Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6 CEQA Prosser Village F <.JAgenda Item # Memorandum To: Board of Directors From: Neil Kaufman r Date: February 13, 2004 Subject: CEQA Review of the Prosser Village Well Building and Pipeline 1. Why this matter is before the board: Board authorization is required to approve a CEQA Initial Study and direct that it be circulated. 2. History: In the Fall of 2003, the District constructed the Prosser Village Well. This well is located adjacent to Interstate 80 at the Prosser Village interchange. The well building and the piping to connect the well to the existing water system have not yet been constructed. The Board previously approved a contract with Inland Ecosystems to prepare a CEQA Initial Study for this project. 3. New information: The Initial has been completed and is ready for circulation, review and public comment. 4. Recommendation: I recommend that the Board: a) Authorize staff to file the proposed negative declaration and environmental initial study with the Office of the Nevada County Clerk b) Authorize staff to file the proposed negative declaration and environmental study with responsible and interested agencies and with the State Clearinghouse c) Authorizing staff to publish a notice of public review period and public hearing on the proposed negative declaration. d) Authorizing staff to set a public hearing date of March 3, 2004 Attachments: CEQA Initial Study nItial St-udy Proposed MItIgated Negative Declaratioll Prosser Village We 'll Build-Ma and DI-scharge Pipeline Y ,e ear ,a �Fx, f r5 d F>o Ed Tav; wmz , Manager TRUCKE D B E Truckee Von n . Pub3 c qtsjfi, e157 0 vrsnnar Pass Road YuI ';; iti fiT Gienn, tn�andi Ecccsyslc.m, m emmW4 2w 4�S Terr>si�ts 'v=� Stt eta o-}�� do , �"ss 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 S. 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 (If) 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 (If) 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 75-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 ❑ 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 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 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, ❑ ❑ 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 AIR OUALITY -- 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 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 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). • (CLAPS) Electronic database of the California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA, (2003). • (CalFlora) Electronic database of California plant collections consisting of records from I8 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 (Accipiter cooperii), sharp-shinned hawk (Aceipiter 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 (Gulo gulo luteus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), peregrine falcon (Falco pere)Zrinus 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 (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. (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-Priolo 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 Measures)- 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ El 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 UO ALITY -- 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ El E 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/'IBAFFIC -- 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. Prjncjl author was Glenn Merron. f " y /�, Prepared by `" Ir�f Date:tf _ � C/ r 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 i v, � s s� 69 , r , a r� { ,-is f° �f d { ' fo 2 c � a e' J.. g y '*e•. . J R J �t EC t Figure 1, Project LocetiOl'i ,ZZ 4 � (I 7a Prt�ss Village€llage Well Building r=ee.c � z and 1 T i �I rye Pipeline � t c 4 ; A14 2060' OF NEW 16"PIPE 1460'OF NEW 16"PIPE 14" EXIST DETENTION BASIN 370'OF `a a NEW 8" PIPE 11 EXIST DETENTION BASIN 10" 210' OF JOINT TRENCH - cg 20" /8"WATER, 6" ELEC&2" COM Cb 2" 90'OF JOINT TRENCH- 16"WATER, 6" ELEC&2" COM 0 NEW 16"PIPE DETENTION BASIN JOINT TRENCH 8" W, 6" EL&2" COM TRENCH DRAIN AND DISCHARGE PIPE METER VAULT o z JOINT TRENCH 10 / 16"W, 6" EL&2"COM SCALE 1"= 120' PAVED 18'x 36'WELL TRUCKEE DONNER Proposed Site Plan DRIVEWAY BUILDING SCALE Prosser Village Well and 1"=20' Public Utility District 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 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. • 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.