HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 CEQA Northside Transmission Pipeline Agenda Item #
NNER
0 Public Utility District
Memorandum
To: Board of Directors
From: Neil Kaufman
Date: February 13, 2004
Subject: CEQA Review of the Northside Transmission Pipeline r`
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:
The 2001 Water Master Plan Update identified the need for a large diameter pipe to connect the
Northside and Bridge Street 6170 Tank sites. The Draft 2004 Water Master Plan Update reaffirms
this need. The District is planning to complete construction of the Prosser Village Well this summer
and has identified additional future wells sites in the northeasterly portion of the service area.
Additional pipeline transmission capacity is needed to convey water from these new wells to the
areas of demand.
The Board previously approved a contract with Inland Ecosystems to prepare a CEQA Initial Study
for this project.
3. New information:
The Initial Study 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
z
Initial Study I Proposed Mitigated
Negative c r io
Northside Transmission Pipeline Project
�F2"A
w
e
a
�.
F Tax£cs'^, 'sit`3£v2 UM MY AA :a eY R.'+eL`'CKEE DONNER
11570 Dsrn:�, Pass »cam • s
t,PQckeLL CA 3£160
P �F-Pi3rzd
n^and E ospster-s
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 1 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 (Pinus
jeffreyi) and ponderosa pine (Pinus 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 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 1
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 Measurets) - 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 ❑ ❑ ❑
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 Monitoring-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 Mansell 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 (Aecipiter cooperii), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striates),
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), 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 3-4
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 FICP, 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 be 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 §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 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.
Mitieation 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 ❑ ❑ ❑
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 ❑ ❑ ❑
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 ❑ ❑ 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
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.
Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required
Mitigation Monitoring -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? El ❑ ❑
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
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 ❑ EJ ❑
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 ❑ ❑ ❑
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
projects 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)-(0: 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 Meiron.
Prepared by:�% �'����-;� /��i� „�� 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
tl
3
e
f4
n
kP&z AsfF r ` s
Y J
''
t e
Fiat
-------------
F f
,Y• � IvX��t 4 �'
�' ai'EEE pd
r'
" �'� B�m3ect B_axatrott -�''
tSa#res`ay 'P
".9A..... +�vF'.�Y>t�`n• yf.��•:� ��. $59T f"" � —off C,t1tSC
San
Y J
?t �.,�' .��"""^✓� � � "Y^ '" - �^"" � �.--fir'''
ti
g e x Figure I. Protect Location
Northvside Fransmissio l p D
im USGS 7.5 mute - -
t Truckee.CA 1992 Pipeline eC�`,5%'�rt? ¢j
'' I
APPENDIX B
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 February 2004
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems
srnnoeoao �..i
/ mATwe.m
wsrr,Lar.farff.xmxraewm xerAUMw+sa*�- _.
wtm«sru.rawrorumr. e p /// ..` wrw.fawToxdeeNi
eaviu.PtavNxl2X mAlxw4p `r ry (/ plslny aoWWmftxm namcpMLN NOTE:THE OISfRICTRIPE ESLIGNMET TO MANE MINOR
rvw¢iioEA3tW3�Otld F8 � Mmnu l.e FffipF7p�ry 4 �EA4T1fdVPE SC£UmLL2MCW6Pl AITERATpNS TO THE PIPEllNE fiIIGNMEM TOFVOIO E%ISTING TREES
s�omNu<«ovcw rmN rvo zwcmNwrts ry '�ry n..o�so.of aesrmmle lstgrovr�roec
«.maws stwemxrwc
> / oP tdxoarmlems� wxolrlsxrtoeox "� °mm M✓Apc
�.u,:°iawoalxnmwAT«asA ', wx RO'VO,.� oEsrFcr,oNrswx�ss.av ro
Gow
ronccdwuonre 1 ^ s � -... .c�iee evnuwen cuwnrva
caxslwx:lwx rv.ro -
/Aarv�aNwv
/ � /� / dSTNJ.(RKVIC RniED
mAiKN 4,M �
MmxlivAYHrtKx9eOx. ' � I �lL_ _.. SHALE �
POinl£ftHTxNK111T411.6 �. 1'=4V _... ._ �
I A'gPLNfKOFt8C1IXA _. �
�' .. c w 9C£9f£G9ECiYW M`�FPi(ffS4PK7HMM - _. ^r
.. � l gVYMG[xFM PNSNiF
5970
597D ..... 5965
5990 -Q� _....... � � . ..._..__ r _ �!�_.. �.__._._� .._.__..... F �._ 5990_ 5%0 __._ •-. -___ � .___ � :_S%0_,
5965 ., ., 5955
i EEM011RvtlmlMo .,'
5980 5950 r .... ........_ S9S0
5945
5915 Ex,eryomlaxM
—.__ .......__ 5970.. r_. ..._ �5940
-
i r nm
5935
_.'_------i- _-4-_ __ . 5960 5930 �. �_._ 593
5%0 _
..S_955af tsar�x.a6�p6de
59505920 .-.. L..__. 5920_
Y ¢p+wo f I
5 445 1 1 os�a+ourm uos�3 mnmea •.. T. - 5935
w¢cdpmk MY� T ,�
5940 _ 40 39t0 _ 5934
li
1
5,935,
X8fN1�$l pPIPE Imru�, CM%Mt $9D$
_5930 "`� "T ._ 9ffw•T.r.aMwwo-x
. .._ - .. _. _._.} � �a orcrAA.Oxdr6od r 5930 5900
i it i �9._. � a i
2 a & I R a i a i 3 s a
TRUCKEE DONNER ARE RA85�NP6>ELTDw °I""'"N
d NDN P-1
I; e; Rt7 Public Utility District PLAN AND PROFILE- 1
OMe. t.IS2oM Pw Oltke Box 3 Truckee. CA 96IN StEEi
308
a % scA1E
l
NOTE;THE OI TOO RV RESEES rHE R WTO MANE MINOf{
t +(tt r
AIiERATNIN9 TO THE PIPEtJNE µMaNMENT TOAVOIOE%iSi1N6 TREES
1�
�Y 9iAigNlBtq
nettwt»is 1� �fli / aSLul WE1&Tv � �
Y
Al IXPEEBPAMGts9 .p NUC�rfA \� �FXISi OYrtFOM yM
igNtMm
MSi FiMCCIX1 Y.¢Y4M9gJIH: SO T a5`98bfI �
YW
\ � 1
BTAiKxnw � _ � •�
PISiN11PKF4MiE0 Yi 0 '\. -`
A� ^N 9i tt bFtEON9 ^9
CCMMPVLLBW PV4 ROt.KS iOEPEVEM k SytgxlJKi SU1GN1hH -- � w3i � \
VWiipSVKNGY3VP6WE MSTNLf2S6BGn �cr y %4.VLiiWFC MiEp
WSTPLL 4EIBGW _
�1�x COIW VVLLBN .. ...
'xe
L
T
N
4_....._ 1—... s930 s990
592$J NI.CVTRr xt'y4
sfE ogrA¢saNvwgox meµ+. WWv 59J5
5920 A soxlmc pz
Wf ar Y£RTgxa3ory Exar / —I— - 5965
ti 910 5%B cHWkV C
F
596S t WfTAt+tr xis uvvpuT -� 5955
- - t.. �- __rA ^j•• j S90B 5950
5950_
Sd95yk '^ I»naE
5945
------+ .,:-. �_..._.... ..�. c _.._. 58% 5940
-� `4rr ✓� .F"y� sr�qur�_ce 5935
5875 WarAuz gPPE I —Y I --
- t rp tem
sEEOET cxWcoa� i msrw.zzr � 5925
e.ev
SWO 5920 ._.._ t...... .. 5920
5865� WSTNLii 1V '.� eEaeci --
I vaRx,w.aauv � rowts I ', 5915_
i
a----
OmFJtI3J: NM REWSIONS:
TRUCKEE DONNER NORTMS TRANSA M& NPIPEJNE OMWNG
Orawrc NM
RE
clNu�: T Public Utility District PLAN AND PROFILE-2 P-2
`/
�: t-iSNM Po MCO Box 30B Twaks C 96t60 SHEET
aae
�i� xoTE[mE psTo PE LlESTHE EWTOAU1
` gLtERAilON5 i0 THE PIPELINE ALMaNMEM TO AWI0 EXISTMIG iNEES xrgiai>+n`t'i6a✓+ E i rwaxl.eo
`more el.eowm wxevE cEe s'rxanP�
r / bus.>swn.c
y arnralnim �� Ewsrommvn '�. .y-
�uymAFrc uAiEu i imu ~�b
> caw«wuamx ��� crt ces miov6arx*wrwE
� � CIX1NEGti0 EM18i1N1'PYE NR1i'W
�\ \ xsiMt5P5WEF➢QVT I,ItMI,PIBHTeMy1 t4
`6 -... `�� FXI6T[il'/vMEtOSEPEM04➢Nq '� �SC(MWR NN SNB MOFS OOR
� \ PIDIAC DK"iEI1tCMSlP11CiMMl
.` EAST fAtt W6ESiOBENEM+£4 Mb� � ipVll (O I£MWIRM YSYIPCdi PotE
tl.� RtPWCEOnFlFA COetYiNiKIKw _... WNNOCUNSIwtG
4? � W`, }p{NppiEYgWwMGY 91gVMfPIXE _
\ t^ pflUN6CON61AI1LlYM
�MSLN121'W Vk£A STA..
'\ etMYP11110W �. uW2 W4CpIMM
25nW EEOEiLL.Cx6vUU3
at_ 2>rw \� SCALE
+.=w.
'' ws wE rv��is ia6oN �-�0--'----_�w wsru areeaw
I
6070 63
6 20
030 j----_
_
�� —:....___ 620 6n60 _... .. F wai�u+MIT'aerWn➢.fi_ .- ..—r
wawauem
6
s6ecerK6wuw Fw6relcyrnouim 105
6050
pI6iN1NE'�/ .1}�
G00S _._ i_ �- - MiB I11��25'FxPP'll 6030
ti �..�vFFxN#Lwa crop 6
fi000 6040 6040 609n ..-. '-" 090
_.
- stoaxeaGmoeko
9995 vpmNcmouw i �990 6= L-6n30, 60n0
5990 6075_
i eaf IlWPR .
/t nW PP�C LC MYi Y
60't0._
� I s6eoei _
59�0 I'_- - orextre.�AvwE .- 5 6020 °�Ec I_6D0 0 ..._.aHo�er,LLsailPwox _. --060-
980
6e6o6iK 1 waru.iuiwvwreAew& ,,. _6055_
_w5a.
a 1 I wq
5965 1 � {oxmwos _5%0 6000 � W.al w.caz
NOPTH61�iRAN9kNS510N PIPELINE OHANING
aEVMN6: TRUCKEE DONNER P_3
oL.A: N01( PLAN AND PROFILE-3
aET Public Utility District �,E�
Peat one.Bae 309 Truckee. CA 961W sofa
Dec: 1-1s21:0.
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 backflll 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