HomeMy WebLinkAbout4,5,6 CEQA Public Hearings Agenda Item #
Memorandum
To: Board of Directors
From: Peter Holzmeister
Date: February 27, 2004
Subject: CEQA public hearings
Why this matter is before the board: This matter involves three public
hearings. Only the board conducts public hearings
History: We are planning to construct three projects during the 2004 season
and have complete the initial environmental review and prepared draft mitigated
Negative Declarations for all three (copies are attached). The three projects are
the Northside Transmission Pipeline Project, the Richards Drive Booster Station
and the Prosser Village Well Building and Discharge Pipeline. The board has
authorized circulation of these documents to the appropriate parties and has
called for these public hearings
New information: The public hearings have been advertised. At the conclusion
of the hearings you the thirty-day comment period will not have expired, so you
will not yet be in a position to take formal action on the Negative Declarations.
That matter will be scheduled for a future meeting.
Recommendation: Other than conducting the public hearings, no other action is
recommended.
Initial Study I Proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration
Richards Drive Booster Station
[2f ,�t fi0£5
dLx
Project Location —
_ Gateway
`- Amok
l_
ea L q pN /`ASS FO A} �
t n r:`_'•K �'� _a. 1 h l'la�ka �` Id�y�th�� -
Ile
f s
Prepared For
E Taylor, Water Utility Manager TRUCKEE DONNER
Truckeee Donner Public Utility District P � � } �
11570 Donner Pass Road
Truckee, CA 96160
Prepared By-
Glenn Merron
Inland Ecosystems INLAND
435 Terminal Way Suite 204A
Reno, NV 89502 ECOSYSTEMS
February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
(Prepared pursuant to Article V of the
Environmental Guidelines of the District)
1. Project Title: Richards Boulevard Booster Pump Station
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District
P.O. Box 309
Truckee, CA 96160-0309
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Peter L. Holzmeister, General Manager
(530) 582-3916
4. Project Location: Approximately 200 feet northwest of the
intersection of Richards Boulevard and
Donner Pass Road,Truckee, CA
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District
P.O. Box 309
Truckee, CA 96160-0309
6. General Plan Designation: Residential/Industrial
7. Zoning: Residential/Industrial
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support,or off-site features necessary for its
implementation.)
Project Purpose
The proposed project involves construction of a 18-foot by 32-foot booster pump station, paved
driveway and parking area by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (District) on a Town of
Truckee right-of-way located on the south shoulder of Richards Boulevard, approximately 200
feet northwest of the intersection of Richards Boulevard and Donner Pass Road (Appendix A;
Figure 1). In addition, 440 linear feet (If) of 8-inch pipeline would be constructed from the
booster pump station and extend eastward on Richards Boulevard and Donner Pass Road before
turning northwards and joining an existing 6-inch pipeline on Highway Drive (Appendix A;
Figure 1). The purpose of the booster pump station is to interconnect the Gateway and Donner
Lake areas in order to provide an alternative water supply to the Donner Lake area.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Background
The original location for the Richards Boulevard booster pump station was approximately 0.25
miles west of the present location on the north side of Richards Boulevard on a parcel owned by
the District. The wetland and biological assessment conducted for the Donner Lake Water
System Rehabilitation, Phase 2 Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
adopted in 2001 revealed a potential for wetland impacts, particularly on the eastern half of this
parcel.
Therefore, to avoid the potential for wetland impacts the District identified the new proposed
booster pump station site along a Town right-of-way. The new site is a highly disturbed and
compacted road shoulder between Richards Boulevard and Donner Pass Road, and there are no
wetlands or waters of the U.S., including ephemeral drainages, found on the project site.
The proposed Richards Boulevard Booster Pump Station project is included in and consistent
with the District's 2001 Water Master Plan Update along with the Environmental Initial Study
and Negative Declaration adopted in 2001 (SCH#97012046). The District's 2001 Water Master
Plan Update was based on the General Plan of the Town of Truckee (SCH# 94092041). The
project is consistent with the environmental plans and policies of the Town of Truckee.
Project Characteristics
The proposed project involves construction of a 18-foot by 32-foot booster pump station, paved
driveway and parking area by the District on a Town of Truckee right-of-way located on the
south shoulder of Richards Boulevard, approximately 200 feet northwest of the intersection of
Richards Boulevard and Donner Pass Road (Appendix A; Figure 2). The booster pump station
will be constructed with concrete block walls, wooden frame roof, and asphalt composition
shingles. The parking area would be located between the building and the existing edge of
pavement for Richards Boulevard (See Photo 1). Runoff from the paved driveway will be
directed to a underground infiltration gallery designed to contain the 20 year-i hour storm event.
In addition, 440 linear feet of 8-inch pipeline would be constructed from the booster pump
station and extend eastward on Richards Boulevard and Donner Pass Road before turning
northwards and joining an existing 6-inch pipeline on Highway Drive (Appendix A; Figure 2).
New pipeline construction will occur in existing roads and rights-of-way. As is standard with all
District construction projects of this type, trenching and backfill operations will include surface
restoration either with paving or other permanent erosion control measure. Materials and
construction shall be in accordance with current District standards.
The District will install the booster pump station and pipeline in accordance with the Lahontan
Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) coverage under the statewide General Permit
for Construction activities that will include mitigation measures for the protection of water
quality. The proposed project will require an encroachment permit from the Town of Truckee.
Issuance of these permits, and associated mitigation measures will ensure the project complies
with environmental and public safety regulatory standards.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The "No Project" alternative does not offer any advantages over the proposed project in terms of
improving the transmission of potable water and adequate fire protection to District customers.
Therefore, the proposed project is considered the preferred alternative.
9. Other Agencies Who's Approval Is Required:
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region
Town of Truckee
10. Environmental Setting of the Project:
The proposed project site is located on the USGS 7.5-minute Norden quadrangle within the
western portion of the Town of Truckee, Nevada County, California (Appendix A; Figure 1).
This proposed project site is on a Town of Truckee right-of-way located on Richards Boulevard,
just north of Interstate 80 at the Donner Pass Road exit in western Truckee. The project site
occurs at an elevation of approximately 6,000 feet. The site is bounded on the west by roadside
stands of trees, Richards Boulevard forms the northern and eastern boundary of the parcel, and
Donner Pass Road forms the southern boundary.
q
s,.
r
t
Photo 1. Location of the Richards Boulevard Booster Pump Station.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality
® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils
❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/
Materials Planning
❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/
Housing
❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/
Traffic
❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On behalf of this initial evaluation:
[ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[X] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions have been made
by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL
BE PREPARED.
[ ] I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" effect on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)
has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
t ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EB2 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is
required.
Signature Date
Peter L. Holzmeister, General Manager Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Printed Name For
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
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. A "No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
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?
Response to questions:
(a)—(d): The booster pump station will be set back from the existing residential roadway. The
location of the station would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring- None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In Potentially Less Than Less Than No
determining whether impacts to agricultural Significant Significant Significant Impact
resources are significant environmental effects, Impact With Impact
lead agencies may refer to the California Mitigation
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Incorporated
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): There would be no impact to agriculture as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring -None Required
3. AIR QUALITY -- Where applicable, the
significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air 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?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 6 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ® ❑ ❑
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) 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?
Response to questions:
(a): The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality
plan.
(b): Construction activities have the potential to generate emissions through the release of
fugitive dust associated with construction and excavation activities. In order to reduce this
potential impact to a less than significant level, fugitive dust emissions shall be minimized at all
times utilizing control measures including regularly applied water, and graveled and paved haul
roads. When transporting material during site preparation or construction, measures shall be
used to prevent material from spilling or blowing onto streets and highways.
(c)-(e): There would be no impact to these issues of air quality as a result of the proposed project.
No unusual air quality impacts would result from implementation of the project.
Mitigation Measure(s) - The following mitigation measures(s) shall be incorporated into the
project:
4(b). Fugitive dust emissions shall be minimized at all times utilizing control measures
including regularly applied water, and graveled and paved haul roads. When transporting
material during site preparation or construction, measures shall be used to prevent
material from spilling or blowing onto streets and highways. Specific control measures
shall be noted on grading plans.
Mitigation Monitoring -Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would Potentially Less Than Less Than No
the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
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?
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?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 8 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Response to questions:
As a result of the District relocating the booster station from its parcel on Richards Boulevard to
the current site located near the intersection of Richards Boulevard and Donner Pass Road all
potential impacts associated with wetland habitat and their associated fauna and flora as outlined
in the Donner Lake Water System Rehabilitation, Phase 2 CEQA Mitigated Negative
Declaration have been avoided. In November and December 2003 Inland Ecosystems conducted
two surveys the proposed new site location. While the biological surveys associated with the
proposed new site were conducted outside the nesting season and/or presence in the area for
many birds an understanding of the habitat requirements, including a literature review, for
species potential utilizing the site and the degree of existing human development in the
immediate area (e.g., site location is on an existing cleared and maintained area on a well
traveled road) were factors considered in the impact assessment. It is the intention of the
District, as outlined below, to conduct a pre-construction raptor and migratory bird survey prior
to ground disturbance(See Mitigation Measure below).
(a): Surveys for special status species and their habitats were conducted in November and
December 2003. While the surveys were conducted outside the nesting season and/or presence in
the area for many birds, there is no suitable habitat for most organisms. No vegetation exists at
the site. During the surveys no special status species were observed.
Numerous raptor species forage and nest in various habitats throughout the Sierra Nevada.
Raptor nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and by Section 3503.5
of the California Fish and Game Code. The Jeffrey pine forest habitat within the project site
support potential nesting habitat for several raptor species. Disturbance to an active raptor nest
could occur during construction activities. Disturbing an active raptor nest would violate
Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the Department of Fish and Game Code and would be considered a
potentially significant impact. Migratory bird habitat also exists in the project site. The nests of
all migratory birds are protected under the MBTA, which makes it illegal to destroy any active
migratory bird nest. Numerous migratory bird species have the potential to nest within the
project site. Implementation of the mitigation measure outlined below would reduce this impact
to less than significant. Implementation of the mitigation measures outlined below will reduce
potential impacts to special-status species and/or their habitats to a less than significant level.
The proposed project will not have a significant impact on rare, endangered, threatened, or other
special-status species identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFG or
USFWS.
(b)-(c): The initial site of the booster station on Richards Boulevard contained seep-spring
wetland which would have made locating the booster station difficult to avoid the wetland area.
Encroachment into wetland habitat that is tributary to the Truckee River is a violation of the
LRWQCB Basin Pan. The District, therefore, relocated the booster station under an agreement
with the Town of Truckee. Relocating the booster station thereby reduced potential wetland
impact by total avoidance.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Implementation of the mitigation measures identified below will ensure that the project would
not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive habitat in local or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by CDFG or USFWS.No trees will be removed within the project footprint.
(d): The proposed construction activities will not 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. During the
course of the construction period limited short-term interference to wildlife movement may
occur, however not to such a degree that it would be considered to be a significant impact. Any
wildlife encountered during construction activities will be allowed to leave the area unharmed, or
herded a safe direction away from the project site. The project site is located in a heavily used
part of the Town of Truckee.
(e)-(f): The project will not conflict with local policies protecting biological resources or
conflict with the provisions of an HCP, NCCP, or other approved conservation plan.
Mitigation Measure(s) - The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the
project:
4(a): Raptor and migratory nest surveys will be conducted prior to construction activities. If an
active nest is located in close proximity to the project site based on recommendations
made to the District by the surveying biologist, the District will immediately notify the
appropriate resource agencies.
4(b)-(c): The District's environmental monitor will ensure that the contractor implements best
management practices. No excess or sidecast soil will be left on the site. The District
will construct the booster pump station and install the pipeline in accordance with the
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) coverage under the
statewide General Permit for Construction activities that will include mitigation measures
for the protection of water quality. The proposed project will also require an
encroachment permit from the Town of Truckee. Issuance of these permits, and
associated mitigation measures will ensure the project complies with environmental and
public safety regulatory standards.
Mitigation Monitoring: Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 10 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would Potentially Less Than Less Than No
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?
Response to questions:
The cultural resources responses are based on previous assessments conducted by Dr. Susan
Lindstrom, within the immediate area of the proposed Richards Boulevard booster pump station
site. In addition a qualified archeologist conducted a pedestrian archaeological survey on
November 26, 2004.
(a)-(d): Two archaeological record searches have previously been conducted at the North Central
Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (NCIC File No.
NEV-03-52 and Nev-03-70). These record searches indicated that there are no cultural resources
located within the project area. A pedestrian archaeological survey was conducted on November
26, 2004. No prehistoric or historic sites were identified within the project area. While there are
no known archeological resources along the proposed pipeline alignment, it would be a
significant impact if such resources were present, and were displaced or demolished during
construction activities. The mitigation measures outlined below will reduce this potential impact
to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure(s) - The District will have Dr. Susan Lindstrom, a cultural/historic
archeologist, on-call during any site disturbance. In the event that evidence of cultural resources
is encountered during construction of the pipeline, Dr. Lindstrom would be notified to record the
location of such resources and gather available information. 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 and historical resources.
Mitigation Monitoring -Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No
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 seismic
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?
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?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 12 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Response to questions:
(a)-(c): The project is limited to construction of the booster pump station and associated pipeline,
and there is no aspect of the project that would expose people or property to increased risk
during strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or liquefaction. No faults in the area have
been designated as Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones, a designation used by the state to
identify significant hazard zones along faults. Other hazards, such as lateral spreading, lurch
cracking, regional subsidence and liquefaction, are unlikely to occur due to local soil water
conditions.
(d);(f): Landslides can result from weak soils on steep slopes and from earthquakes.
Construction of the booster station would not result in a significant impact.
(e): During excavation the majority of trenching spoil material will be screened for backfilling.
Unwanted material would be hauled away. The project activities do not present significant
potential for soil erosion and impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant.
(g): The project includes standard construction operations, which do not include introduction of
population onto the project sites, therefore there would be no impact to soil constraints.
(h): No demands for wastewater disposal systems are included in the project, therefore no
impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required
Mitigation Monitoring -None Required
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Potentially Less Than Less Than No
MATERIALS -- Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Impact With Impact
Mitigation
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 handles ❑ ❑ ❑
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
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?
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?
Response to questions:
(a)-(h): The proposed project does not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials, therefore no impacts are anticipated. The project does not include any sites within an
airport land use plan. No component of the project activities would impair or interfere with
emergency response or evacuation, or expose people or structures to wildland fires.
Mitigation Measures) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring - None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 14 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER Significant Significant Significant Impact
QUALITY -- Would the project: Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ ❑
waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑
supplies or interfere substantially with
or 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?
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
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
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?
Response to questions:
(a): The District will construct the booster pump station and install the pipeline under the
statewide General Permit for Construction activities that will include mitigation measures for the
protection of water quality and would, therefore, not cause any degradation to water quality
within the area. Proposed erosion and pollution control elements will be fully addressed in the
Districts BMP Plan submitted to the LRWQCB. A preliminary list of specific BMPs for this
project is provided in Appendix B.
(b): No water demands are associated with the proposed project, and the proposed project will
not impact groundwater quality or quantity.
(c)—(f): The proposed project will not substantially alter drainage within the area. Consequently,
the proposed activities would not change absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff, nor will it impact water quality in the area.
(g)-(i): No housing is proposed as part of this project, therefore no impact is anticipated
0): No portion of the project area is subject to the possibility of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow,
therefore no impact is anticipated.
Mitigation Measure(s)-None Required
Mitigation Monitoring - None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 16 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
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,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Response to questions:
(a)—(b): No changes to existing zoning or land use are proposed with this project. There would
be no impact to any land use and planning as a result of the proposed project.
(c): The proposed project area is not affected by a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural
Community Conservation Plan, and will therefore not impact such plans.
Mitigation Measure(s)-None Required
Mitigation Monitoring - None Required
10. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No
project: Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Response to questions:
(a)—(b): No demands for energy or mineral resources are proposed with this project, therefore no
impact to mineral resources would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring-None Required
11, NOISE -- Would the project result Potentially Less Than Less Than No
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 groundbome vibration noise
levels?
c) 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 residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Response to questions:
(a);(c): There will be no impact to these issues related to noise as a result of the proposed project.
(b);(d): During construction activities, noise levels would increase temporarily during
construction activity. This noise increase would be of short duration, and would occur during the
daylight hours of 7 a.m. - 6 p.m. Monday-Friday, and 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. on Saturday. Booster
station plans shall include reference to these restricted hours of construction. This impact would
be restricted to the construction period only and is considered less than significant.
(e)-(f): The Project site is not within an airport land use plan.
Mitigation Measure(s)- None Required
Mitigation Monitoring - None Required
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?
Response to questions:
(a)—(c): The project activities would not interfere with, or create demands on police or fire
protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring - None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
13. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No
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 or Incorporated
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? El 0
c) Schools? El R El 0
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities? El F-1 El
Response to questions:
(a)—(e): No aspect of the proposed project would interfere with, or create a demand for, public
services.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring -None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
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): The project will not impact existing or proposed neighborhood parks, regional parks, or
recreational facilities.
Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required
Mitigation Monitoring -None Required
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/Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Potentiallv 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): During construction, there will be an increase in vehicle trips to the project site associated
with the contractor's activities. This is a temporary impact and is considered less than
significant.
(b)—(g): 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.
Mitigation Measure(s)
15(a): Traffic control and lane closure plans will be submitted to the Town of Truckee for
approval as part of the encroachment permit process.
Mitigation Monitoring- Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 22 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
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?
c) 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.
Response to questions:
(a)-(e): The proposed project does not require wastewater treatment.
(f)-(g): The proposed project does not require solid waste disposal.
Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required
Mitigation Monitoring -None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Less Than Less Than No
SIGNIFICANCE Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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
plan or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
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)?
Does the project have environment effects ❑ ❑ ❑
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Response to questions:
(a): With implementation of recommended mitigation, the project does not have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of any wildlife species nor create adverse
effects on human beings. The proposed project is comprised of standard construction activities to
install a booster station. This project 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 Game or United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(b): The proposed project would not result in any cumulative impacts, or would be so small that it
makes only a de minimus contribution which is considered not cumulatively considerable.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 24 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
(c): Refer to discussion in item "a", above.
REPORT PREPARATION
This Initial Study was prepared under contract with the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by
Inland Ecosystems. pal author s Glenn Merron.
Prepared by: Date: / �G
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
APPENDIX A
RICHARDS BOULEVARD BOOSTER PUMP
STATION AND PIPELINE PROJECT FIGURES 1 & 2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 26 February 2004
"Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
I�XI'6,1
.. A,r.,iy b
G f j 4
vi
Afdei.Hdf
t 1
Bennett Fiat
r
CIA
r
l
- r; -
utrs
CA
MOT
�"r----" �"� Protect LocationyyNZ Trvekee
°
)4 S --
0 M5b 6cn144
71
If
�.f
.01
EMORIAL1'}i
!a Agm4Ul-und z
ARK �a i L G•a.1 pit,
r
NFVADA 00 c fla
Gam,'
" atE ,'rvdte e
r�
2, T 2< H
o „ Figure 1, Project Location
miles
va=e USGS 7-5 minute Richard's Boulevard INLAND
-/
N Truckee,CA 1992 Booster Station ffOSYSTEMS
1
t
iIa
mo ?
3 Y �
M a OP,
CUT IN NEW�""ne
CONNECTTO
"."..14"STL - o INSTALL 8"90'ELBOW S EXIST 8 DI PIPE
"
CONNECT TO EXIST PIPE
HOT TAP EXIST WITH 8"FCA
`HO PIPE
M.1?AMyslt`RFPAULT- -�� fie..• \ t\ �'�q Y`
N L
TER
9—XI
NEW B"PIPE
ie'xar �, y --
PUMP STATIONwe,S w -"
d
i -
nonnr
i
/
SCALE TRUCKEE DONNER Proposed Site Plan
1"=40'ON 11"x 17" Public Utility District Richards Pump Station
APPENDIX B
PRELIMINARY BMPs DURING PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION
The District's BMP Plan includes the following measures:
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
• Retain soil and sediment on the construction site:
The District will implement an effective combination of erosion and sediment control on
all disturbed areas during the 2004 construction season. Wherever possible the trench line
will be opened and filled as quickly as possible to minimize spoil piles. Trenching spoil
materials will either be trucked away and the trench backfilled with standard construction
material, or some of the spoil may be screened and used as backfill as outlined below. All
excavated material not used for backfill will be disposed in designated landfills.
Temporary spoil piles not immediately backfilled will be covered with plastic sheeting
each night to avoid either wind blown or runoff of sediment. The District will ensure that
all spoil piles are stabilized and covered with heavy-duty plastic or visquine sheeting
during any precipitation event and/or overnight. It should be noted that District policy
prohibits large sections of the road to be plated or to stockpile spoil piles as a safety an
environmental precaution. Any temporary spoil piles will be located upslope of the
trench line.
Trenching will be temporarily suspended prior to and during storm events, and equipment
will be either shut down or be utilized for erosion control and temporary runoff control.
For the purpose of this project, a "storm" is defined as any precipitation event that could
or would cause runoff, and sedimentation from surfaces exposed by construction.
Construction activities also have the potential to release fugitive dust associated with
excavation activities and grading. In order to reduce this potential impact fugitive dust
emissions shall be minimized at all times utilizing control measures including an
aggressive sweeping program and regularly applied water when deemed necessary. When
transporting material during site preparation or construction, measures shall be used to
prevent material from spilling or blowing onto roadways.
The District will follow the guidelines established for erosion control methods consistent
with the requirements of the LRWQCB Lahontan Region Guidelines for Erosion Control.
These erosion control practices will be implemented to include, but not limited to, silt
fencing and/or hay bales placed downslope of the project site in areas where road surface
drainage naturally flows into roadway drainage ditches.
Where soil disturbance has occurred in undisturbed areas, the District will employ an
aggressive soil cover program as the most cost-effective and expeditious method to
protect soil particles from transport by rainfall or wind. The District will consider
measures such as covering with mulch, fiber rolls or blankets, silt fencing, hay bales,
and/or reseeding. Staging areas will be delineated with construction and silt fencing. The
trench will be graded and sloped to restore former configurations. There will be no
physical changes to roadways or to slope contours as a result of the project. The pipeline
will cross either above or below any culverts. Where the trench is adjacent to drop inlets,
straw bales and/or straw wattles will serve as the primary sediment collector. Sediment
absorbing fabric will also be placed in drop inlets as the second defense to minimize
sediment transport.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 28 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
• Non-Storm Water Management
Water that will be used to flush and pressure test the pipeline will be discharged into the
existing sanitary sewer system. A permit application will be filed with the Truckee
Sanitary District and the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency for this discharge. No water
will be discharged onto the soil surface or to any perennial or ephemeral surface waters,
including wetlands. The proposed project will not impact groundwater quality or
quantity. Non-storm water discharges such as the use of water to keep dust down during
excavation shall not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.
• Spill Prevention and Control
Specific BMP's for spill prevention include the contractor having on-site, at all times, a
Spill Containment Kit. All equipment will be properly cleaned and inspected for leaks
prior to and during trenching operations. All equipment will be checked regularly, at a
minimum of once in the morning and once in the afternoon, for leaks before and during
operation.
• Maintenance, Inspection, and Repair
All BMPs implemented for this project will be properly maintained by both the
contractor as well as the District to ensure their effectiveness.
The District will periodically conduct inspections of the construction site on a daily basis
and more frequently prior to anticipated storm events and after actual storm events.
During extended storm events, inspections will be made during each 24-hour period.
Equipment, materials, and workers will be available for rapid response to failures and
emergencies,
initialStudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 30 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration
Northside Transmission Pipeline Project
�� 'T{aog¢r Station,.,
_= Project Location
t
U k
Truckee »Y nec
iIOCG EFT�Y 3N
Prepared For
Ed Taylor, Water Utility Manager TRUCKEE DONNER
Truckee Donner Public Utility District P � s � � � t _v � t � r
C
11570 Donner Pass Road
Truckee, CA 96160
Prepared By
Glenn Merron
Inland Ecosystems I INN'
(`�F�
435 Terminal Way Suite 204A
Reno, NV 89502 ECOSYSTEMS
February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
(Prepared pursuant to Article V of the Environmental
Guidelines of the District)
1. Project Title: Northside Transmission Pipeline Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District
P.O. Box 309
Truckee, CA 96160-0309
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Peter L. Holzmeister, General Manager
(530) 582-3916
4. Project Location: Along Indian Jack Road, Bridge Street, and
nearby terrain north of Interstate 80,
Truckee, California
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District
P.O. Box 309
Truckee, CA 96160-0309
6. General Plan Designation: Residential/Industrial
7. Zoning: Residential/Industrial
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project,and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation.)
Project Purpose
The proposed Northside Transmission Pipeline project involves the construction of 3,150 linear
feet of 24-inch potable water transmission line that will connect the Truckee Donner Public
Utility District's (District's) Bridge Street 6170 Tank site to the District's Northside Tank site at
the western end of the alignment (Appendix A; Figure 1). The purpose of the project is to
increase the east-west transmission capabilities within the District's water system.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration I February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Background
The District is proposing to install approximately 3,150 linear feet of 24-inch potable water
transmission pipeline that will connect the Bridge Street 6170 Tank site to the Northside Tank
site at the western end of the alignment (Appendix A; Figure 1).
The proposed Northside Transmission Pipeline is included in and consistent with the District's
2001 Water System Master Plan Update" along with the Environmental Initial Study and
Negative Declaration adopted in 2001 (SCH#97012046). The master plan was based on the
General Plan of the Town of Truckee (SCH#94092041). The purpose of the project is to increase
the east-west transmission capabilities within the Districts existing water distribution system.
This Initial Study, therefore, focuses on the environmental issues which are relevant to the
installation of the transmission pipeline. The project is consistent with the environmental plans
and policies of the Town of Truckee.
Project Characteristics
The western end of the pipeline will join the District's Northside Tank site piping infrastructure
(See Appendix B, Drawing P-1). Construction will occur through a tree and shrub covered
hillside. The pipeline will come out onto Indian Jack Road at the sharp bend and continue
eastward down the road prism and through an existing access road to the intersection of Bridge
Street and Indian Jack Road. The pipeline will continue up Bridge Street to the first bend and
then will proceed eastward along the north side of Interstate 80 (See Appendix B, Drawing P-2).
The pipeline will then turn northwards through an existing disturbed area, cross a dirt road, and
join into the District's 24-inch pipeline located within a paved access road leading to the Bridge
Street 6160 Water Storage Tank (See Appendix B, Drawing P-3). Existing underground utilities
including potable water, sanitary sewer, storm drain, power, telephone and natural gas exist
within the project area.
Pipeline construction will involve excavation and backfill of trenches. As is standard with all
District construction projects of this type, trenching and backfill operations will include surface
restoration either with paving or other permanent erosion control measure. Installation of the
pipeline will result in approximately 12,600 square feet of ground disturbance which is largely
either within the road prism of Bridge Street and Indian Jack Road, or associated with areas
where trenching has already occurred to install previous underground services.
The District will install the pipeline in accordance with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality
Control Board (LRWQCB) coverage under the statewide General Permit for Construction
activities that will include mitigation measures for the protection of water quality. The proposed
project will require an encroachment permit from the Town of Truckee. Issuance of these
permits, and associated mitigation measures will ensure the project complies with environmental
and public safety regulatory standards.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The "No Project" alternative does not offer any advantages over the proposed project in terms of
improving the transmission of potable water and adequate fire protection to District customers.
Therefore, the proposed project is considered the preferred alternative.
9. Other Public Agencies Who's Approval Is Required
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region
Town of Truckee
10. Environmental Setting of the Project
The proposed project site is located on the USGS 7.5-minute Truckee quadrangle approximately
0.2-0.4 miles north of downtown Truckee, Nevada County, California. The project site lies at
approximately 6,000 feet elevation. The pipeline alignment is bounded by rural land to the north
and Interstate-80 to the south. Antelope bitterbrush, and conifer forest of Jeffrey pine (Pious
jeffreyr) and ponderosa pine (Pines ponderosa) are found along the eastern and western ends of
the alignment. Slopes range from 16% to 45% along the pipeline alignment. The eastern portion
of the project area can be accessed from Bridge Street north of the Interstate 80 overcrossing.
The western portion of the project area can be accessed from Indian Jack Road north of the
Interstate 80 overcrossing. Downtown Truckee lies to the south of the pipeline alignment.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
. .............. . .........
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant hnpact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality
® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils
❑ Hazards &Hazardous ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/
Materials Planning
❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/
Housing
❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/
Traffic
❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On behalf of this initial evaluation:
[ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[X] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions have been made
by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL
BE PREPARED.
[ ] I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" effect on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)
has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier FIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier FIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is
required.
Signature Date
Peter L. Holzmeister. General Manager Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Printed Name For
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
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. A "No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project_ Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
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?
Response to questions:
(a)—(d): There would be no impact to aesthetics as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring- None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In Potentially Less Than Less Than No
determining whether impacts to agricultural Significant Significant Significant Impact
resources are significant environmental Impact With Impact
effects, lead agencies may refer to the Mitigation
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Incorporated
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): There would be no impact to agriculture as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures) -None Required
Mitigation Monitoring -None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 6 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
................. .............................. .
3. AIR QUALITY -- Where applicable, Potentially Less Than Less Than No
the significance criteria established by the Significant Significant Significant Impact
applicable air quality management or air Impact With Impact
pollution control district may be relied Mitigation
upon to make the following Incorporated
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?
c) 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
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ Z
substantial number of people?
Response to questions:
(a): The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality
plan.
(b): Construction activities have the potential to generate emissions through the release of
fugitive dust. Fugitive dust emissions shall be minimized at all times utilizing control measures
including regularly applied water and paved haul roads. When transporting material during
construction, measures shall be used to prevent material from spilling or blowing onto streets.
(c)-(e): There would be no impact to these issues of air quality as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measure(s) - The following mitigation measures(s) shall be incorporated into the
project:
4(b). Fugitive dust emissions shall be minimized at all times utilizing control measures
including regularly applied water, and graveled and paved haul roads. When transporting
material during site preparation or construction, measures shall be used to prevent
material from spilling or blowing onto streets and highways. Site cleared vegetation shall
be treated by legal means other than open burning, including chipping, shredding, or
grinding. Specific control measures shall be noted on grading plans.
Mitigation Monitorine-Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
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?
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?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 8 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Response to questions:
The biological resources responses are based on field reconnaissance and site assessment
provided by Inland Ecosystems biological resources consultants. Field work included a wetland
delineation, special-status species survey, literature review and consultation with resource
specialists. In November and December 2003 Inland Ecosystems conducted two surveys along
the pipeline alignment. While the biological surveys associated with the proposed new site were
conducted outside the nesting season and/or presence in the area for many birds an understanding
of the habitat requirements, including a literature review, for species potential utilizing the site
and the degree of existing land use (e.g., the majority of the pipeline will be installed along the
road prism) were factors considered in the impact assessment. It is the intention of the District,
as outlined below, to conduct a pre-construction raptor and migratory bird survey prior to ground
disturbance (See Mitigation Measure below).
(a): Surveys for special status species and their habitats were conducted in November and
December 2003. While the surveys were conducted outside the nesting season and/or presence in
the area for many birds, there is no suitable habitat for most organisms. During the surveys no
special status wildlife or plant species were observed.
A search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFG 2003), maintained by CDFG, was
conducted for all records of special status plant and animal species occurring within the USGS
quadrangle location encompassing the project, as well as all adjacent quadrangles. Due to the
wide-ranging capabilities of some wildlife species, a database search was done for all wildlife
species occurring in Nevada County. A species list from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for the Norden and Truckee quadrangles was also reviewed. Additionally, a record
search was conducted of the below listed electronic database and museum voucher specimen
resources for local collections or occurrences:
• (UCD) Wildlife and Entomology Museums, University of California, Davis, CA,
museum collections and occurrence records (2003).
• (MVZ) Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
museum collections and occurrence records (2003).
• (CAS) California Academy of Sciences museum collections and occurrence
records (2003).
• (CNPS) Electronic database of the California Native Plant Society, Sacramento,
CA, (2003).
• (CalFlora) Electronic database of California plant collections consisting of
records from 18 different herbaria datasets from U.0 Berkeley, USDA Forest
Service, Harvard University Herbaria, etc. (2003).
Additional resources reviewed include documented occurrences from the local chapter of the
California Native Plant Society, and the Tahoe National Forest Soil Survey (USDA 1994) for the
presence of any soils associated with rare plant taxa. The Nevada County Natural Resources
Report (Nevada County 2002) was consulted for information on the distribution and extent of
habitats, and the relationships between habitats and special status species in the local context.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
The Sensitive Plant Handbook of the Tahoe National Forest (USDA 2000) was consulted for
information on special status plants known from the Truckee region.
A routine wetland determination was conducted for sites potentially impacting, either directly or
indirectly, wetland habitats. The delineations were conducted according to the USACOE 1987
Wetland Delineation Manual (USACOE 1987). The current indicator status for wetland plants
occurring in the project area was obtained from the National List of Plant Species That Occur in
Wetlands (Reed 1988), and the USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database, available on-line.
Soils, hydrology, and vegetation were examined in the field for evidence of wetland characteristics,
and results were recorded on field data sheets. Soil pits were dug to a depth of approximately 12 to
16 inches, and examined for hydric soil characteristics. Soil matrix, mottle, and gley colors were
determined using the Munsell soil color charts. Paired sampling locations were established within
potential wetland areas and in the adjacent uplands to establish the boundary of potential
wetlands. The sample points and the boundary of the potential wetland were mapped in the field
using a Trimble Pro Global Positioning System (GPS), which offers 0-1 meter accuracy.
Appendix D contains the wetland delineation report prepared by Chainey-Davis Botanical
Consulting.
(a): No federal and/or CDFG Species of Special Concern were observed within the project area.
However, at least marginally suitable breeding habitat does exist for six CDFG Species of
Special Concern: Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus),
osprey (Pandion haliaetus), California homed lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), Sierra Nevada
snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus tahoensis), and white-tailed hare (Lepus townsendii). In
addition Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator), wolverine(Gulo Rulo luteus), bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) could occur as
transients, traveling between areas of more suitable habitat. This project location occurs in close
association with busy roadways (e.g., I-80, Bridge Street, and Indian Jack Road) and developed
areas; and since only poor quality habitat exists, no adverse effects to these species are expected.
Numerous raptor species forage and nest in various habitats throughout the Sierra Nevada
Raptor nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and by Section 3503.5
of the California Fish and Game Code. The Jeffrey pine forest habitat surrounding the project
site support potential nesting habitat for several raptor species. Disturbance to an active raptor
nest could occur during construction activities. Disturbing an active raptor nest would violate
Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the Department of Fish and Game Code and would be considered a
potentially significant impact. Migratory bird habitat also exists in the project site. The nests of
all migratory birds are protected under the MBTA, which makes it illegal to destroy any active
migratory bird nest.
Implementation of the mitigation measure outlined below would reduce the potential for impact
to special-status species to less than significant. There are no streams, ephemeral drainages or
wetlands that would be affected by the project. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a
significant impact on rare, endangered, threatened, or other special-status species identified in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFG or USFWS.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 10 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
(b)-(c): routine wetland delineation was performed by a qualified wetland delineation specialist
on November 20, 2003. The District realigned the pipeline alignment to avoid wetland impacts
(See Appendix B, Figure P-1). No streams or rivers would be affected by the project.
Implementation of the mitigation measures identified below will ensure that the project would
not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive habitat in local or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by CDFG or USFWS. The District is committed to minimizing the removal, if
any, of mature pine trees along the proposed western end of the alignment. Approximately 34
trees may need to be removed along the western end of the alignment.
(d): The proposed construction activities will not 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. During the
course of the construction period limited short-term interference to wildlife movement may
occur, however not to such a degree that it would be considered to be a significant impact. Any
wildlife encountered during construction activities will be allowed to leave the area unharmed, or
herded a safe direction away from the project site.
(e)-(f): The project will not conflict with local policies protecting biological resources or conflict
with the provisions of an HCP, NCCP, or other approved conservation plan.
Mitigation Measure(s) - The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the
project:
4(a): The area near the wetland along the western end of the alignment will be fenced off as an
Environmentally Sensitive Area (See Appendix B, Plate P-1) and lined with construction
and silt fencing to prevent heavy equipment or potential sediment movement outside the
project footprint. The District will use heavy equipment upslope of the trench and all
materials will be sidecast away from the wetland. An environmental monitor will he on-
site during construction near the wetland habitat to prevent indirect impacts to the
wetland. Fencing or other barriers will remain in place until all work that involves heavy
equipment near the wetland is complete expected not to take longer than one day.
Raptor and migratory nest surveys will be conducted prior to construction activities. If an
active nest is located, construction activities shall be limited in the vicinity of the nest
based on recommendations by the surveying biologist and consultation with the
California Department of Fish and Game.
4(b)-(c): The environmental monitor will ensure that the contractor implements best management
practices. No excess or sidecast soil will be left on the site and the District will comply
with all best management practices stipulated in the Regional Water Quality Control
Board's General Permit for Construction activities. Impacts to conifer forest habitat will
be minimized to the extent possible by working with the contractors to avoid large trees.
Any mature pine trees removed will be replace at a 2:1 ratio by the District with 15
gallon trees of the same species on the project site.
Mitigation Monitoring: Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
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 §I5064.5?
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?
Response to questions:
The cultural resources responses are based on a state record search provided by Inland
Ecosystems cultural resources consultants, and included literature review and consultation with
cultural resource sources.
(a)-(d): An archaeological records search was conducted at the North Central Information Center
of the California Historical Resources Information System (NCIC File No. NEV-04-6). This
records search indicated that there are no cultural resources located within the project area. The
Native American Heritage Commission was also contacted regarding any Sacred Lands located
within the project area. None were on record with the commission. The local Washoe Tribe was
contacted via phone and letter for any further information they have on local Sacred Lands. No
response was received. A pedestrian archaeological survey was conducted on November 26,
2003. No prehistoric or historic sites were identified within the project area. While there are no
known archeological resources along the proposed pipeline alignment, it would be a significant
impact if such resources were present, and were displaced or demolished during construction
activities. The mitigation measures outlined below will reduce this potential impact to less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure(s) - The District will have Dr. Susan Lindstrom, a cultural/historic
archeologist, on-call during any site disturbance. In the event that evidence of cultural resources
is encountered during construction of the pipeline, Dr. Lindstrom would be notified to record the
location of such resources and gather available information. 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 and historical resources.
Mitigation Monitoring -Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 12 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would Potentially Less Than Less Than No
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 seismic 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?
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?
Initial Study(Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Response to questions:
(a)-(c): The project is limited to standard pipeline installation, and there is no aspect of the
project that would expose people or property to increased risk during strong seismic ground
shaking, ground failure, or liquefaction. No faults in the area have been designated as Alquist-
Priolo Special Study Zones, a designation used by the state to identify significant hazard zones
along faults. Other hazards, such as lateral spreading, lurch cracking, regional subsidence and
liquefaction, are unlikely to occur due to local soil water conditions.
(d);(f): Landslides can result from weak soils on steep slopes and from earthquakes. The
installation of the pipeline in the project area would not result in a significant impact.
(e): During excavation the majority of trenching spoil material will be screened for backfilling.
Unwanted material would be hauled away. The project activities do not present significant
potential for soil erosion and impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant.
(g): The project includes standard trenching operations, which do not include introduction of
population or property onto the project sites, therefore potential soil constraints would be less
than significant.
(h): No demands for wastewater disposal systems are included in the project, therefore no
impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required
Mitigation Monitoring- None Required
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Potentially Less Than Less Than No
MATERIALS -- Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public ❑ ❑ ❑ N
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 handles ❑ ❑ ❑
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 14 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
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?
Response to questions:
(a)-(h): The proposed project does not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials, therefore no impacts are anticipated. The project does not include any sites within an
airport land use plan. No component of the project activities would impair or interfere with
emergency response or evacuation, or expose people or structures to wildland fires.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring - None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
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?
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?
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which Q ❑ ❑
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?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 16 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Response to questions:
(a): The District will install the pipeline under the statewide General Permit for Construction
activities that will include mitigation measures for the protection of water quality and would,
therefore, not cause any degradation to water quality within the area. Proposed erosion and
pollution control elements are addressed in the Districts BMP Plan provided in Appendix C.
These mitigation measures will be subject to review by the LRWQCB in addition to identifying
further mitigation measures may deem appropriate.
(b): No water demands are associated with the proposed project, and the proposed project will
not impact groundwater quality or quantity.
(c)—(f): The proposed project will not alter drainage within the area. Consequently, the proposed
activities would not change absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff, nor will it impact water quality in the area.
(g)-(i): No housing or structures are proposed as part of this project, therefore no impact is
anticipated.
0): No portion of the project area is subject to the possibility of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow,
therefore no impact is anticipated.
Mitigation Measure(s)- None Required
Mitigation Monitoring-None Required
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,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Response to questions:
(a)—(b): No changes to existing zoning or land use are proposed with this project. There would
be no impact to any land use and planning as a result of the proposed project.
(c): The proposed project area is not affected by a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural
Community Conservation Plan, and will therefore not impact such plans.
Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required
Mitigation Monitoring -None Required
10. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No
project: Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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): No demands for energy or mineral resources are proposed with this project, therefore no
impact to mineral resources would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required
Mitigation Monitoring- None Required
11. NOISE -- Would the project result
in:
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 groundbome vibration noise
levels?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 18 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) 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 residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Response to questions:
(a);(c): There will be no impact to these issues related to noise as a result of the proposed project.
(b);(d): During construction activities, noise levels would increase temporarily during pipeline
installation and increased truck traffic on area roadways. This noise increase would be of short
duration, and would occur during the daylight hours of 7 a.m. - 6 p.m. Monday-Friday, and 10
a.m. - 5 p.m. on Saturday. Pipeline installation plans shall include reference to these restricted
hours of construction. This impact would be restricted to the construction period only and is
considered less than significant.
(e)—(f): The project site is not within an airport land use plan.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring -None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
12. POPULATION -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No
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?
Response to questions:
(a)—(c): The project activities would not interfere with, or create demands on police or fire
protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities.
Mitisation Measure(s) -None Required
Mitigation Monitorins - None Required
13. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the
project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new 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? ❑ ❑ ❑
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
i
i
Response to questions:
(a)—(e): No aspect of the proposed project would interfere with, or create a demand for,
public services.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring -None Required
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): The project will not impact existing or proposed neighborhood parks, regional parks, or
recreational facilities.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
..................... ..
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
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
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 19
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts)?
Response to questions:
(a): During construction, there will be an increase in vehicle trips to the project site associated
with the contractor's activities. This is a temporary impact and is considered less than significant.
(b)—(g): The project would not result in physical changes to roadways, and therefore, would not
result in impacts related to transportation, parking, or transportation policies, plans, or programs.
Mitigation Measure(s)
15(a): Traffic control and lane closure plans will be submitted to the Town of Truckee for
approval as part of the encroachment permit process.
Mitigation Monitoring -Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 22 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
f
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?
c)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.
Response to questions:
(a)-(e): The proposed project does not require wastewater treatment.
(f)-(g): The proposed project does not require solid waste disposal.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring - None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially less Than Less Than No
SIGNIFICANCE Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 plan or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
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)?
Does the project have environment effects ❑ ❑ ❑
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Response to questions:
(a): With implementation of recommended mitigation, the project does not have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of any wildlife species nor create
adverse effects on human beings. The proposed project is comprised of standard construction
activities to install a water supply pipeline. This project 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 Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
(b): The proposed project would not result in any cumulative impacts. Public water supply is one
of the many services needed to allow orderly growth and development of the Truckee area.
Issues related to growth and development including intensity, density, location, and timing
among others, are the responsibility of the appropriate planning agency in this case the Town of
Truckee.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 24 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
(c): Refer to discussion in item "a", above.
REPORT PREPARATION
This Initial Study was prepared under contract with the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by
Inland Ecosystems. Principal author was Glenn Merron.
Prepared by: Date:
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
APPENDIX A
SITE MAP FOR THE NORTHSIDE TRANSMISSION
PIPELINE
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 26 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
F
r +
A,waY 8 rrnsx tzM r pp '..
�, � �, t3 •.p - j� 2 , r f d
� � •7"•� � / / � .f Il i� �i j�t ' BM 4426
t ,
t f
J
Y
/1
Y ' f
41
f f
vary
ti
G _ ,
.: .• �, ._, saaswf do -,:-� --___�-. — 7_
1
' x r
Project Location
✓X
:T
./� T ckEB RgiCs f- 1
.s '� �ntcltee � � .�_RegmrAl Park 1 's -f
• f �. ! j'
—
�' .YYeto fir• , Pontle,ou i
�j, Cem Golf Course
4 s
of
IM
22
,�Jq{ 4 I. ✓ i
•� 1 t. f / l , i rSr.
` ---
t ,
j e _
i \
BN W3a t it � i • � a h
l �. -- • .� ( a�.a
e w a T A j j Q - E Figure 1. Project Location
miles Northside Transmission INLAND
uses 7.5 minute Pipeline EctxYsrf^ts
f` N Truckee,CA 1992 f _
APPENDIX B
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
' rmnux.e RlE£WOI Y'Rawro � wrruu'r..e R,�-----_—
rm aerzueawroxmlR p p / A IIYfN1e RtNroAARL__ _ NOTE:}MEdSTMCT tiE9EftVEs'ME RIO m w m MN�EuC '
Mf4t RQYMM110.3f.•i1LN 40 i1 :• � NfILL RPYNMIP0.T 11ONiMCGK4T l0
mlCcimme[w rma reeea / xcryt rraE4feE1�Wl. '`� �omT reaea.BEOEruzblwwiw K1HUilONS TOlF1E PIPELINE KMAM1ENTm AVOID EXISTING T1tEE3
aff�rnxwvw '- � xnNrvo zem m.wna zu xwrsw o�wmav�reEiaroee
zaoEru.zcwaww .ti �"`""eO '
+ roazvm n+txrEmul _.____._
�aw�ar� saero+Nzwa �F
¢ulrnwroem ..ro z„m^'�Nx,y� �
siamiazt »m �Ao
xauezacxoorenmwraaeee � omEerzann uracE+a.nrro '
/rn rc®zNnroruaemarc • ,� "�... '•m P� TaOoaw.nnre
/( mwrwcnoe am � ma r�i•asaeon ��"� "'��-.,,�•N
� C �
IX9f4tzfq PME
(� � ` ANI1 p1ESA'CMMllif `'�- -`-'• Y
r \\`ffrigNMai ]HOEiK.W VI.f Pt
Mf1LL#RR
MGIIXH9eW8 `� � %N.14W rr.m
W6f.41 iRi.RC MiED
CWIRIIl9O%
xemzo.m @ fi
ezmwMa us�sltmrzea�M. VALE __. _/'.
��� � y gNPOMIBifMtV 9B.WiNE MIEN. .-. -. fi-._—.
E. n 8FE%Kv:1W Mil WPIE31Pv:11CM
+ _ 6000 59>0
59"
5990 -. ._ �......_— ..._. �._ _ _... __ —.
5985
.__ —.
5945
5940
5970 xzw z.- .xo
396 z-Y mn
5955 wiM'�i.zz raezrx rra — en z. .wE.xo mxu. 5M
.4--5 _._. .___ 59t
S9al
samN �mro• � �
39A5 �y rmrNz. emmE z r cmro+
--I Nmz-z suc uraxl —/ z r.ee RAi amm �0
0 �aET a.zaxoNn 10
394
_ _ _ ._ I taM.AroEM ��� 590U—
aanu ovPE '�
3935 ' wp wAzw 900
rwr munr °ET
TRUCKEE DONNER Nq 8CE PASKNPE NEB
PLAN AND PROFILE-1 P-�
NET Public Utility District
Pea!Mike B. 909 Truax».G 9Eil0 sere
Oab: i.tS10D•
ROrE 1NE pSRRICT RE5ER1lES R1E RICairt R14NKEMIRq(
nueRnrrows TO ��aEi�ME a!aMaExrronwroEn�srxws rREEs //�/ ' �'-�'b� �\\ `
samxrra � � ���wrki�eeow' MertuxnreE m \/
uA mNZCMiW \ / v`aR i nBrpixBfVed4l MPpEBp.VrCxp9 a 6MT1[M rJrm VrW MLLl�II' McMu m.MO Mw.ce dvuw mswnRi 6(,r Ms+.�µ
cJ
°9•"' t raruExav� \
II[I.11pl nrm
Wi
s
RCCeI rO HlflhMf 4f4td 1YP BAT.W.aA9AM `••.�--__"�_ 4r W.Sl.4LMNIY IT2AH9LWd �`
t""T�"L0MO0�� I MarMEa�omn.
. -_caaeuaaix
$920 uw 5975
— ... .. 5970 - —-
9
tS
"ler crave H°OX v6rMo 965
_—
' raxierM urveE r
ut rrav Lmxa� S9S5
SKS pit:. wPM WOSP Cpl01Rf 5945
S_990 5940 sEew p
— �._._ _ _ 5_90_
5�65 '�v'�Mue o�Er ea�nw� ... _.. 5935
59(i0
] aAer�u wosv mar as 5925
]0 a avow .._
_- 3810
5920...
rr� try 59t
AM - SB60 3910 ! L9910
-
3 3 s s
oeWnea:Rac nenspRs:
TRUCKEE DONNER "M"Uaa Public Utility District PLAN AND PROFILE-2
OaM 1-15]0R4 PeM Mfiee Bey 309 T.kw. G "M
P-2
SHEET
4ote
�� KTERRipNS ip 111EPProEl9@N.1[iNA1ENi TO.WQID X�I9T�NG i E3 tuinrrHaaa �` � exiSi cCw wLLeN
\ PIERMYN MNE S EFgTNaPRP��
\ Y911RN.CERIECiItN gyp LNE
♦♦♦ � m ¢Tiro � mnamaan
\ xst...yyyyyy���j��rum�.ls eianse \
3 WT��PPrtn � Plrt]l RIEEMOEXPoixanFE
` CaY ASiNlNrtflfNdINLTPEE BII,M:M23��
_ \\\ A WtMt®'SM®CN ZCCMPM.NSi1LL,9 \\
�N"�-Sai m\ ` _ E1J9i(ill'MMfi N9PPBrthE9IMl `P 2EdMMf4q SNl MOf%6i NAl PJR
\. �� REMM£O,f�EP ftASMC'141
_ ezrermawce Neew<wrcu�iu r- `'�� rmnrozErwnwvavniPiro.T
- ''pro newxo u'rePcoxeauc*� `v"� -� owrm co9snxcmri
c� ��ace nwlnNrnvwr.Psrroa.oPrsne ,tv
anrn+cauimmnw v A xai.uxar�
6110
fiW5 6110,_ — —..-- 6103
o 6Q60 d
_.. —.... o>.m —.
6020 "YI _.—.. saoei sa,wi+ 'ro 6100
6013 _.._ .. raiPer 610
as ix
Pore �snow'ro
6010 �-
._.4
�p3 6040
sxim { W-90
6063
39]3 � ars�cr 6010 —... }...—_.. �...._..—_ 6033
3910 _.
3910 I '-- aerPu av«nP 6030_
serxa.x wsrwrrE woz coxoaP —
3 uozwc sEoer wmoa 6030
260 PeEPfiTss, oxw.00z g%0 6000
a
rgamstce mmsrissxx+pr7,.Pt oBnvmn
TRUCKEE DONNER P-3
a..P: Np8 PLAN AND PROFILE-3
Public Utility District
sae
C6ecMIX PET Post W1 Box JI}B TtueYN. W 96180
Qsb: t-15IJW
APPENDIX C
PRELIMINARY BMPs DURING PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 28 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
The District's BMP Plan includes the following measures:
Retain soil and sediment on the construction site:
The District will implement an effective combination of erosion and sediment control on
all disturbed areas during the 2004 construction season. Wherever possible the trench line
will be opened and filled as quickly as possible to minimize spoil piles. Trenching spoil
materials will either be trucked away and the trench backfilled with standard construction
material, or some of the spoil may be screened and used as backfill as outlined below. All
excavated material not used for backfill will be disposed in designated landfills.
Temporary spoil piles not immediately backfilled will be covered with plastic sheeting
each night to avoid either wind blown or runoff of sediment. The District will ensure that
all spoil piles are stabilized and covered with heavy-duty plastic or visquine sheeting
during any precipitation event and/or overnight. It should be noted that District policy
prohibits large sections of the road to be plated or to stockpile spoil piles as a safety an
environmental precaution. Any temporary spoil piles will be located upslope of the
trench line.
Trenching will be temporarily suspended prior to and during storm events, and equipment
will be either shut down or be utilized for erosion control and temporary runoff control.
For the purpose of this project, a "storm" is defined as any precipitation event that could
or would cause runoff, and sedimentation from surfaces exposed by construction.
Construction activities also have the potential to release fugitive dust associated with
excavation activities and grading. In order to reduce this potential impact fugitive dust
emissions shall be minimized at all times utilizing control measures including an
aggressive sweeping program and regularly applied water when deemed necessary. When
transporting material during site preparation or construction, measures shall be used to
prevent material from spilling or blowing onto roadways.
The District will follow the guidelines established for erosion control methods consistent
with the requirements of the LRWQCB Lahontan Region Guidelines for Erosion Control.
These erosion control practices will be implemented to include, but not limited to, silt
fencing and/or hay bales placed downslope of the project site in areas where road surface
drainage naturally flows into roadway drainage ditches.
Where soil disturbance has occurred in undisturbed areas, the District will employ an
aggressive soil cover program as the most cost-effective and expeditious method to
protect soil particles from transport by rainfall or wind. The District will consider
measures such as covering with mulch, fiber rolls or blankets, silt fencing, hay bales,
and/or reseeding. Staging areas will be delineated with construction and silt fencing. The
trench will be graded and sloped to restore former configurations. There will be no
physical changes to roadways or to slope contours as a result of the project. The pipeline
will cross either above or below any culverts. Where the trench is adjacent to drop inlets,
straw bales and/or straw wattles will serve as the primary sediment collector. Sediment
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
absorbing fabric will also be placed in drop inlets as the second defense to minimize
sediment transport.
• Non-Storm Water Management
Water that will be used to flush and pressure test the pipeline will be discharged into the
existing sanitary sewer system. A permit application will be filed with the Truckee
Sanitary District and the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency for this discharge. No water
will be discharged onto the soil surface or to any perennial or ephemeral surface waters,
including wetlands. The proposed project will not impact groundwater quality or
quantity. Non-storm water discharges such as the use of water to keep dust down during
excavation shall not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.
• Spill Prevention and Control
Specific BMP's for spill prevention include the contractor having on-site, at all times, a
Spill Containment Kit. All equipment will be properly cleaned and inspected for leaks
prior to and during trenching operations. All equipment will be checked regularly, at a
minimum of once in the morning and once in the afternoon, for leaks before and during
operation.
• Maintenance, Inspection,and Repair
All BMPs implemented for this project will be properly maintained by both the
contractor as well as the District to ensure their effectiveness.
The District will periodically conduct inspections of the construction site on a daily basis
and more frequently prior to anticipated storm events and after actual storm events.
During extended storm events, inspections will be made during each 24-hour period.
Equipment, materials, and workers will be available for rapid response to failures and
emergencies.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 30 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration
Prosser Village Well Building
and Discharge Pipeline
l
rtl
i
j�'
t i
PtOjeCl Cofalion
P ;'- epaCed For
Ed Taylor, Water Utility Manager TR CKEE ryONNER
Truckee Donner Public Utility District F u 6�4.I1. V. �i�6_frYyi
11570 Donner Pass Road
Truckee, CA 96160
Glenn Merron
Inland Ecosystems INLAND
LA�"*�{
435 Terminal Way Suite 204A I'� _
"',s'(s";"r,"i C Reno, NV 89502 --c�..�_ ,`� L-s.�
February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
(Prepared pursuant to Article V of the Environmental
Guidelines of the District)
1. Project Title: Prosser Village Well Building and
Discharge Pipeline
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District
P.O. Box 309
Truckee, CA 96160-0309
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Peter L. Holzmeister, General Manager
(530) 582-3916
4. Project Location: Approximately 1000 feet south of the
Prosser Village Interstate 80 interchange,
Truckee, California
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District
P.O. Box 309
Truckee, CA 96160-0309
6. General Plan Designation: Residential
7. Zoning: Residential
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation.)
Project Purpose
The proposed project involves construction of a 18-foot by 36-foot well building, paved
driveway and parking area, and the installation of 4,190 linear feet (If) of potable water
distribution pipeline within the Old Greenwood subdivision located in eastern Truckee,
California (Appendix A: Figure 1). The pipeline will connect to the Truckee Donner Public
Utility District (District) Prosser Village Well. Development of the Prosser Village Well was a
District action evaluated in a CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration in 2003
(SCH#2003082017). The purpose of the pipeline is to connect the Prosser Village Well to the
District's existing distribution pipelines.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Background
The District evaluated five sites between Prosser Dam Road and Old Airport Road for a
proposed production well including Airport flats/Old Airport Road, Old Greenwood tank site,
Interstate 80 freeway under crossing, Prosser Dam Road, and Prosser Village. Following an
evaluation of the five sites, the District concluded that the Prosser Village site was the preferred
alternative. Development of the Prosser Village Well was a District action evaluated in a CEQA
Mitigated Negative Declaration in 2003 (SCH#2003082017). This Initial Study, therefore,
focuses on the environmental issues which are relevant to construction of the well building,
paved driveway and parking area, and the installation of 4,190 linear feet (lf) of water
distribution pipeline.
The proposed project is included in and consistent with the District's 2001 Water System Master
Plan Update along with the Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration adopted in
2001 (SCH#97012046). The master plan was based on the General Plan of the Town of Truckee
(SCH# 94092041). The purpose of the pipeline is to connect the Prosser Village well to the
District's existing distribution pipelines. The project is consistent with the environmental plans
and policies of the Town of Truckee. There are no wetlands or waters of the U.S. that would be
affected by the project action.
Project Characteristics
The District is proposing to construct an 18-foot by 36-foot well building, paved driveway and
parking area, and install 4,190 linear feet (lf) of potable water distribution pipeline (Appendix B:
Figure 2). The proposed pipeline will connect the Prosser Village Well to existing distribution
pipeline in the area. The well building will be constructed with concrete blocks, wooden frame
roof, and asphalt composition. Runoff from the paved driveway will be directed to a detention
basin designed to contain the 20 year-1 hour storm event. The 4,190 If of new pipeline consists
of 3,610 If of 16-inch pipe and 580 if of 8-inch pipe. Installation of the pipeline will result in
approximately 16,760 square feet of ground disturbance. As is standard with all District
construction projects of this type, trenching and backfill operations will include surface
restoration either with paving or other permanent erosion control measure.
The District will install the pipeline in accordance with the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (LRWQCB) coverage under the statewide General Permit for Construction activities that
will include mitigation measures for the protection of water quality. The proposed project will
require an encroachment permit from the Town of Truckee. Issuance of these permits, and
associated mitigation measures will ensure the project complies with environmental and public
safety regulatory standards.
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The "No Project" alternative does not offer any advantages over the proposed project in terms of
improving the transmission of potable water and adequate fire protection to District customers.
Therefore, the proposed project is considered the preferred alternative.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
9. Other Agencies Who's Approval Is Required:
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region
Town of Truckee
10.Environmental Setting of the Project:
The proposed project site is in the Old Greenwood subdivision located on the USGS 7.5-minute
Truckee quadrangle within the eastern portion of the Town of Truckee, Nevada County, CA. The
project site lies at approximately 6,000 feet elevation within a developing residential community.
The project area is bounded by Interstate-80 to the north and rural residential land to the south.
The Glenshire residential area lies to the east and the Town of Truckee to the west. Antelope
bitterbrush, and conifer forest of Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) and ponderosa pine (Pinus
ponderosa) are found within the project area. The primary project access points to the project site
are from Interstate 80 and Glenshire Drive.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality
® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils
❑ Hazards &Hazardous ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/
Materials Planning
❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/
Housing
❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/
Traffic
❑ Utilities/Service Systems ElMandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On behalf of this initial evaluation:
[ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[X] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions have been made
by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL
BE PREPARED.
[ ] I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" effect on the environment, but at least one effect I) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)
has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier FIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is
required.
Signature Date
Peter L. Holzmeister, General Manager Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Printed Name For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
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. A "No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
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?
Response to questions:
(a)—{d): The well building will be set back from the existing residential roadway. The location of
the well building would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring - None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In Potentially Less Than Less Than No
determining whether impacts to agricultural Significant Significant Significant Impact
resources are significant environmental effects, Impact With Impact
lead agencies may refer to the California Mitigation
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Incorporated
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, ❑ ❑ El 0
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): There would be no impact to agriculture as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measure(s} -None Required
Mitigation Monitoring - None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 6 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
AIR QUALITY -- Where applicable, the Potentially Less Than Less Than No
significance criteria established by the Significant Significant Significant Impact
applicable air quality management or air Impact With Impact
pollution control district may be relied upon to Mitigation
make the following determinations. Would the Incorporated
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?
c) 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 thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑
substantial number of people?
Response to questions:
(a): The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality
plan.
(b): Construction activities have the potential to generate emissions through the release of
fugitive dust associated with excavation activities. Fugitive dust emissions shall be minimized at
all times utilizing control measures including regularly applied water, and graveled and paved
haul roads. When transporting material during site preparation or construction, measures shall
be used to prevent material from spilling or blowing onto streets and highways.
(c)-(e): There would be no impact to these issues of air quality as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures) - The following mitigation measures(s) shall be incorporated into the
project:
4(b). Fugitive dust emissions shall be minimized at all times utilizing control measures
including regularly applied water, and graveled and paved haul roads. When transporting
material during site preparation or construction, measures shall be used to prevent
material from spilling or blowing onto streets and highways. Site cleared vegetation shall
be treated by legal means other than open burning, including chipping, shredding, or
grinding. Specific control measures shall be noted on construction plans.
Mitigation Monitoring -Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would Potentially Less Than Less Than No
the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
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?
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?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 8 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Response to questions:
The biological resources responses are based on field reconnaissance and site assessment
provided by Inland Ecosystems biological resources consultants. Surveys were conducted in
accordance with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines for conducting surveys (CDFG 1984, USFWS 1996).
The botanical and wildlife surveys were conducted on foot and all observed species were noted,
as well as vegetation communities and habitat types that might support sensitive or special status
species. All plant species were identified to a level necessary to detect special status plants, if
present. The botanical surveys included both vascular and non-vascular species. Surveys for
special status plants and wildlife species were conducted on July 8 and 11, 2003.
A search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFG 2003), maintained by CDFG, was
conducted for all records of special status plant and animal species occurring within the USGS
quadrangle location encompassing the project, as well as all adjacent quadrangles. Due to the
wide-ranging capabilities of some wildlife species, a database search was done for all wildlife
species occurring in Nevada County. A species list was requested from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the Norden and Truckee quadrangles. Additionally, a record
search was conducted of the below listed electronic database and museum voucher specimen
resources for local collections or occurrences:
• (UCD) Wildlife and Entomology Museums, University of California, Davis, CA,
museum collections and occurrence records (2003).
• (MVZ) Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley. CA, museum
collections and occurrence records (2003).
• (CAS) California Academy of Sciences museum collections and occurrence records
(2003),
• (CNPS) Electronic database of the California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA,
(2003).
• (CalFlora) Electronic database of California plant collections consisting of records from
18 different herbaria datasets from U.0 Berkeley, USDA Forest Service, Harvard
University Herbaria, etc. (2003).
Additional resources reviewed include documented occurrences from the local chapter of the
California Native Plant Society, and the Tahoe National Forest Soil Survey (USDA 1994) for the
presence of any soils associated with rare plant taxa. The Nevada County Natural Resources
Report (Nevada County 2002) was consulted for information on the distribution and extent of
habitats, and the relationships between habitats and special status species in the local context.
The Sensitive Plant Handbook of the Tahoe National Forest (USDA 2000) was consulted for
information on special status plants known from the Truckee region.
Surveys for special-status wildlife species were conducted within project boundaries, as well as
an examination of adjacent areas where suitable habitat exists and that may be influenced by the
proposed project activities. Important habitat types within approximately 500 feet were examined
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
with binoculars. Foraging, breeding, roosting, and other habitats important to the various life
phases of target species were examined.
Surveys for target raptor species that may nest in the area included "stand search" techniques
consisting of visual searches for active nests or animal signs, such as molted feathers, whitewash,
prey remains, or regurgitated pellets. Where conditions permitted, trees were observed from
different vantage points, especially where backlighting could be achieved, which helps in
detecting nesting structures.
The presence/absence of special-status and/or nesting migratory bird species was determined by
examining the tree, shrub, and ground cover layers for nests and by observing the movements of
those species present.
(a): No federal and/or CDFG Species of Special Concern were observed at the project site and no
nesting raptors or special-status bat species were found breeding within the project area.
However, at least marginally suitable breeding habitat does exist for six CDFG Species of
Special Concern: Cooper's hawk (Aecipiter cooperii), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus),
osprey (Pandion haliaetus), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), Sierra Nevada
snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus tahoensis), and white-tailed hare (Lepus townsendii). In
addition Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator), wolverine (Gulp Rulo luteus), bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocenhalus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) could occur as
transients, traveling between areas of more suitable habitat. Common nighthawks (Chordeilles
minor) were observed nesting in the vicinity of an existing subdivision detention basin.
Numerous raptor species forage and nest in various habitats throughout the Sierra Nevada.
Raptor nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META) and by Section 3503.5
of the California Fish and Game Code. The Jeffrey pine forest habitat surrounding the project
site support potential nesting habitat for several raptor species. Disturbance to an active raptor
nest could occur during construction activities. Disturbing an active raptor nest would violate
Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the Department of Fish and Game Code and would be considered a
potentially significant impact. Migratory bird habitat also exists in the project site. The nests of
all migratory birds are protected under the META, which makes it illegal to destroy any active
migratory bird nest.
Implementation of the mitigation measure outlined below would reduce the potential for impact
to special-status species to less than significant. There are no streams, ephemeral drainages or
wetlands that would be affected by the project. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a
significant impact on rare, endangered, threatened, or other special-status species identified in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFG or USFWS.
(b)-(c): Implementation of the mitigation measures identified below will ensure that the project
would not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive habitat in local or regional plans,
policies or regulations, or by CDFG or USFWS. No trees will be removed within the project
footprint.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 10 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
(d): The proposed construction activities will not 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. During the
course of construction limited short-term interference to wildlife movement may occur, however
not to such a degree that it would be considered to be a significant impact. Any wildlife
encountered during construction activities will be allowed to leave the area unharmed, or herded
a safe direction away from the project site.
(e)-(f): The project will not conflict with local policies protecting biological resources or conflict
with the provisions of an HCP, NCCP, or other approved conservation plan.
Mitigation Measure(s) - The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the
project:
4(a): Raptor and migratory nest surveys will be conducted prior to construction activities. If an
active nest is located in close proximity to the project site based on recommendations
made to the District by the surveying biologist, the District will immediately notify the
appropriate resource agencies.
4(b)-(c): The District's environmental monitor will ensure that the contractor implements best
management practices. No excess or sidecast soil will be left on the site and the Districts
will comply with all standard construction practices. The District will install the pipeline
in accordance with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB)
coverage under the statewide General Permit for Construction activities that will include
mitigation measures for the protection of water quality. The proposed project will require
an encroachment permit from the Town of Truckee. Issuance of these permits, and
associated mitigation measures will ensure the project complies with environmental and
public safety regulatory standards.
Mitigation Monitoring: Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would Potentially Less Than Less Than No
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?
Response to questions:
The cultural resources responses are based on a state record search, a pedestrian archaeological
survey conducted in August 2003 (Lindstrom, 2003), and included literature review and
consultation with cultural resource sources.
(a)-(d): An archeological review was conducted for this project site and reported in a CEQA
Mitigated Negative Declaration in 2003 (SCH#2003082017). There are no cultural resource sites
within the project site. No prehistoric or historic sites were identified within the project site
during survey work. While there are no known archeological resources within the project
footprint, it would be a significant impact if such resources were present, and were displaced or
demolished during construction activities. The District will have Dr. Susan Lindstrom, a
cultural/historic archeologist, on-call during any site disturbance. In the event that evidence of
cultural resources is encountered during construction of the well building, detention basin, and
pipeline, all work in the immediate area will cease while Dr. Lindstrom assesses 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 the archaeological and
historical resources. These mitigation measures will reduce this potential impact to less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure(s) - The District will have Dr. Susan Lindstrom, a cultural/historic
archeologist, on-call during any site disturbance. In the event that evidence of cultural resources
is encountered during construction of the pipeline, Dr. Lindstrom would be notified to record the
location of such resources and gather available information. 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 and historical resources.
Mitigation Monitoring -Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 12 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No
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 seismic
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?
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?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Response to questions:
(a)-(c): The project is limited to standard building, pavement, and pipeline installation
construction activity, and there is no aspect of the project that would expose people or property
to increased risk during strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or liquefaction. No faults
in the area have been designated as Alquist-Paolo Special Study Zones, a designation used by
the state to identify significant hazard zones along faults.
(d);(f): Landslides can result from weak soils on steep slopes and from earthquakes.
Construction of the proposed pipeline would not result in a significant impact.
(e): During excavation the majority of trenching spoil material will be screened for backfilling.
Unwanted material would be hauled away. The project activities do not present significant
potential for soil erosion and impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant. The
District will install the pipeline under the statewide General Permit for Construction activities
that will include mitigation measures to prevent soil erosion.
(g): The project includes standard construction operations, which do not include introduction of
population onto the project sites, therefore there would be no impact to soil constraints.
(h): No demands for wastewater disposal systems are included in the project, therefore no
impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring- None Required
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Potentially Less Than Less Than No
MATERIALS -- Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Impact With Impact
Mitigation
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?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 14 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handles ❑ ❑ ❑
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ IK
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?
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?
Response to questions:
(a)-(h): The proposed project does not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials, therefore no impacts are anticipated. The project does not include any sites
within an airport land use plan. No component of the project activities would impair or
interfere with emergency response or evacuation, or expose people or structures to
wildland fires.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring - None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER Potentially Less Than Less Than No
tiALITY -- 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?
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?
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?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 16 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Response to questions:
(a): The District will construct the building, driveway, detention basin, and install the pipeline
under the statewide General Permit for Construction activities that will include mitigation
measures for the protection of water quality and would, therefore, not cause any degradation to
water quality within the area. Proposed erosion and pollution control elements will be fully
addressed in the District's BMP Plan submitted to the LRWQCB. A preliminary list of specific
BMPs for this project is provided in Appendix B.
(b): The proposed project will not impact groundwater quality or quantity.
(c)—(f): The proposed project will not alter drainage within the area. Consequently, the proposed
activities would not change absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff, nor will it impact water quality in the area.
(g)-(i): No housing is proposed as part of this project, therefore no impact is anticipated.
0): No portion of the project area is subject to the possibility of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow,
therefore no impact is anticipated.
Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required
Mitigation Monitoring - None Required
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,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Response to questions:
(a)—(b): No changes to existing zoning or land use are proposed with this project. There would
be no impact to any land use and planning as a result of the proposed project.
(c): The proposed project area is not affected by a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural
Community Conservation Plan, and will therefore not impact such plans.
Mitieation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitieation Monitoring - None Required
10. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No
project: Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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): No demands for energy or mineral resources are proposed with this project, therefore no
impact to mineral resources would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Mitieation Measure(s) -None Required
Mitigation Monitoring -None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 18 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
11. NOISE -- Would the project result Potentially less Than Less Than No
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?
c) 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?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Response to questions:
(a)-(c): There will be no impact to these issues related to noise as a result of the proposed project.
(d): During construction activities, noise levels would increase temporarily during construction
activity. This noise increase would be of short duration, and would occur during the daylight
hours of 7 a.m. - 6 p.m. Monday-Friday, and 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. on Saturday. Construction plans
shall include reference to these restricted hours of construction. This impact would be restricted
to the construction period only and is considered less than significant.
(e)—(f): The Project site is not within an airport land use plan.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring- None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
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 El ❑
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Response to questions:
(a)—(c): The project activities would not interfere with, or create demands on police or
fire protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities.
Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required
Mitigation Monitoring -None Required
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑
Response to questions:
(a)-(e): No aspect of the proposed project would interfere with, or create a demand for, public
services.
Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required
Mitigation Monitoring -None Required
14. RECREATION --
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): The project will not impact existing or proposed neighborhood parks, regional parks, or
recreational facilities.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring - None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
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)?
Response to questions:
(a): During construction, there will be an increase in vehicle trips to the project site associated
with the contractor's activities. This is a temporary impact and is considered less than significant.
(b)—(g): The project would not result in physical changes to roadways, and therefore, would not
result in impacts related to transportation, parking, or transportation policies, plans, or programs.
Mitigation Measure(s)
15(a): Traffic control and lane closure plans will be submitted to the Town of Truckee for
approval as part of the encroachment permit process.
Mitigation Monitoring - Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 22 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
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?
c) 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.
Response to questions:
(a)-(e): The proposed project does not require wastewater treatment.
(f)-(g): The proposed project does not require solid waste disposal.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring -None Required
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
......... ............................
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Less Than Less Than No
SIGNIFICANCE Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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
plan or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
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)?
Does the project have environment effects ❑ ❑ ❑
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Response to questions:
(a): With implementation of recommended mitigation, the project does not have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of any wildlife species nor create
adverse effects on human beings. The proposed project is comprised of standard construction
activities to install water distribution pipeline. This project 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 Game or United States Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 24 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
(b): The proposed project would not result in any cumulative impacts. Public water supply is one
of the many services needed to allow orderly growth and development of the Truckee area. Issues
related to growth and development including intensity, density, location, and timing among others,
are the responsibility of the appropriate planning agency in this case the Town of Truckee.
(c): Refer to discussion in item "a", above.
REPORT PREPARATION
This Initial Study was prepared under contract with the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by
Inland Ecosystems. P -nc author was Glenn Merron.
' GJ/
Prepared by: Date:
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
APPENDIX A
PROSSER WELL BUILDING, DRIVEWAY AND
PIPELINE PROJECT FIGURES 1 AND 2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 26 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
r
Q
0 �• 1 / Qq
s t
r ,
a J A l t r(l � ] .•jilt i-�.. �
if$t I
' t �xn 6834
i(p
2 �f °ra`
f Project Location -^-_,
If
f 1
t}FOb�fe Home
/Pats z •'I /`� BN 170,
Polaris ,..,
.r.k.
Od
i'i
-
- aver P4vG
y. su 5770
A Rtd r----r
! - Rego 0Pa
w v
Po�tl a r
fe ' Figure L Project Location
o�
miles O 1 Prosser Village Well Building 1NLA(�D
N uses�s urinate and Discharge Pipeline EcasysTEMS
� Truckee.CA 1992 .
1
/.
2060'OF NEW 16"PIPE 1460'OF NEW 16" PIPE 14" 14"
CD EXIST DETENTION BASIN
370'OF `b rn
NEW 8"PIPE
EXIST DETENTION BASIN 10"
210' OF JOINT TRENCH - &+ 20"
8"WATER, 6" ELEC & 2" COM �2
8" �2s
90'OF JOINT TRENCH -
16"WATER, 6" ELEC&2"COM
NEW 16"PIPE
DETENTION BASIN JOINT TRENCH
8"W, 6" EL&2" COM
TRENCH DRAIN AND
DISCHARGE PIPE
r
METER VAULT g _
z
10"
JOINT TRENCH SCALE
/ 16"W, 6" EL&2"COM 1" = 129
PAVED 18'x 36'WELL TRUCKEE DONNER Proposed Site Plan
DRIVEWAY BUILDING SCALE Prosser Village Well and
Public Utility District
1"=20' Discharge Pipeline
APPENDIX B
PRELIMINARY BMPs DURING PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
The District's BMP Plan includes the following measures:
• Retain soil and sediment on the construction site:
The District will implement an effective combination of erosion and sediment control on
all disturbed areas during the 2004 construction season. Wherever possible the trench line
will be opened and filled as quickly as possible to minimize spoil piles. Trenching spoil
materials will either be trucked away and the trench backfilled with standard construction
material, or some of the spoil may be screened and used as backfill as outlined below. All
excavated material not used for backfill will be disposed in designated landfills.
Temporary spoil piles not immediately backfilled will be covered with plastic sheeting
each night to avoid either wind blown or runoff of sediment. The District will ensure that
all spoil piles are stabilized and covered with heavy-duty plastic or visquine sheeting
during any precipitation event and/or overnight. It should be noted that District policy
prohibits large sections of the road to be plated or to stockpile spoil piles as a safety an
environmental precaution. Any temporary spoil piles will be located upslope of the
trench line.
Trenching will be temporarily suspended prior to and during storm events, and equipment
will be either shut down or be utilized for erosion control and temporary runoff control.
For the purpose of this project, a "storm" is defined as any precipitation event that could
or would cause runoff, and sedimentation from surfaces exposed by construction.
Construction activities also have the potential to release fugitive dust associated with
excavation activities and grading. In order to reduce this potential impact fugitive dust
emissions shalt be minimized at all times utilizing control measures including an
aggressive sweeping program and regularly applied water when deemed necessary. When
transporting material during site preparation or construction, measures shall be used to
prevent material from spilling or blowing onto roadways.
The District will follow the guidelines established for erosion control methods consistent
with the requirements of the LRWQCB Labontan Region Guidelines for Erosion Control.
These erosion control practices will be implemented to include, but not limited to, silt
fencing and/or hay bales placed downslope of the project site in areas where road surface
drainage naturally flows into roadway drainage ditches.
Where soil disturbance has occurred in undisturbed areas, the District will employ an
aggressive soil cover program as the most cost-effective and expeditious method to
protect soil particles from transport by rainfall or wind. The District will consider
measures such as covering with mulch, fiber rolls or blankets, silt fencing, hay bales,
and/or reseeding. Staging areas will be delineated with construction and silt fencing. The
trench will be graded and sloped to restore former configurations. There will be no
physical changes to roadways or to slope contours as a result of the project. The pipeline
will cross either above or below any culverts. Where the trench is adjacent to drop inlets,
straw bales and/or straw wattles will serve as the primary sediment collector. Sediment
absorbing fabric will also be placed in drop inlets as the second defense to minimize
sediment transport.
Non-Storm Water Management
Water that will be used to flush and pressure test the pipeline will be discharged into
existing detention basins located on site. No water will be discharged onto the soil
surface or to any perennial or ephemeral surface waters, including wetlands. The
proposed project will not impact groundwater quality or quantity. Non-storm water
discharges such as the use of water to keep dust down during excavation shall not cause
or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.
• Spill Prevention and Control
Specific BMP's for spill prevention include the contractor having on-site, at all times, a
Spill Containment Kit. All equipment will be properly cleaned and inspected for leaks
prior to and during trenching operations. All equipment will be checked regularly, at a
minimum of once in the morning and once in the afternoon, for leaks before and during
operation.
• Maintenance, Inspection, and Repair
All BMPs implemented for this project will be properly maintained by both the
contractor as well as the District to ensure their effectiveness.
The District will periodically conduct inspections of the construction site on a daily basis
and more frequently prior to anticipated storm events and after actual storm events.
During extended storm events, inspections will be made during each 24-hour period.
Equipment, materials, and workers will be available for rapid response to failures and
emergencies.