The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7 Red Mountain Pump Station CEQA 7__ Agenda Item # Memorandum To: Board of Directors From: Neil Kaufman Date: August 12, 2005 Subject: Adoption of a CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Red Mountain Pump Station Project 1. Why this matter is before the board: The District is proposing to construct a new pump station at the intersection of Southshore Drive and Red Mountain Road. Prior to starting construction activities, the District is required to complete an environmental review of the proposed site in compliance with CEQA. 2. History: The District has been undertaking rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Donner Lake Water System since 2001. One of the remaining projects involves construction of a pump station on the south side of Donner Lake to improve service pressures and fire flows in the Southside Highlands area - Red Mountain Road, Mt. Judah Drive & Devil's Peak Road. The District had previously pursued construction of this pump station at the site of the existing tank on Mt. Judah Drive. However, due to environmental concerns over the project site and permitting issues with Placer County, District staff chose to investigate alternative sites for the pump station. The proposed site is located within Town of Truckee right-of-way on the southwest comer of Red Mountain Road and Southshore Drive. Staff has reached a tentative agreement with the Town to allow construction of this facility within the Town right-of-way. 3. New information: A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Initial Study for the Red Mountain Pump Station was prepared and circulated to responsible and interested agencies as well as to the State Clearinghouse and the Nevada County Clerk. The District held a public hearing regarding the adoption of the proposed negative declaration on June 1, 2005. The public and clearinghouse review periods are now closed. The District has not received any public comments, either oral or written on the project. Attached is the Notice of Determination. Filing the Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse and Nevada County Clerk completes the CEQA process for the project. 4. Recommendation: I recommend the Board take the following actions regarding the environmental review for the Red Mountain Pump Station: 1. Adopt the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Approve the project for purposes of CEQA. 3. Approve the Mitigated Monitoring Plan. 4. Authorize the filing of the Notice of Determination with the Office of the Nevada County Clerk and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 5. Adopt the De Minimis Impact Finding and authorize the filing of the Certificate of Fee Exemption with the Nevada County Clerk. 6. Adopt a finding that the draft documents as circulated and the negative declaration reflect the District's independent judgement. Attachments: Notice of Determination PUBLICTRUCKEE DONNER U T I L T T R ! T h r f } y w y u ' r , IyF Project Area r f d y�TM. t r Prepared For Ed Taylor, Water Utility Manger Truckee Donner Public Utility District , Project Area 11570 Donner Pass Road Truckee, CA 96160 x f x Prepared By k Glenn Marron, Ph.D. Inland Ecosystems ; a 1135 Terminal Way, Suite 204A Reno, NV 89502 August 2005 INLAAD Ecosymms _.. ... . . .. ....... .. . ... ....... ......._..._...-,..-.. - - - - - - .. - ------------ Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 2 1.1 Overview 2 1.2 Organization of This Document 2 2.0 Executive Summary 3 2.1 Introduction 3 2.2 Summary of Environmental Impacts 3 .1 Comments on the Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 Appendix A Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix B Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Final Mitigated Negative Declaration i August 2005 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Overview The Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/Proposed MND) for the "Truckee Dormer Public Utility District's Red Mountain Booster Pump Station was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and distributed for public and agency review on May 24, 2005 (SCH42005052I 13). The review period closed on June 23, 2005. No state agencies submitted comments and no late comments were received from the State Clearinghouse. This document comprises the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project. The Final MND is an informational document that must be approved by the Truckee Dormer Public Utility District (Lead Agency) prior to the Board of Directors awarding the proposed project for construction. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15132) specify that: "The Final MND shall consist of: (1) The IS/Proposed MND or a revision of that draft; (2) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft MND either verbatim or in summary; (3) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft MND; (4) The response of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and (5) Any other information added by the Lead Agency." 1.2 Organization of This Document The Final MND is organized into four chapters. Chapter 2.0. Executive Summary, provides a brief project description and a summary table of potential environmental effects resulting from the proposed project. Chapter 3.0, Comments on the IVproposed MND, provides a list of eommentors and copies of written comments received. No comments were received on the IS/Proposed MND. The IS/Proposed MND includes the project description, impacts analysis, and mitigation discussions that form the basis for the conclusions presented in this Final MND. The IS/Proposed MND is listed in this document as Appendix A and is hereby incorporated by reference. The Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) are attached as Appendix B. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 August 2005 2.0 Executive Summary 2.1 Introduction The TDPUD will construct a booster pump station to as part of the comprehensive improvements that have occurred to the Donner Lake water system since the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (District) took possession and operation of the water system in 2001. The proposed project site is located on the USGS 7.5-minute Norden quadrangle within the southwestern portion of the Town of Truckee, Nevada County, California. CEQA requires that the Lead Agency, the Truckee Donner Public Utility District in this case, prepare an analysis of potential environmental impacts that could result from the construction and operation of the proposed project prior to taking action on the proposal. Potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures are presented in this Final MND. On May 24, 2005, 15 copies of the IS/Proposed MND were distributed via the State Clearinghouse. Copies were given to public agencies. A public meeting was held at the Truckee Donner Public Utility District on.tune 1, 2005. 2.2 Summary of Environmental Impacts Appendix B contains the final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that would avoid or minimize potential environmental impacts. The impact and mitigation numbering represents the corresponding section of the IS/Proposed MND from which the reader may obtain further background information on the scope of the impact and basis for the mitigation. 3.0 Response to Comments on the Proposed MND No comments were received from any state agency or private stakeholder and therefore there are no responses. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 August 2005 APPENDIX A INITIAL STUDY/PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3.0 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. 3.1 AESTHETICS -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than ' No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation : pIncorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ElLJ [� vista'? to 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 p 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);(b): The proposed new booster pump station will be located on the southwest corner of Red Mountain Road and South Shore Drive within a residential neighborhood (See Photo 1). The booster pump station will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista nor will it substantially damage scenic resources and/or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Therefore, there would be no impact. (c): The booster pump station will be set back from the road and will blend in, to the greatest extent possible, with the surrounding landscape. Construction of the booster pump station would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. (d): The booster pump station would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and, therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required Mitigation Monitoring - None Required Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 8 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems 3.2 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? I c) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? Response to questions: (a)—(c): The project site is located within a residential area and does not support any agriculture; therefore, there would be no impact to agriculture as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems 3.3 AIR QUALITY — Where applicable, the Potentially Less Than Less Than No significance criteria established by the applicable Significant - Significant Significant ; Impact air quality management or air pollution control Impact With Impact district may be relied upon to make the Mitigation following determinations. Would the project: Incorporated 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 quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial number of people'? Response to questions: (a): The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan and, therefore, there would be no impact. (b): Construction activities have the potential to generate emissions through the release of fugitive dust and equipment exhaust associated with construction and excavation activities. Fugitive dust emissions shall be minimized at all times utilizing control measures including regularly applied water. When transporting material during construction, measures shall be taken to prevent material from spilling or blowing onto roadways. A diesel generator will be installed as part of the project but will only be used as an emergency in the event of a power failure. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant (c)-(e): Due to the short-term nature of the project, air emissions would not be considered cumulatively considerable. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and,therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measure(s) —None Required Mitigation Monitoring—None Required Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 10 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems 3.4 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 l 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 i Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems --- - Response to questions: Surveys for special status wildlife species were conducted on March 15, 2005 by Mark Chainey Wildlife Consulting and Inland Ecosystems. A search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFG 2005) 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. A species list was requested from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the Norden and Truckee quadrangles (Appendix B). A target list of special-status wildlife potentially occurring in the project area is contained in Appendix C. Appendix D is a target list of special-status plants potentially occurring in the project area. An understanding of the habitat requirements for species potentially utilizing the site and the degree of existing human development in the immediate area were factors considered in the impact assessment (a): No special status species were found during survey work, nor is there habitat present for any listed animal or plant species. The proposed booster pump station is located on a Town of Truckee right-of-way situated on the southwest corner of Red Mountain Road and South Shore Drive, within a residential area, which strongly precludes any significant use of the site by wildlife. 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. Numerous raptor species do, however, forage and nest in various habitats throughout the Sierra Nevada throughout spring and summer. Raptor nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and by Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. 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. The nests of all migratory birds are also protected under the MBTA, which makes it illegal to destroy any active migratory bird nest. Implementation of the mitigation measure outlined below will reduce potential impacts to special-status species and/or their habitats to a less than significant level. (b)-(c):No wetlands or waters of the U.S. were found in the project area. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive habitat identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by CDFG or USFWS. (d): The proposed booster pump station is located in a residential area. Construction activities will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Implementation of the mitigation measure outlined below will reduce potential impacts to special-status species to a less than significant level. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 12 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems (e): Some trees will need to be removed to accommodate the booster pump station. Implementation of the mitigation measures outlined below would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. (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 and, therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measure(s) - The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project: 4(a);(d):Raptor and migratory nest surveys will be conducted within and adjacent to the project site prior to construction activities. If an active nest is located in close proximity to the project site, the District will immediately consult with the California Department of Fish and Game. 4(e): Any mature tree over 12" diameter that may need to be removed will be mitigated by on- site planting of 5-gallon native trees at a 2:1 ratio. Mitigation Monitoring: Truckee Donner Public Utility District 3.5 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 El significance of a historical resource as defined t 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 F nE paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those El interred outside of formal cemeteries? Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 May 2005 "Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inlaid Ecosystems Response to questions: The cultural resources responses are based on a Records Search conducted by the North Central Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (See Appendix E). California law recognizes the need to protect Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for information about Sacred Lands within the project area. The NAHC did not identify any Sacred Lands within the project area and provided references of local Native American groups and individuals to request additional information (Appendix E). Both the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California and the Archives and Cultural Center were contacted for any further information and no responses were received. (a)-(d):The archaeological record search conducted at the North Central Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (NCIC File No. NEV-05-11) indicated that there are no cultural resources located within the project area. While there are no known archeological resources at the proposed project site, it would be a significant impact if such resources were present, and were displaced or demolished during construction activities. Implementation of the mitigation measures outlined below will reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure(s) - The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project: (a)-(d):The District will have Dr. Susan Lindstrom, a local Truckee cultural/historic archeologist, on-calll during any site disturbance. In the event that evidence of cultural resources is encountered during construction of the booster pump station, 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 14 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No a 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 i ground shaking? c) Expose people or structures to potential ❑ ❑ ❑ z 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 1:1 ❑ ❑ ❑ of topsoil? f) 13e 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? Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated g) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ❑ ❑ ❑ Table 18-1-13 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? Response to questions: (a)-(c): "Fhe project site is not located within any fault zone of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faulting 'Zoning Map. The project is limited to construction of the booster pump station that would be designed in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code. This code requires that structures be designed to resist stresses developed by earthquakes. The booster pump station would be designed in accordance with the standards in the Uniform Building Code. 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. Other hazards, such as lateral spreading, lurch cracking, regional subsidence and liquefaction, are unlikely to occur during project construction and, therefore, there would be no impact. (d);(f): Construction of the booster pump station would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from landslides nor would it be located on unstable soils and, therefore, there would be no impact. (e): During excavation unwanted material would be hauled away. The project activities do not present significant potential for soil erosion and, therefore, there would be no impact. (g);(h):The project includes standard construction operations. There are no demands for wastewater disposal systems included in the project and, therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measure(s)-None Required Mitigation Monitoring- None Required Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 16 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems 3.7 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 l 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? d) Be located on a site which is included on a ❑ ❑ ❑ list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section t 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 i 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? Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems Response to questions: (a)-(h):"The proposed project does not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The project site is not within an airport land use plan. The project site is well removed from a school, airport, or airstrip. No component of the project activities would impair or interfere with emergency response or evacuation, or expose people or structures to wild land fires. Therefore, there are no impacts. Mitigation Measures) -None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required Potentially Less Than Less Than No 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER Significant Significant Significant Impact QUALITY -- Would the project: Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ ❑ waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage I ❑ ❑ ❑ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 18 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems Potentially = Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ; Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated - e) Create or contribute runoff water, which ❑ ❑ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff fl Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ] quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood ❑l ❑ 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? Response to questions: (a)-(j): The District will construct the booster pump station under the State Water Resources Control Board, NPDES General Permit for Construction Projects that requires development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The District's SWPPP includes mitigation measures for the protection of water quality. The estimated surface area of soil disturbance to install the booster pump station is 500 square feet. All stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces will be directed to an infiltration gallery designed to accommodate a 20-year, I-hour storm event. A preliminary list of specific BMPs for this project is provided in Appendix F. 'There is no water demands associated with the project, nor will the project impact groundwater quality or quantity. The project would not change absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff. No housing is proposed as part of this project and no portion of the project area is subject to the possibility of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, there are no impacts. Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING - Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant Significant [ Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ❑ ❑ ; ❑ policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) { adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Response to questions: (a)-(c):The project entails construction of a booster pump station for improved service of existing District water supplies. No changes to existing zoning or land use are proposed with this project. There would be no impact to planning as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project area is not affected by a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan and, therefore, will not impact such plans. Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required Mitigation Monitoring -None Required Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 May2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems _._, .. _.............. .... .. .. ...... ........ ._ . .. .... ................................., 3.10 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 i ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 311 NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ ❑ ❑ noise levels in excess of standards f 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? Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems Potentially Less Than Less Than I No Significant Significant Significant ; Impact Impact With Impact ;Mitigation Incorporated 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 constriction activities, noise levels would increase temporarily during construction activity but would not result in a substantial increase above levels existing without the project. 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 8 a.m. - 6 p.m. on Saturday. Construction plans shall include reference to these restricted hours of construction, This impact would be restricted to the construction period and is considered less than significant. (e);(f): The Project site is not within an airport land use plan or private airstrip and, therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required Mitigation Monitoring -None Required Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 22 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems 3.12 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 is a booster pump station necessary to comply with the DHS Order No. 01-09-00-ORD-002 that directs the District to provide a reliable, non-interruptible water supply to its customers. The project would not affect local population centers or demand for new housing. The goal of the project is a beneficial increase in efficiency that results in a higher quality and more reliable drinking water service. Project activities would not interfere with, or create demands on police or fire protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities. Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems 3.0 PUBLIC SERVIC ES -- Would Potentially Less Than Less Than ; No I 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 or Incorporated physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, j 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 ❑ ❑ 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 and, therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required Mitigation Monitoring -None Required Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 24 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems 3.14 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): No recreational facilities exist in the project area. The project will not impact existing or proposed neighborhood parks, regional parks, or recreational facilities. Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required 3.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No 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?. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems Potentially ; Less Than Less Than No Significant ; Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Result in a change in traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a ❑ ❑ ❑ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ I) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ ❑ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Response to questions: (a): During construction, there will be an increase in vehicle trips to the project site associated with the contractor's activities. Transportation of construction material will take place on public roadways and will not exceed roadway capacity. Traffic control plans will be submitted to the Town of Truckee for approval. Therefore, this impact is considered to be Less than significant. (b)—(g): The project would not result in physical changes to roadways, and therefore, would not result in impacts related to transportation, circulation, parking, or transportation policies, plans, or programs. Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 26 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems f } 3.16 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? _ _ _ __ iz 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? I) Be served by a landfill with sufficient El El 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 project site is located within the District's service area. No other public facilities exist within the project site. (f)-(g): The proposed project does not require solid waste disposal. Any excavated material not used for baekfill will be transported to an appropriate land fill. The proposed project does not require wastewater treatment. Mitigation Measures) -None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems 3.17 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 i on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Response to questions: (a): With implementation of recommended mitigation, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of any wildlife species nor create adverse effects on human beings. The proposed project is comprised of standard construction activities to install a booster pump station. This project will not adversely affect any species identified as a candidate for sensitive or special status species, in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 28 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems (b): The proposed project would not result in any cumulative impacts or irreversible environmental damage because of the relatively small scale of the project and, therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. (c): The project does not have the environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings and, therefore, there is no impact. REPORT PREPARATION This Initial Study was prepared under contract with the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by Inland Ecosystems. Principal author was Glenn Merron. Prepared by: Date: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 24 May 2005 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems APPENDIX B FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM i 3 S t DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN RED MOUNTAIN BOOSTER PUMP STATION PROJECT AUGUST 2005 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN The Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for this project documents the impacts and mitigation measures that would reduce, avoid, or otherwise minimize these impacts. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will help ensure that each mitigation measure, adopted as a condition of project approval, will be implemented. This MMRP will comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(d) that specifies the lead agency shall adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes that it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Truckee Donner Public Utility District (District) has adopted this MMRP in order to mitigate environmental effects. It is the responsibility of the District to ensure completion and adoption of the monitoring program, and for coordination and implementation of the program outlined below. The District will verify compliance by signing the Verification of Compliance provided under each mitigation measure. LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND DATE OF COMPLETION The following mitigation measures have been included in the project to avoid potential significant effects: Mitigation Measure(s) — The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project: 3.1 Aesthetics (c): To minimize visual impacts to the surrounding area, the booster pump station will be set back from the road and will blend in, to the greatest extent possible, with the surrounding landscape. Construction of the booster pump station would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Reporting/Responsible Party—Truckee Donner Public Utility District Timing Process: Public notification prior to project initiation Verification of Compliance: Initials Date Remarks: 2 3.3 Air Quality (h): Construction activities have the potential to generate emissions through the release of fugitive dust and equipment exhaust associated with construction and excavation activities. Fugitive dust emissions shall be minimized at all times utilizing control measures including regularly applied water. When transporting material during construction, measures shall be taken to prevent material from spilling or blowing onto roadways. The District will also require contractors to ensure that construction equipment be tuned for optimal performance. Mitilzation Monitoring—Truckee Donner Public Utility District Timing Process: Prior to and during construction Verification of Compliance: Initials Date Remarks: 3.4 Biological Resources (a; d, and e): Raptor and migratory nest surveys will be conducted within and adjacent to the project site prior to construction activities. If an active nest is located in close proximity to the project site, the District will immediately consult with the California Department of Fish and Game. Any mature tree over 12" diameter that may need to be removed will be mitigated by on-site planting of 5-gallon native trees at a 2:1 ratio. Mitigation Monitoring: Truckee Donner Public Utility District Timing Process: Prior to, during, and post construction Verification of Compliance: Initials Date Remarks: 3 Xg } i } 3.5 Cultural Resources (a-d): While there are no known unique geologic features, or historic, paleontological, archeological resources within the proposed project area, it would be a significant impact if such resources were present, and were displaced or destroyed during construction activities. The District will have Dr. Susan Lindstrom, a local Truckee cultural/historic archeologist, on-call during any site disturbance. In the event that evidence of cultural resources is encountered during construction of the booster pump station, 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 Timing Process: Prior to and during construction Verification of Compliance: Initials Date Remarks: 3.11 Noise (b and d): During construction activities, noise levels would increase temporarily during construction activity but would not result in a substantial increase above levels existing without the project. 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 8 a.m. - 6 p.m. on Saturday. Construction plans shall include reference to these restricted hours of construction. Mitigation Monitoring: Truckee Donner Public Utility District Timing Process: During construction Verification of Compliance; Initials Date Remarks: Peter Holzmeister General Manager Truckee Donner Public Utility District 4