and in the northeastern area of the Glenshire Drive corridor. Should any migratory birds be observed prior to project activities, the District will immediately consult with the CDFW and other appropriate resource agencies to obtain guidance on minimizing any potential impact. Any other wildlife encountered during project activities will be herded away from the project sites. Mitigation Monitoring: Truckee Donner Public Utility District Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 December 2014 14.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Less Than No -- Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ® ❑ ❑ historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c)Directly or indirectly destroy a ❑ ® ❑ ❑. unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d)Disturb any human remains, ❑ ® ❑ ❑ including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Existing Setting: A detailed account of Cultural Resources is provided in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan (www.townoftruckee.com) and in numerous cited reports. The distribution, location and nature of cultural resources in Truckee are broad and diverse, corresponding to the rich history of the area. Previous studies include the Downtown, the Donner Lake area, scattered sites and resources associated with historic logging and other economic activity, and linear sections of the old emigrant routes and former rail routes. Notable among Truckee's cultural and historic resources are those occurring within the Donner Memorial State Park, which is partly dedicated to preserving the history of the Donner Party tragedy. There are several federal and State laws and regulations applicable to cultural and historical resources. The key regulations include the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NIIl'A) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the NHPA which require federal and state agencies to consider the potential effects of their undertakings on significant cultural resources. Significant cultural resources include buildings, structures, and objects that are important in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture. These resources are listed, or are eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). California law also recognizes the need to protect Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials from inadvertent destruction and vandalism. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 24 December 2014 The Town of Truckee adopted a comprehensive Historic Preservation Program in 2003 as described in the General Plan. A number of studies have been completed over the years, several of which point to a number of sites and complexes associated with the past habitation and use of the area by native peoples. A comprehensive archeological assessment of the Distict's service area was performed in 2009 by local expert Dr. Susan Lindstrom, a Registered Professional Archeologist. Dr. Lindstrom's comprehensive assessment for the District included a records search at the North Central Information Center at California State University Sacramento, a review of prior archaeological research and pertinent published and unpublished literature, and contacts with the Truckee Donner Historical Society, including oral history interviews with individuals knowledgeable in local history. Response to Questions: (a)-(d): Dr. Lindstrom's comprehensive Cultural Resource assessment disclosed that in excess of 50 previous cultural resource studies have been conducted within and around the Truckee area. Dr. Lindstrom's assessment overlaps the area of potential effect associated with the various projects in the 2014 Electric System Master Plan. Portions of numerous studies intersect the project areas and there are no known archaeological or historical sites immediately along the project alignments or close enough to the project sites to be of potential concern. Electric system project improvements will occur in previously disturbed areas such as within existing substations and conduits, and along roadways where overhead transmission lines will be upgraded. Because there is no excavation associated with the installation of new overhead lines and other segments will be placed in existing conduits, there is minimal, if any, surface excavation and the project will not have any adverse impacts to cultural resources. While there are no known archeological resources within the areas of the 2014 Electric System Master Plan improvement projects, it would be a significant impact if such resources were unearthed and impacted during project activities. If any archaeological sites or artifacts are found during project activities, and a registered professional archaeologist should be contacted to properly assess the finds. Implementation of the mitigation measure outlined below will reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure(s) - The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated in the project: (a)-(d): The District will have a Registered Professional Archeologist on-call during any 2014 Electric System Master Plan project activity. In the event that evidence of cultural resources is encountered during project activities, the Archeologist would be notified to record gather available information for reporting and work in the vicinity will immediately stop. The District will coordinate any findings with the appropriate state, federal, and tribal entities according to standard procedures to avoid disruption of any cultural resources. Mitigation MonitorinIz -Truckee Donner Public Utility District Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 December 2014 14.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects ❑ ❑ ❑ including the risk of loss injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known Fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b) Expose people or structures to ❑ ❑ ❑ potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss injury, or death involving strong ground shaking? c) Expose people or structures to ❑ ❑ ❑ potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Expose people or structures to ❑ ❑ ❑ potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? e)Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ ❑ ❑ the loss of topsoil? f)Be located on a geologic unit or soil ❑ ❑ ❑ that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? g) Be located on expansive soil, as ❑ ❑ ❑ defined in Table 18-1-B of the uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 26 December 2014 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated h) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Existing Setting: The State of California has established a variety of regulations and requirements related to seismic safety and structural integrity, including the California Building Code,the Alquist-Priolo Zoning Act, and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. Several small trace faults are located within the Town limits, though none are designated as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, which identify fault areas considered to be of greatest risk in the state. The possible threats from slope stability hazards such as land subsidence, landslides and ground failure are minimal. Typically, significant subsidence occurs only in areas underlain by soft soils such as marsh deposits or in areas susceptible to liquefaction. Because the sedimentary soils underlying the Town of Truckee are not susceptible to liquefaction, the risk of land subsidence is considered to be low. As Truckee is not within an Alquist-Priolo designated zone, the risk of seismically-induced ground rupture is low. Response to Questions: (a)-(g): The 2014 Electric System Master Plan projects are not located within any fault zone of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faulting Zoning Map. The project sites are limited to standard system installation activities and there is no aspect of any project that would expose people or property to increased risk during strong seismic ground shaking or ground failure. The 2014 Master Plan system improvements would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from landslides nor would the projects be in unstable or expansive soils. Much of the soil underlying the Town of Truckee consists of glacial till, moraines and outwash, and pose a very low risk of expansion. The electric systems project activities would not affect geology and soils. Therefore, there would be no impact. (h): There are no demands for wastewater disposal systems included in the project areas. Therefore, there would be no impact. Initial Study/proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 December 2014 14.7 HAZARDS AND Potentially Less Than Less Than No HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Significant Significant With Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to ❑ ❑ ❑ the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to ❑ ❑ ❑ the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ ❑ handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ ❑ included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f)For a project within the vicinity ❑ ❑ ❑ of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within the project area? Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 28 December 2014 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated g) Impair implementation of or ❑ ❑ ❑ physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Existing Setting: Various federal, State, County and local agencies oversee hazards and hazardous materials issues in the Town of Truckee and have established regulations designed to protect human health and the environment from the effects of hazards and hazardous materials. The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) laws and regulations ensure the safe production, handling, disposal and transportation of hazardous materials. Laws and regulations established by the EPA are enforced in Truckee by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). Response to Questions: (a)-(b): No known hazardous waste are located within the 2014 Electric System Master Plan project areas. The projects would not directly generate or involve the transfer or disposal of hazardous materials. The Underground Service Alert would be contacted as needed to identify the location of underground facilities and avoid the possibility of hitting a hazard such as a gas line. Therefore,there would be no impact. (c): The 2014 Master Plan projects would not generate any hazardous emissions or handle hazardous substances or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, there would be no impact. (d): The project sites identified in the 2014 Master Plan are not located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, there would be no impact. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 December 2014 (e)-(f): The project sites are located outside any airport active land-use plan or safety zone. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project sites. Therefore, there would be no impact. (g)-(h): Implementation of the 2014 Master Plan would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans and would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury, or death attributable to wildfires. Therefore, there would be no impact. 14.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER Potentially Less Than Less Than No QUALITY -- Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a)Violate any water quality standards ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 30 December 2014 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Create or contribute runoff water, ❑ ❑ ❑ which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade ❑ ❑ ❑ water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year ❑ ❑ ❑ flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place structure within a 100-year ❑ ❑ ❑ flood hazard area, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ mudflow? Existing Setting: The Truckee River Basin encompasses approximately 3,060 square miles in the states of California and Nevada. The river's headwaters lie in the Sierra Nevada Mountains above Lake Tahoe and its end is in Pyramid Lake, a terminal lake in the Nevada desert. A number of federal, State and local regulations are concerned with water quality. The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the nation. To minimize the increase of erosion and runoff pollutants, the Town maintains specific Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 December 2014 requirements related to Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to minimize runoff and erosion and during project activities. Response to Questions: (a): There is minimal, if any, runoff from the 2014 Electric System Master Plan project activities that could contain sediment and other pollutants with the potential to enter waters of the state. The project sites are largely adjacent to roadways or will be installed in existing conduits. The District will install the electric improvement projects in accordance with standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the requirements of the Town of Truckee guidelines for the protection of water quality. The District shall routinely inspect project sites to verify that the BMP measures are properly maintained as needed. The District will incorporate the following BMPs into the proposed project. o Project activities shall be limited to designated work areas. o All equipment will be inspected for leaks prior to and during project operations. ® A Spill Containment Kit will have on-site, at all times, for immediate deployment in the case of a sudden and unexpected spill of contaminants. ® There will be no water discharged to any perennial or ephemeral surface waters. Implementation of the above measures would ensure that the 2014 Master Plan projects do not have the potential to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and, therefore,this impact is less than significant. (b): Implementation of the various 2014 Master Plan projects would not utilize groundwater resources, deplete groundwater supplies, or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Therefore, there is no impact. (c)-(f): The 2014 Master Plan projects would not alter the existing drainage pattern of any area which would result in erosion or siltation or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff resulting in flooding on- or off-site. No additional source of pollutant runoff or otherwise any action that would degrade water quality will occur. Therefore,there is no impact. (g)-& The 2014 Master Plan project sites are not be located within a 100-year flood zone, as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Thus, there would be no impact related to placement of structures in a 100-year flood hazard area and no risk of flooding. The projects will be carried out according to standard installation and safety codes. There is no risk of a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow hazard from project activities. Therefore, there is no impact. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 32 December 2014 14.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Less Than Less Than No -- Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a)Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ community? b) Conflict with any applicable land ❑ ❑ ❑ use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effect c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan or natural conservation plan? Response to Questions: (a)—(c): Truckee includes a variety of land uses including the Town's historic core, the Gateway area, the Donner Lake area, and a variety of developed residential and commercial areas. The 2014 Master Plan reflects the future local land use and planning as depicted in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. No changes to existing zoning or land use are required. The project areas do not conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, there is no impact. 14.10 MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would ❑ ❑ ❑ be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of ❑ ❑ ❑ a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Response to Questions: (a)—(b): A number of important mineral resources exist in the Truckee area especially the alluvial deposits along the length of the Truckee River Valley. However, no mineral resources are required for the 2014 Electric System Master Plan projects. The various projects identified in the Master Plan would not result in the loss of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated in any local or regional plan. Therefore, there is no impact. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 33 December 2014 14.11 NOISE -- Would the project Potentially Less Than Less Than No result in: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ generation of excessive groundborne vibration noise levels? e) A substantial permanent increase ❑ ❑ ❑ in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of ❑ ❑ ❑ a private airstrip, would the project expose people in the project area to excessive noise levels? Existing Setting: The Town of Truckee establishes local regulations concerning noise through noise compatibility guidelines set forth in the 2025 General Plan, as well as through a municipal Noise Ordinance. Noise impacts resulting from electric system projects depends on the noise generated by various pieces of equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance between project noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 34 December 2014 Response to Questions: (a): Standard utility equipment will be used during 2014 Master Plan improvement projects. The District will incorporate the following measures to help minimize noise impacts during project activities. • All equipment will be properly tuned during project operations. • Unnecessary idling of equipment will be avoided. • Work will be limited to daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays. The temporary increase in noise levels during project activities will not expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established in the 2025 General Plan or Noise Ordinance and is less than significant. (b)-(c): The 2014 Master Plan projects would not expose persons to excessive ground borne vibration noise levels. Project activities would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project areas above existing levels. Therefore, there would be no impact. (d): Project activities would result in temporary increases in noise above existing levels. However, as indicated in Discussion (a), work would be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays. This impact is less than significant. (e)-(f): The project sites are not within an airport land use plan and would not expose sensitive receptors to excessive noise levels from airport/aircraft operations. Therefore, there would be no impact. 14.12 POPULATION -- Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Induce substantial population growth ❑ ❑ ❑ in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 35 December 2014 Existing Setting: The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan includes policies to direct growth in a well-planned manner, and improve jobs and housing opportunities in the community. The District's 2014 Electric System Master Plan projects identify infrastructure improvements needed to effectively serve development consistent with the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan and provide an essential public service. Response to Questions: (a): The 2014 Master Plan projects follow the goals and policies of the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. Project activities are in response to local land use and environmental planning decisions. Therefore, the implementation of the 2014 Master Plan would have no impact on growth in the area. (b)-(c): Project activities would not result in the displacement of any existing housing units or people. Consequently, there are no impacts related to the displacement of existing housing or population. Therefore, the implementation of the 2014 Electric System Master Plan would have no impact. 14.13 PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would Potentially Less Than Less Than No the project result in substantial adverse Significant Significant Significant Impact physical impacts associated with the Impact With Impact provision of new or physically altered Mitigation governmental facilities,need for new Incorporated or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response time or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a)Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b)Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ d)Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Response to Questions: (a)—(e): Implementation of the 2014 Electric System Master Plan would not interfere with, or create demands on police or fire protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 36 December 2014 14.14 RECREATION -- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Response to Questions: (a)-(b): Implementation of the 2014 Electric System Master Plan would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of a facility would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, there would be no impact. 14.15 TRANSPORTATION/ TRAFFIC -- Would the project: ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase on either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or ❑ ❑ ❑ cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 37 December 2014 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Result in a change in traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to ❑ ❑ ❑ a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ access? f) Result in inadequate parking ❑ ❑ ❑ capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, ❑ ❑ ❑ plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Response to Questions: (a): Implementation of the 2014 Electric System Master Plan projects will not impact transportation or circulation. All project activities work shall be planned and carried out so as to create the least possible inconvenience to the traveling public. Transportation of project materials will not exceed roadway capacity. The projects would not have an impact on parking. There are no impacts related to traffic. (b)-(g): The 2014 Master Plan projects would not exceed a level of service standard established by the Town of Truckee nor result in a change in traffic patterns that results in substantial safety risks. The project would not result in physical changes to roadways, and therefore, would not result in impacts related to transportation, circulation, parking, or transportation policies, plans, or programs. The project activities would not generate substantial traffic, such that alternative transportation modes would be needed. Therefore,there would be no impact. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 38 December 2014 14.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE Potentially Less Than Less Than No SYSTEMS -- Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a)Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? e)Require or result in the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies ❑ ❑ ❑ available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with ❑ ❑ ❑ sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 39 December 2014 Response to Questions: (a)-(e): The 2014 Master Plan projects would not result in an increased need for utilities and service systems including generation of wastewater or the need for expansion of existing wastewater facilities. The project activities will not increase drainage runoff; require any other change in water supplies; and would not affect the capacity of the wastewater treatment provider. Therefore, there would be no impact. (f)-(g): There are no disposal needs for the project activities that would require a landfill. The project activities would comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore,there would be no impact. Potentially Less Than Less Than No 14.17 MANDATORY Significant Significant Significant Impact FINDINGS OF Impact With Impact SIGNIFICANCE Mitigation Incorporated a) Does the project have the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have impacts ❑ ❑ ® ❑ that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probably future projects? e)Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑ environment effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 40 December 2014 Response to Questions: (a): Implementation of the 2014 Electric System Master Plan projects does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of any fish, plant or wildlife species nor create adverse effects on human beings. The projects will not adversely affect any species identified as a candidate for sensitive or special status species, in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures incorporated into project activities, impacts are less than significant. (b): The 2014 Electric System Master Plan projects would not result in irreversible environmental damage. Mitigation measures will be incorporated into the proposed project to minimize any potential environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are less than significant. (c): As described throughout the preceding checklist sections, the 2014 Electric System Master Plan projects would not result in any environmental impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects to human beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, there would be no impact. 15. References: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2014. Natural Diversity DataBase. Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2014. Online search. www.fws.gov/sacramento. California Native Plant Society. 2014. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Inland Ecosystems. 2009. Biological and Cultural Resource Inventory and Assessment as part of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District Water System Improvement Projects. Town of Truckee. 2025 General Plan. www.townoftruckee.com U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Species List by 7.5-minute Truckee quadrangle and county. 16. Report Preparation: This Initial Study was prepared under contract with the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by Inland Ecosystems, Inc. Principal author was Glenn Merron. Prepared by: Date: Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 December 2014 APPENDIX A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2014 Electric System Master Plan Projects MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE 2014 ELECTRIC SYSTEM MASTER PLAN PROJECTS The Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/PMND) prepared for this project documents the impacts and mitigation measures that would reduce, avoid, or otherwise minimize these impacts. This draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will ensure that each mitigation measure, adopted as a condition of project approval, would be implemented. This draft MMRP will comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(d) that specifies the lead agency shall adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes that it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Truckee Donner Public Utility District (District) will adopt this MMRP when conditions of project approval are identified in order to mitigate environmental effects. It will be the responsibility of the District to ensure completion and adoption of the monitoring program, and for coordination and implementation of the program. LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND DATE OF COMPLETION The following mitigation measures have been included in the project to avoid potential significant effects: 14.4 Biological Resources (a);(d):The District will have a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction raptor and migratory bird survey prior to the initiation of project activities. Should any migratory birds be observed prior to project activities the District will immediately consult with the CDFW and other appropriate resource agencies to obtain guidance on minimizing any potential impact such as establishing a buffer zone around any active nest. Any wildlife encountered during construction activities will be herded away from the project sites. Mitigation Monitoring: Truckee Donner Public Utility District Timing Process: Prior to construction Verification of Compliance(Initials,Date,Remarks): 14.5 Cultural Resources (a)-(d): The District will have a Registered Professional Archeologist on call during project activities. In the event that evidence of cultural resources is encountered while working, the Registered Professional Archeologist would be notified to assess the site. The District will coordinate any findings with the appropriate state, federal, and tribal entities according to standard reporting procedures to avoid disruption of any archaeological resources. Mitigation Monitoring—Truckee Donner Public Utility District Timing Process: Prior to and during construction Verification of Compliance(Initials,Date,Remarks): APPENDIX B California Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and listing of Special-Status Species for Truckee and Surrounding Region P Summary Table Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Query Criteria: Quad is (Truckee (3912032) or Kings Beach (3912021) or Hobart Mills (3912042) or Marts Peak (3912031) or Granite Chief(3912023) or Norden (3912033) or Tahoe City (3912022) or Independence Lake (3912043)) Nine quad CNDDB search Elev. Element OGG. Ranks Population Status Presence CNDDB Listing Status Range Total Historic Recent Poss. Name (Scientific/Common) Ranks (Fed/State) Other Lists (ft.) EO's A B C D X U > 20 yr <= 20 yr Extant Extirp. Extirp. Accipitercooperi/ G5 None CDFW WL-Watch List 6,400 103 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Coopers hawk S3 None IUCN_LC-Least 6,400 SA Concern Accipitergentilis G5 None BLM S-Sensitive 3,200 427 1 4 2 0 0 5 7 5 12 0 0 northern goshawk S3 None CDF S-Sensitive 8 200 S:12 CDFW SSC-Species of Special Concern IUCN LC-Least Concern USFS S-Sensitive Aplodontia rufa californica G5T3T4 None CDFW SSC-Species 6,400 16 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 10 0 0 Sierra Nevada mountain beaver S2S3 None of Special Concern 7 600 S:10 IUCN LC-Least Concern Arabis rigidissima var. demote G3T3Q None Rare Plant Rank- 1 B.2 7,500 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 Galena Creek rockcress S1 None USFS_S-Sensitive 8,400 S'2 Artemisla tripartita ssp. tripartite G5T3T5 None Rare Plant Rank-28.3 8,000 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 threetip sagebrush S2 None 8,000 S:3 Astragalus austiniae G2G3 None Rare Plant Rank - 16.3 8,200 9 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 1 5 0 Oil Austin'sastragalus S2S3 None 9,140 S:5 Botrychium crenulatum G3 None Rare Plant Rank -2B.2 6,100 74 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 8 0 0 scalloped moonwort S2 None USFS_S-Sensitive 7,000 S:8 Botrychium lunaria G5 None Rare Plant Rank -26.3 6,400 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 common moonwort S2? None USFS_S-Sensitive 6,400 SA Botrychium minganense G4G5 None Rare Plant Rank -2B.2 6,200 57 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 mingan moonwort S2 None USFS_S-Sensitive 6,500 S'2 Bruchia bolanderi G3 None Rare Plant Rank - 4.2 7,360 28 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Bolanders bruchia S3? None USFS_S-Sensitive 7,360 S.1 Capnia lacustra G1 None 6,250 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Lake Tahoe benthic stonefly S1 None 6,250 S.1 Commercial Version -- Dated October, 7 2014 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 6 Report Printed on Monday, October 27, 2014 Information Expires 4/7/2016 Summary Table Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database 0 K Elev. Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence CNDDB Listing Status Range Total Historic Recent Poss. Name (Scientific/Common) Ranks (Fed/State) Other Lists (ft.) EO's A B C D X U > 20 yr'i <= 20 yr Extant Extirp. Extirp. Carex davyi G2 None Rare Plant Rank - 1 B.3 6,351 19 0 1 1 0 0 0 6 1 6 7 0 0 Davy's sedge S2 None 8,230 S:7 Carex/asiocarpa G5 None Rare Plant Rank-26.3 6,300 15 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 woolly-fruited sedge S2 None 6,300 SA Carex limosa G5 None Rare Plant Rank -2B.2 6,400 34 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 mud sedge S3 None 6,500 S:2 Claytonia megarhiza G4G5 None Rare Plant Rank -2B.3 9,100 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 fell-fields claytonia S2S3 None 9,100 S:1 Cryptochia excella G1G2 None 6,000 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 Kings Canyon cryptochlan caddisfly S1S2 None 6,500 S.2 Cypseloides niger G4 None ABC WLBCC-Watch 6,770 46 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 black swift S2 None List of Birds of 6 770 S:1 Conservation Concern CDFW SSC-Species of Special Concern IUCN LC-Least Concern NABCI YWL-Yellow Watch List USFWS BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern Desmona bethula G2G3 None 6,000 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 amphibious caddisfly S2S3 None 6,500 S.2 Drosera anglica G5 None Rare Plant Rank -2B.3 6,500 23 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 0 0 English sundew S2 None 6,700 S:3 Ecclisomyia bilera G1G2 None 6,500 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Kings Creek ecclysomyian caddisfly SiS2 None 6,500 S.1 Empidonax traillii G5 None ABC_WLBCC-Watch 5,440 87 5 4 3 0 0 2 7 7 14 0 0 willow flycatcher SiS2 Endangered List of Birds of 6,950 S:14 Conservation Concern IUCN LC-Least Concern USFS S-Sensitive USFWS BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern Erigeron miser G2 None Rare Plant Rank - 1B.3 6,400 23 0 4 0 0 0 5 8 1 9 0 0 starved daisy S2 None USFS_S-Sensitive 9 100 S:g Commercial Version -- Dated October, 7 2014 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 6 Report Printed on Monday, October 27, 2014 Information Expires 4/7/2016 ;y�ssnNt4a Gs Summary Table Report r California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Elev. Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence CNDDB Listing Status Range Total I Historic Recent Poss. Name (Scientific/Common) Ranks (Fed/State) Other Lists (ft.) EO's A B C D X U > 20 yr <= 20 yr Extant Extirp. Extirp. Er/ogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum G5T2 None Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2 6,080 21 0 3 1 0 2 8 14 0 12 2 0 Donner Pass buckwheat S2 None USFS_S-Sensitive 8,600 S:14 Fen G2 None 6.400 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Fen S1.2 None 6,400 SA Glyceria grandis G5 None Rare Plant Rank -2B.3 6,190 11 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 American manna grass S2 None 6,200 S:2 Goeracea oregona G3 None 6,500 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Sagehen Creek goeracean caddisily S1S2 None 6,500 S:1 Great Basin Cutthroat TroutyPafute Sculpin GNR None 6,200 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 Stream SNR None S2 Great Basin Cutthroat Trout/Paiute Sculpin 6,400 Stream Great Basin Sucker/Dace/Redside Stream GNR None 5,800 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 With Cutthroat Trout SNR None S:2 Great Basin Sucker/Dace/Redside Stream 6,000 With Cutthroat Trout Grus canadensis tabida G5T4 None BLM S-Sensitive 6,240 604 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 greater sandhi[] crane S2 Threatened CDFW FP-Fully 6,240 S:1 Protected USFS S-Sensitive Gulo gulo G4 None CDFW_FP-Fully 6,060 173 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 3 6 0 0 California wolverine S1 Threatened Protected 6,800 S:6 IUCN NT-Near Threatened USFS_S-Sensitive Ha/iaeetus leucocephalus G5 Delisted BLM_S-Sensitive 6,200 316 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 bald eagle S2 Endangered CDF S-Sensitive 6,200 SA CDFW FP-Fully Protected IUCN LC-Least Concern USFS S-Sensitive USFWS BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern Helisomanewberryi G1Q None USFS_S-Sensitive 6,250 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Great Basin rams-horn S1 None 6,250 S.1 Ivesia sericoleuca G2 None Rare Plant Rank - 1 B.2 5,700 67 6 9 2 1 0 6 15 9 24 0 0 Plumes ivesia S2 None BLM S-Sensitive 7 000 S:24 USFS S-Sensitive Commercial Version -- Dated October, 7 2014 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 6 Report Printed on Monday, October 27, 2014 Information Expires 4/7/2015 :SQrri�rh Summary Table Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife t California Natural Diversity Database Elev. Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence CNDDB Listing Status Range Total Historic Recent Poss. Name (Scientific/Common) Ranks (Fed/State) Other Lists (ft.) EO's A B 1 C D X U > 20 yr'i <= 20 yr Extant Extirp. Extirp. Juncus luciensis G2G3 None Rare Plant Rank- 1 B.2 5,800 26 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 Santa Lucia dwarf rush S2S3 None USFS_S-Sensitive 6,670 S:2 Lasionycteris noctivagans G5 None IUCN_LC-Least 138 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 silver-haired bat S3S4 None Concern S:1 WBWG M-Medium Priority Lepidostoma ermanae G1G2 None 6,560 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Cold Spring caddisfly S1S2 None 6,560 S.1 Lepus americanus tahoensis G5T3T4Q None CDFW SSC-Species 6,350 12 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare S2? None of Special Concern 8,600 S:3 Lepus townsendii townsendii G5T5 None CDFW SSC-Species 6,350 24 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 western white-tailed jackrabbit S3? None of Special Concern 6,350 S'1 Lewisia longipetala G3 None Rare Plant Rank - 1 B.3 8,400 14 0 2 0 0 0 3 5 0 5 0 0 long-petaled lewisia S3 None USFS_S-Sensitive 9,000 S:5 Lithobates pipiens G5 None CDFW_SSC-Species 6,240 22 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 northern leopard frog S2 None of Special Concern 6 240 SA IUCN LC-Least Concern Margaritifera fa/cata G4G5 None 5,650 74 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 western peadshell S1S2 None 6,040 S:2 Mertes caurina sierrae G5T3 None USFS_S-Sensitive 1,800 111 0 0 1 0 0 5 5 1 6 0 0 Sierra marten S3 None 8,700 S:6 Meesla triquetra G5 None Rare Plant Rank -4.2 5,960 19 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 three-ranked hump moss S4 None 5,960 S.1 Meesla uliginosa G4 None Rare Plant Rank -28.2 6,160 46 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 18 18 0 0 broad-nerved hump moss S3 None USFS_S-Sensitive 7,760 S:18 Myotfs volans G5 None IUCN_LC-Least 7,530 116 0 1 0 0 0 00 1 1 0 0 long-legged myotis S4? None Concern 7,530 S.1 WBWG_H-High Priority Nardia hiroshii G5 None Rare Plant Rank-2B.3 7,200 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Hiroshi's flapwort S1 None 7,200 S:1 Ochotona princeps schisticeps G5T2T4 None IUCN_NT-Near 7,3751 328 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 gray-headed pike S2S4 None Threatened 8,3701 S:2 Commercial Version -- Dated October, 7 2014 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 6 Report Printed on Monday, October 27, 2014 Information Expires 4l7/2016 S,3 ss.is�l� Summary Table Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Elev, Element OCC. Ranks Population Status Presence CNDDB Listing Status Range Total I Historic Recent Poss. Name (Scientific/Common) Ranks (Fed/State) Other Lists (ft.) EO's A B C D X U > 20 yr <= 20 yr Extant Extirp. Extirp. Oncorhynchus clarkil henshawi G4T3 Threatened AFS_TH-Threatened 5,820 27 1 0 0 0 3 1 3 2 2 0 3 Lahontan cutthroat trout S2 None 6,950 S:5 Pandfon hal/aetus G5 None CDF_S-Sensitive 6,140 482 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 osprey S3 None CDFW WL-Watch List 6,140 SA IUCN LC-Least Concern Pekania pennanti G5T2T3O Candidate ELM S-Sensitive 6,300 647 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 fisher-West Coast DPS S2S3 Candidate CDFW SSC-Species 7 700 8:2 Threatened of Special Concern USFS_S-Sensitive Potamogeton epihydrus G5 None Rare Plant Rank -26.2 6,201 25 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Nuttall's ribbon-leaved pondweed S2S3 None 6,201 SA Potamogeton robbinsil G5 None Rare Plant Rank-2B.3 5,945 17 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 Robbins' pondweed S3 None 7,065 S:3 Rana sierrae G1 Endangered CDFW_SSC-Species 5,500 468 1 0 1 0 0 5 3 4 7 0 0 Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog S1 Threatened of Special Concern 8 320 S:7 IUCN_EN-Endangered USFS_S-Sensitive Rhamnus alnifolia G5 None Rare Plant Rank -2B.2 6,000 16 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 2 6 0 0 alder buckthorn S3 None 6,600 S:6 Rorippa subumbellata G1 Candidate Rare Plant Rank - IB.1 6,230 28 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 3 4 1 0 Tahoe yellow cress S1 Endangered SB BerrySB-Berry 6,500 S:5 Seed Bank SB_RSABG-Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden USFS_S-Sensitive Scutellaria galericulata G5 None Rare Plant Rank-2B.2 31 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 marsh skullcap S2 None SA Setophaga petechia G5 None CDFW SSC-Species 5,900 50 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 yellow warbler S3S4 None of Special Concern 6,840 S:3 USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern Sphaera/cea munroana G4 None Rare Plant Rank -2B.2 6,500 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Munro's desert mallow S1 None 6,500 S.1 Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina G5T5 None Rare Plant Rank - 2B.2 6,300 21 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 slender-leaved pondweed S3 None 6,300 S:1 Commercial Version -- Dated October, 7 2014 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 5 of 6 Report Printed on Monday, October 27, 2014 Information Expires 4/7/2016 a�`�g sr nztrtge Summary Table Report ' > y California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Elev. Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence CNDDB Listing Status Range Total Historic Recent Pose. Name (Scientific/Common) Ranks (Fed/State) Other Lists (ft.) EO's A B C D X U > 20 yr <= 20 yr Extant Extirp. Extirp. Stygobromus lacicolus G1 None 6,250 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Lake Tahoe amphipod S1 None 6,250 S.1 Stygobromus tahoensis G1 None 6,250 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Lake Tahoe stygobromid S1 None 6,250 SA Taxidea taxus G5 None CDFW SSC-Species 6,000 416 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 American badger S3 None of Special Concern 6,OOD S:1 IUCN LC-Least Concern Vulpes vulpes necator G5T1T2 None USFS_S-Sensitive 5,920 201 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 Siena Nevada red fox S1 Threatened 6,500 S2 Commercial Version -- Dated October, 7 2014 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 6 of 6 Report Printed on Monday, October27, 2014 Information Expires 4/7/2016 APPENDIX C Special-Status Wildlife and Plant Species and the Potential to Occur at or near the 2014 Electric System Master Plan project sites Table 1. Special-status Wildlife and Plant Species and the Potential to Occur at or near the 2014 Electric System Master Plan project sites. Species Habitat Potential Presence on Scientific Name Status* Preference.' Project Site FISH Lahontan cutthroat FT Found in a wide variety of cold-water Unlikely. Stocked by trout (Oncorhynchus habitats including lakes; rivers; and streams. Females reach maturity NDOW in 2011 on the NV clarki henshawi) between the ages of three and four, side of Lake Tahoe but no while males mature at two to three years of age. A stream spawner, apparent self-sustaining spawning between February and July. population exists. AMPHIBIANS Mountain yellow- CSC Found in the Sierra Nevada legged frog (Rana Mountains in creeks and lakes around Unlikely. No suitable 1200-7550 feet. A small species. Its muscosa) lower abdomen and the underside of habitats neat' the project site. the hind legs are yellow or orange. Breeds from March-August depending on elevation. Northern leopard SC Reaches 4.3 ins and from green to frog (Lithobathes brown with large, dark, circular spots. Unlikely. No suitable Found in ponds, swamps, marshes, pipiens) and slow-moving streams. They can habitats near the project be found above 9,800 ft. Breeding sites. occurs in the spring. MAMMALS A stocky, muscular, and solitary Unlikely. No suitable carnivore. Inhabits tundra, remote California wolverine habitat near the project sites. mountains, and boreal forests at or (Gino gulo) ST above the timberline. Listed as a Existing land use including California Threatened Species and residential development and federal candidate for listing, traffic on roadways likely wolverines face many dire threats to preclude occurrence. its habitat, including logging. A medium-sized forest dwelling Unlikely. No suitable mammal whose range covers much of Fisher (Mai°tes FC habitat near the project sites. the boreal forest in Canada to the pennanti) northern USA. Omnivorous and feed Existing land use including on a wide variety of small animals, residential development and fruits and mushrooms. Female fishers traffic on roadways likely give birth to a litter of three or four preclude occurrence. kits in the spring. i Species Habitat Potential Presence on Scientific Name Status* Preference Project Site Inhabits alpine and subalpine Unlikely. No suitable meadows and boreal forests above Sierra Nevada red ST habitat near the project sites. 6,000 feet. Nocturnal hunters feeding fox (Vulpes vulpes on rodents, mule deer, and birds. Loss Existing land use including necator) of habitat fi•om logging, off-road residential development and vehicles, and livestock grazing are traffic on roadways likely threats to their population. preclude occurrence. American badger Found in the western and central Unlikely. No suitable habitat (Taxidea taxes) Sc USA. Habitat is open grasslands with near the project sites. Existing available prey (such as squirrels, and groundhogs). They prefer areas with land use including residential sandy loam soils where they can dig development and traffic likely more easily for their prey. preclude occurrence. Sierra marten Found in conifer and mixed Unlikely. No suitable habitat (Mantes americana G5 hardwood forests. Widely distributed near the project sites. Existing sierra) in the U.S. Distribution is limited to land use including residential mountain ranges that provide development and traffic likely preferred habitat. preclude occurrence. The name "snowshoe" prevents its Sierra Nevada feet fi•om sinking into the snow when Possible. Suitable habitat at snowshoe hare SC it hops. Its fur turns white during the or near the project site. (Lepus americanus winter and rusty brown during the tahoensis) summer. In summer it feeds on plants and in winter it eats twigs and buds from flowers. Females may have up to four litters in a year which average three to eight young. Found throughout west-central Western white-tailed Canada and the U.S. up to 4,300 in. Possible. Suitable habitat at jackrabbit (Lepomis SC Prefer open grasslands, pastures and townsendii fields. Feeds on plants. Females may Or near the project site. townsendii) have up to four litters in a year which average three to eight young. Lives in underground burrows Unlikely. No suitable Sierra Nevada ranging. Brown in color with short habitat near the project sites. mountain beaver tails. Adults weigh about 1-2 lbs. Existing land use including Total length is about 12-20 in. They (Aplodontia rufa build elaborate burrow systems. The residential development and californica) breeding season is between January traffic on roadways likely and March, preclude occurrence. ii Species Habitat Potential Presence on Scientific Name Status* Preference Project Site Fur is dull brown on the dorsum and Long-eared myotis yellowish on the venter. Females give Not present. No suitable M otis evotis birth to 1 pup each summer. Well- y habitat at or near the project G5 suited to foraging in the forest interior. Diets are focused on moths, Site. which they often capture by plucking the insects fi-om a surface. This species is found primarily in coniferous forest. The most common bat in forested Silver-haired bat G5 areas in the United States. Often roost Lasionycteris in tree cavities or in bark crevices on Not present. No suitable noctivagans tree trunks, especially during habitat at or near the project migration. Silver-Haired bats are nearly black, with silvery-tipped hairs site. on back, giving frosted appearance. BIRDS Range includes most of Canada and Alaska, all of the contiguous United Unlikely. No suitable Bald eagle SE, Fed States, and northern Mexico. It is habitat near the project sites. (Haliaeetus delisted) found near large bodies of open water Existing land use including leucocephalus) with an abundant food supply of fish residential development and and old-growth trees for nesting, high vehicular traffic on Sexually mature at four years or five roadways likely preclude years of age. occurrence. ST Forages over woodland and conifer Unlikely. Not expected in Coopers hawk forest that support small mammals. (Accipiter cooperii) Nests in trees usually along riparian residential areas; no nearby corridor. agricultural fields. A widespread raptor species that Northern goshawk SC inhabits the temperate parts of the Not present. No suitable Accipiter gentillis northern hemisphere. Migratory habitat at or near the project goshawks are often seen migrating south along mountain ridge tops in site. September and October. U.S. reedings hehole of the Not present. No suitable Yellow warbler Occupies typically riparian or (Dendroica petechia SC otherwise moist land with ample habitat at or near the project brewsteri) growth of small trees, in particular site. willows. Feed mainly on insects. iii Species Habitat Potential Presence on Scientific Name Status* Preference Project Site Black Swift Breeds in small colonies on cliffs Not present. No suitable --/CSC behind or adjacent to waterfalls in habitat at or near the project deep canyons and sea bluffs above Cypseloides niger surf, forages widely. site. Osprey Ocean shore, bays, fresh-water lakes, Not present. No suitable --/CSC and larger streams. Large nests built habitat at or near the project Pandion haliaetus in treetops within 15 miles of good site. fish-producing body of water. PLANTS .................. ...................... ..... ............ . .. .. Tulare rockcress A dicot and perennial herb that Not present. No suitable (Boechera tularensis 1B.3 is endemic to California. Usually habitat at or near the project occurs on rocky"slopes in Subalpine site. and upper montane coniferous forests. Not present. No suitable Common moonwort A fern that is native to California and Botrychium hinaria 2.3 is also found elsewhere in North habitat at or near the project America. Inhabits lodgepole forest, site. subalpine forest, Red fir forest, wetland-riparian. Scalloped moonwort A fern that is native to California and is also found elsewhere in North Not resent. No suitable (Botrychium 2.2 p America. Inhabits meadows, crenulatum) freshwater-marsh, bogs/fens in the habitat at or near the project Yellow Pine Forest. site. Not present. No suitable Western goblin A fern that is native to California and g habitat at or near the project (Botrychium 2.1 is also found elsewhere in North America. Inhabits meadows, site. montanum) freshwater-marsh, bogs/fens in the Yellow Pine Forest Not present. Suitable Davy's sedge (Carex A monocot and perennial herb that habitat found but not at or davyi) 1B.3 is endemis to California. Found in near the project site. subalpine and upper montane coniferous forests iv Species Habitat Potential Presence on Scientific Name Status* Preference Project Site A monocot and perennial herb that is Not present. Suitable Woolly-fruited native to California and also found habitat found but not present sedge (Carex 2.3 outside of California. Found in at or near the project site lasiocarpa) freshwater wetlands including lake margins, marshes, bogs/fens and edges native to and Not present. Suitable A monocof ot and perennial herb that is Mud sedge (Carex is and also found habitat found but not present limosa) 2.2 outside of California. Found in at or near the project site. freshwater wetlands including lake margins,marshes, bogs/fens and edges Not present. No suitable Donner Pass A divot and perennial herb that is habitat at or near the project buckwheat 1B.2 endemic to California. Inhabits lodgepole forest and Red Fir Forest. site. (Ei^iogort2rm Can occur in wetlands but typically umbellatum var. found in non wetlands. torre))anum) Not present. No suitable American manna A dicot and perennial herb that is native to habitat at or near the ro ect California and Nevada. Found in p grass (Glyceria 2.3 freshwater wetlands including lake site. grandis) margins, marshes, bogs/fens and edges. Not present. No suitable Long-petaled lewisia 1B.3A dicot and perennial herb habitat at or near the project Is endemic to California. Inbabits subalpine (L2W4sia forests and alpine fell-fields. site. longipetala) A bryophyte,a moss that is native to California. Not present. NO suitable Inhabits bogs/fens meadows and seeps in Broad-nerved hump 2.2 subalpine and upper montane coniferous habitat at or near the project moss (Meesia forests. site. uliginosa) Not present. No suitable Alder buckthorn A divot and perennial shrub that is native to 2.2 Catifornia and elsewhere. Inhabits Red Fir habitat at or Heal' the project (Rhamnus alnifolia) Forest, Lodgepole pine forest, and wetlands. site. Not present. No suitable Tahoe yellow Cress A divot and perennial herb that is native to y IB.l California and Nevada. Inhabits meadows, habitat at Or near the project (ROrippa seeps on decomposed granitic beaches in lower site. subumbellata) montane coniferous forests. v Species Habitat Potential Presence on Scientific Name Status* Preference Project Site Not present.No suitable Marsh skullcap 2.2 A dicot and per perennial herb that is native to habitat at or near the project (Scutellaria California. in wetlands of yellow galericulata) pine forests. site. Not present.No suitable Mun o's desert 2.2 A dicot and perennial herb that is native to habitat at or near the project mallow California but common elsewhere.Found (Sphaeralcea in Great Basin Scrub. site. munroana) Slender-leaved pondweed 2.2 A dicot and perennial herb that is native to Not present.No suitable (Stuckenia Cal;fomia.Inhabits freshwater marsh systems.. habitat at or near the project filiformis) site. Not present. Suitable Nevada starved A divot and perennial herb that habitat found but not at or is native to California.Typically daisy (Erigeron 2•3 inhabits rocky habitats in sagebrush near the project site. eatonii var. scrub and Northern Juniper nevadincola) woodland. A dicot and perennial herb that is Not present.No suitable Plumas ivesia endemic to California.Inhabits habitat at or near the project (ivesia sericoleuca) 1B.2 sagebrush scrub,Yellow Pine Forest, Freshwater Wetlands,and wetland- site. riparian habitats. A monocot and perennial herb that is Not present.No suitable Nuttail's ribbon- native to California.Inhabits habitat at or near the project leaved pondweed 2.2 freshwater wetlands and wetland- (Potanaogeton riparian habitat.Occurs almost site. epihydrus) always under natural conditions in wetlands. A round,evergreen shrub up to 1.8 m tall. Not present.NO suitable Threetip sagebrush 2.3 Grows well on moderate to deep,well- habitat at or near the project (11 rtmeisia tripartite) drained,loamy and sandy soils.Flowers bloom between July and September and Site. seed matures in October. *Categories of special status recognition used by federal and state agencies. FE=Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; FC=Federal Candidate for listing SE= State Endangered; ST= State Threatened; CSC = State Candidate; List 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California; List 2 = Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California but common elsewhere; List 3 =Plants about which we need more information. vi