Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8 Pipeline Replacement CEQA Agenda Item # Memorandum To: Board of Directors From: Neil Kaufman Date: March 30, 2006 Subject: Tahoe Donner Pipeline Replacement CEQA 1. WHY THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE BOARD The District is proposing construction of the District Pipeline Replacement—2006 project. 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 Pipeline Replacement — 2006 project entails construction of about 17,200 feet of pipeline. Of this total, about 5,300 feet of pipeline will be increased in size and is subject to CEQA review. The remaining 11,900 feet of pipe is not increased in size and is categorically exempt under CEQA. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Initial Study covering the 5,300 feet of pipe was prepared and adopted by the Board of Directors on March 1, 2006. The draft Initial Study used the name "Tahoe Donner Pipeline Replacement' and discussed only those portions of the overall project that were subject to CEQA review. The Initial Study was then 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 March 15, 2006. No public comment was received at the March 15, 2006 hearing. The 30 day time period for submitting written and oral comments on the CEQA document would normally have closed on April 2, 2006. The Board of Directors chose to continue the public hearing to the April 5, 2006 Board meeting. 3. NEW INFORMATION In response to comments from Director Sutton, the discussion of erosion control has been revised to include other erosion control measures besides wood chips and pine needles. The General Plan designation and zoning have also been clarified. No written comments have been received to date. Along with this memo are the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Notice of Determination. Filing the Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse and Nevada County Clerk completes the CEQA process for the project. Page 1 4. RECOMMENDATION I recommend the Board take the following actions regarding the environmental review for the District Pipeline Replacement—2006 Project. 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 judgment. Attachments: Notice of Determination Final Mitigated Negative Declaration s s Page 2 t Motive of Determination Appendix D To: 0 Otiice of Plan tiah,,and Re,earci; From: Puhlic Truckee Donner Public Utility District FEsr f;S. ;i9ctit: Streee ke(di<:xi; address Po aox3c) ckea,Cx.co EO P.O. Box 3044 (-100 TentEh Sr. -=-- --- - ---- ('ont<hct Neil Kaufman sacrnmcaito, C -� `h81'-Y) 4 Sacramento.CA`95814 --- — phone: (530)582-3950 ❑ County Clcrk Coailt, if, Nevada Lead Aceticr(if different from above): Address: 950 tdaidu Avenue Nevada Day,Ca.9d989 address:_ Contact Phone: SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted to State Clearinghouse): 2006032012 Project Title: Tahoe Donner Pipeline Replacement Project Project Location (include county): County:Nevada City:Truckee Cross Streets:Chateau Way and Sun Valley Road Project Description: The District proposes to replace 875 feet of 8-inch pipeline along Chalet Road and 4,400 feet of 6-inch pipeline along Swiss Lane with new 12-inch pipeline. This is to advise that the Truckee Donner Public U61iry District _ __has approved the above described project on ® t ead Agency of ❑ R,poavade Agent -------- _---- and has made tine following determinations regarding the above described project: (Date) I. The project 10 will 0 will not) have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ Au Environmeniai Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA. 0 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, 3. Mitigation measures 10 were ❑ were not] made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan i© was ❑ was notj adopted for this project 5. A statement of Oaeniding Considerations (❑ was 0 was notl adopted for this project. 6. Findings(© were ❑ were not) made pursuant io the provisions of CEQA. "Phis rs to certify that the final E1R with comments and responses and record of project approval,or the Negative Declaration, is available to the General Public at: Truckee Donner Public Utility District Signattue (Public Agency) _ -- _ Title Gene-ralJh'an-au4o.r ---- - Uata Peter L . Holztneister Date received for filing atOPR: Revised 2004 m m TRUCKEE DONNER m Al n " ✓Y' w.c � x it .tom' ;ti' .,5 �.'uS r..j..'�r-`a"p° '`< Y ^�f• y--,•y a ��� Prepared For Prepared By Truckee Donner Public Utility District Glenn Merton.Ph.D. 11570 Donner Pass Road Inland Ecosystems,Inc. Truckee,CA 96160 1000 Bible Way,Suite 16 Reno,NV 89502 r s April 2006 TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT INITIAL STUDY/ PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Prepared pursuant to Article V of the Environmental Guidelines of the District) Project Title: Tahoe Donner Pipeline Replacement Lead Agency Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District P.O. Box 309 Truckee, CA 96160-0309 Contact Person and Phone Number: Peter L. Holzmeister, General Manager (530) 582-3916 Project Location: Chalet Road and Swiss Lane, Truckee, CA Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District P.O. Box 309 Truckee, CA 96160-0309 General Plan Designation: Residential (RS-X) Zoning: Single-Family Residential s Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION I 1.1 REGULATORY GUIDANCE 1 1.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS I 1.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION 2 2.2 PROJECT SETTING 2 2.3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION 2 2.4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 3 2.5 REQUIRED PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVAL 3 3.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 6 3.1 AESTHETICS 6 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 7 3.3 AIR QUALITY 8 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 9 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 12 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 13 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 15 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 17 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 19 3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES 20 3.11 NOISE 20 3.12 POPULATION 22 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICE 23 3.14 RECREATION 24 3.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 24 3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 26 3.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 27 Figures Figure 1. Location of the Chalet Road and Swiss Lane Pipeline Alignments within the Town of Truckee, Nevada County, California 4 Figure 2. The Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2006 Tahoe Donner Pipeline Alignments 5 Appendices r Appendix A. Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix B. Biological Resources Assessment and Survey Report Appendix C. Cultural Resources Assessment and Survey Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 REGULATORY GUIDANCE This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and addresses the environmental impacts of replacing the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (District) water pipelines on Chalet Road and Swiss Lane in the Tahoe Donner subdivision, Truckee, CA. The proposed project will improve the public water service and fire flow protection in the area. This IS has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code 21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 15000 et sq. An IS is prepared by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The lead agency for the proposed project is the Truckee Donner Public Utility District. 1.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Section 3 of this IS contains the Environmental Checklist that identifies potential environmental impacts (presented by environmental subject area) and a discussion of each impact that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Based on the Environmental Checklist and the supporting environmental analysis provided in this document, development of the proposed project would result in the following impacts: • No Impact: aesthetics, agricultural resources, geology and soils, , land use and planning, mineral resources, population, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. • Less-than-Significant Impacts: air quality, hydrology and water quality, noise, hazards and hazardous materials and traffic/transportation. • Less-than-Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated: biological resources and cultural resources. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15070, a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared if the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment after the inclusion of mitigation measures into the project. There is no substantial evidence that the proposed project, as revised by mitigation measures, would have a significant effect on the environment based on the available project information and the environmental analysis presented in this document. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed to be adopted in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is included in this document as Appendix A. i Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration I April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems s 1.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION This Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for a 30-day public review period beginning on March 2, 2006 and ending on April 2, 2006. Written comments may be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on April 2, 2006 to: Peter L. Holzmeister, General Manager Truckee Donner Public Utility District P.O. Box 309 Truckee, CA 96160-0309 Comments may also be provided at a public hearing scheduled for March 15, 2006 at the Truckee Donner Public Utility District, 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, California. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project sites along Chalet Road and Swiss Lane are located on the USGS 7.5-minute Norden quadrangle within Township 17 North, Range 16 East, and Section 6 in the northwestern portion of the Town of Truckee, Nevada County, California(Figure 1). 2.2 PROJECT SETTING The project sites are within the Tahoe Donner subdivision in the northwestern portion of the Town of Truckee on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains at an elevation of approximately 6,800 feet. The area is surrounded by mountainous terrain. Construction of the pipelines will take place along existing residential roadways on Chalet Road and Swiss Lane. The area adjacent to the roadways is treed with native pines. Residential homes, both seasonal and year round, are adjacent to the roadways. 2.3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION The District proposes to replace 875 feet of 8-inch pipeline along Chalet Road and 4,400 feet of 6-inch pipeline along Swiss Lane with new 12-inch pipeline (Figure 2). The District will also be replacing other 8-inch pipeline in-kind within the Tahoe Donner Subdivision that are categorically exempt under CEQA. The locations and lengths of these pipeline replacements are shown on Figure 2 and include: • 1,929 feet along Bennett Flat Road • 2,654 feet along Cristallina Way • 755 feet along Chalet Road and Chateau Way • 939 feet along Edelweiss Place • 1,211 feet along Lausanne Way • 4,421 feet along Mougle Lane i Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems Pipeline replacements will include trenching, backfill, and surface restoration within the road prism. Pipeline trenches will generally be 5-6 feet deep and 3 feet wide. The District has updated its Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPPP) under the State Water Resources Control Board, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, General Construction Permit to include these pipeline replacements. Best Management Practices and erosion control measures will be implemented during project construction. 2.4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT A "No Project" alternative does not offer any advantages over the proposed project in terms of improving water delivery service and fire flow protection in these areas of the Tahoe Donner subdivision. Therefore, the proposed project is considered the preferred alternative. 2.5 REQUIRED PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVAL Truckee Donner Public Utility District Town of Truckee s s i initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems k { { Figure 1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems Figure 2. The location of District pipeline replacement alignments for 2006. Red pipeline alignments represent actions for consideration under this Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Declaration. Green alignments are categorically exempt from CEQA, and black alignments are existing pipelines. 3 t Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems 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 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. 3.1. AESTHETICS -- Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: 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 El- light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Response to questions: (a)-(d): The pipelines will be installed under existing residential roadways along Chalet Way and Swiss Lane and would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or scenic highway, nor would these pipelines substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site. The project would not include high illumination or exterior lighting and, therefore, there are no impacts to aesthetics. Mitigation Measure(s) —None Mitigation Monitoring—None Initial StudyfMitigated Negative Declaration 6 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems i [significant 2.AGRICULTURAL Potentially Less Than Less Than No ESOURCES: hi determining whether Significant Significant Significant Impact I to agricultural resources are Impact With Impact environmental effects, lead Mitigation encies may refer to the California Incorporated gricultural Land Evaluation and Site assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime farmland, Unique El El ❑ farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? Response to questions: (a)-(c):The project occurs along Chalet Road and Swiss Lane within the residential Tahoe Donner subdivision. The site does not support any agriculture and, therefore, there would be no impact to agricultural resources as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required Mitigation Monitoring - None Required i Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems 3.3. AIR QUALITY -- Where Potentially Less Than Less Than No applicable, the significance criteria Significant Significant Significant Impact established by the applicable air Impact With Impact quality management or air pollution Mitigation control district may be relied upon to Incorporated make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct ❑ ❑ ® ❑ implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively ❑ ❑ Elconsiderable 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)-(b):The Town of Truckee is responsible for implementing and enforcing the Town's air quality programs. The Town Council adopted the Truckee Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan in 1999 that recognized the severity of particulate matter pollution in the Town and its environs and the urgency for reducing particulate matter emissions. The three primary sources of Particulate Matter 10 microns or less (PM 10) are woodstove smoke, re-entrained road dust, and construction and demolition activities. Construction activities have the potential to generate airborne dust during excavation and there will be z equipment exhaust that may affect air quality in the area. However, the District will ensure that the project will minimize the amount of short-term dust emissions by having contractors implement Best Management Practices including regular sweeping and x periodic applications of water. The District will require contractors to stop excavation on s Initial Study/mitigated Negative Declaration 8 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems windy days if they cannot control dust emissions. The District will also require contractors to ensure that construction equipment be tuned for optimal performance. Therefore, these impacts to air quality are 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 site is not within a dense population center. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and, therefore, there would be no impact to these aspects of air quality. Mitigation Measure(s)— None Required Mitigation Monitorine— None Required =substantial OURCES Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated verse effect, LJ ® ❑ 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ El riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or boa 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, r hydrological interruption, or other means? s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems s Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated _ 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? Response to questions: The biological resources responses are based on a survey for special status plant and wildlife species conducted on January 24, 2006 in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Game guidelines. Although the survey was conducted during the winter with snow on the ground, the project alignments are adjacent to homogenous lodgepole pine tree stands, which typically do not have an herbaceous plant layer due to the ground being covered with pine needle litter. Therefore, the presence of snow did not impede the ability to predict what plant species were present nor their potential occurrence. Habitat types within approximately 500 feet of either side of the alignments were examined with binoculars to determine the presence/absence of special-status and/or migratory bird species or signs of their presence including visible nests. A search of the California Natural Diversity Database was also conducted for all records of special status plant and animal species occurring within the USGS 7.5-minute Norden quadrangle encompassing the project, as well as all adjacent quadrangles. An understanding of the habitat requirements for species potentially utilizing the project sites and the degree of existing human development in the immediate area (e.g., site locations are along well traveled residential roads) were factors considered in the impact assessment. A biological assessment is included in this Initial Study as Appendix B. (a);(d):No special status species were found during survey work, nor is there habitat present for any listed plant or animal species. Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes uecator), t wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus), bald eagle (Haliaetus leucoce haluds p ), and peregrine i Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 10 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) could occur as transients while traveling between areas of more suitable habitat. However, the pipeline replacements are within residential roadways adjacent to residential homes and since no breeding habitat and only poor quality foraging habitat exist, no adverse effects to these species are expected. 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 the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposed 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, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Numerous raptor species do, however, 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. Disturbance to an active raptor nest could occur during construction activities beginning in May 2006. Disturbing an active raptor nest would violate Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the California 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 would reduce potential impacts to birds to a less than significant level. (b)-(c):No wetlands, waters of the state, or waters of the U.S. would be impacted by the pipeline replacements. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive habitat identified in local or regional plans,policies or regulations. (e): No trees would need to be removed to accommodate the replacement pipelines and, therefore, there would be no impact. (f): The project was analyzed for consistency with local general plan policies and ordinances and is consistent with local development codes regarding protection of biological resources. The project would not conflict with local policies protecting biological resources or conflict with the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, 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: (a);(d): Raptor and migratory nest surveys will be conducted prior to construction activities. If an active nest is located in close proximity to the project sites, based on recommendations made to the District by the surveying biologist, the District will immediately notify the California Department of Fish and Game. Mitigation Monitoring: Truckee Donner Public Utility District s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration I 1 April 2006 I Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems 3.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Potentially Less Than Less Than :No- Would the project: Significant Significant Significant ctImpact 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? e) 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: Current environmental review policies, in compliance with guidelines established by CEQA, Nevada County, and the Town of Truckee require consideration of the impacts of a project on heritage resources. Accordingly, a heritage resource study was conducted by Dr. Susan Lindstr6m, a local Truckee cultural/historic archeologist. The required records search at the California Historical Resources Information System, North Central Information Center at California State University Sacramento was completed in order to identify any properties listed on the National Register, state registers and other listings, including the files of the State Historic Preservation Office. References checked included archaeological sites and surveys in Nevada County, the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources (2005), ice of Historic Property Directory (2005), California Historical Landmarks (1996), and California Points of Historical Interest (1992). According to the search, there are no heritage resources within or in close proximity to the project sites. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted as part of the cultural resource assessment and they did not identify any Sacred Lands within or in close proximity the project sites. In addition, the Washoe Tribe was consulted and they did not identify any Sacred Lands within or in close proximity the project sites. A cultural resources report is provided in this Initial Study as Appendix C. (a)-(d):The archaeological record searches conducted at the North Central Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System indicated that there are no f Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 12 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems cultural resources located within or in close proximity the project sites. On January 24, 2006 the project sites were surveyed. No heritage sites, features or artifacts were discovered along the proposed alignments. The Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California was notified and concurs with the study findings. However, it is possible that buried heritage resources could be present beneath the road fill during project ground disturbance activities. It would be a significant impact if such resources were present, and were displaced or destroyed during construction activities. Implementation of the mitigation measures outlined below would 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):Tbe District will have Dr. Susan Lindstr6m, a local Truckee cultural/historic archeologist, on-call during the entire duration of the construction period. In the event that evidence of cultural resources are encountered during pipeline replacement, Dr. Lindstr6m would be notified to record the location of such resources and gather available information in accordance with Appendix K of the CEQA guidelines. 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/or historical resources. Mitigation Monitoring- Truckee Donner Public Utility District 3.6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Into orated a) Expose people or structures to ❑ ❑ El � 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 3 Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems z Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 li uefaction? 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? Response to questions: (a)-(h):The project sites are not located within any fault zone of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faulting Zoning Map. The project is limited to pipeline replacements that would be Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 14 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems i installed in accordance with the California Health and Safety 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 would occur as a result of project construction. Typical soils in the area of the project sites consist of a mixture of sand, gravels, and decomposed organic topsoil with underlying volcanic rock. These soils are not considered potentially expansive. During excavation the majority of trenching spoil material will be screened for backfilling. The project activities do not present significant potential for soil erosion. There are no unique physical or geologic features associated with the project sites. Other hazards, such as lateral spreading, lurch cracking, regional subsidence, liquefaction, landslides are unlikely to occur during project construction. There are no demands for wastewater disposal systems included in the project. Therefore, there would be no impacts to geology and soils as a result of the project. Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required Mitigation Monitoring -None Required 7Create RDS AND Potentially Less Than Less Than No OUS MATERIALS -- Significant Significant Significant Impact project: Impact With Impact Mitigation Inco orated a significant hazard to or the environment trough the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to ❑ ❑ the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ ❑ handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ ❑ included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 April 2066 � Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems Potentially Less Than Less Than 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? I) 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 ❑ ❑ Q 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): During construction there is a risk of accidental release of hazardous substances such as fuel and oil from spillage. However, District construction contracts require the contractor to be prepared for such accidents and provide clean-up as stipulated in the District's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) that all contractors are obligated to read and sign. This potential impact is, therefore, considered less than significant. (b);(h): Pipeline replacements would not 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. The proposed construction activities would not result in hazardous emissions or substances within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The project sites are not included on a list of hazardous Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 16 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems t s i materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The project sites are not within an airport land use plan. No component of the project activities would impair or interfere with emergency response, or expose people or structures to wildland fires and, therefore, there would be no impact to these aspects of hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure(s)- None Required Mitigation Monitoring -None Required 3.8. HYDROLOGY AND Potentially Less Than Less Than No WATER QUALITY -- Would Significant Significant Significant Impact 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 anted)? e) 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 s amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in s flooding on- or off-site? s z Initial StudyMitigated Negative Declaration 17 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems i Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Create or contribute runoff ❑ ❑ ❑ water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade ❑ ❑ water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year ❑ ❑ flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place structure within a 100- ❑ ❑ ❑ year flood hazard area, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiehe, tsunami, ❑ ❑ ❑ or mudflow? Response to questions: (a): The District will replace the pipelines 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 SWPPP will include mitigation measures for the protection of water quality and would, therefore, not cause any degradation to water quality within the area. Any soils disturbed during construction will be stabilized immediately following construction using wood chips, pine needles, filter fabric jute matting or other appropriate measures. Therefore, this potential impact is considered less than significant. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 18 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems r E (b)-O): The proposed pipeline replacements would not deplete groundwater supplies, alter the existing drainage pattern of the sites, or contribute runoff water in excess of existing stormwater drainage systems. The project sites are not within a 100-year flood hazard area. The proposed project activities would not expose people or structures to risk involving flooding, and no portion of the project areas are subject to the possibility of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, there would be no impacts to these aspects of hydrology and water quality as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required Mitigation Monitoring -None Required 3.9. LAND USE AND Potentially Less Than Less Than No PLANNING -- 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 replacement of pipelines that will improve the public water service and provide increased fire flow protection in the project areas within the Tahoe Donner subdivision. No changes to existing zoning or land use are proposed with this project. The proposed project area is not affected by a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts to land use and planning as a result of the proposed project. s Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required Mitigation Monitoring- None Required s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 April 2006 3 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems i 3.10. MINERAL RESOURCES - Potentially Less Than Less Than No - Would the 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 mineral resources are required 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 3.11. 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? c) A substantial permanent increase ❑ ❑ ❑ in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems $ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ T a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Response to questions: (a)-(b): The project will not result in any long-term increase in noise levels, but will increase noise levels temporarily during construction activities. Temporary noise levels would not, however, 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 aspect of noise impact is considered less than significant. (c)-(f):Construction activities would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. The project sites are not within an airport land use plan or private airstrip and, therefore, there would be no impact to these aspects of noise. Ylitigation Measure(s) - None Required s s Mitigation Monitoring - None Required Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 April 2006 # Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems 3 s 3.12. POPULATION -- Would the Potentially LED n Less Than No project: Significant nt Significant Impact Impact Impact n ated _ 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 entails the replacement of pipelines that will improve the public water service and provide increased fire flow protection in the project areas within the Tahoe Donner subdivision. The project would not affect local population centers or demand for new housing. Project activities would not interfere with, or create demands on police or fire protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities and, therefore, there would be no impact to population as a result of the project. Mitigation Measure(s)- None Required Mitigation Monitoring - None Required Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 22 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems 3.13. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project result in Significant Significant Significant Impact substantial adverse physical impacts Impact With Impact associated with the provision of new Mitigation or physically altered governmental Incorporated 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) FiEep ?b) Pon? c) Schools? 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 to public services as a result of the project. Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required Mitigation Monitoring -None Required Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public utility District Inland Ecosystems t 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): The project will not impact existing or proposed neighborhood parks, regional parks, or recreational facilities and, therefore, there would be no impact to recreation as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required Mitigation Monitoring - None Required 3.15. TRANSPORTATION/ TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase on either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 24 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Exceed, either individually or ❑ ❑ cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due ❑ ❑ to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency LJ ❑ ❑ access? f) Result in inadequate parking ❑ ❑ ❑ capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, ❑ ❑ ❑ plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Response to questions: (a): Prior to excavation along Chalet Road and Swiss Lane, traffic control plans will be submitted to the Town of Truckee for approval as part of the encroachment permit process. Transportation of construction material will take place on public roadways and will not exceed roadway capacity. 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 25 April 2006 Trockee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems , 3.16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE Potentially Lees L ess Than No SYSTEMS -- Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ requirements of the applicable Regional zi 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-0— 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 roject's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Response to questions: (a)-(g): The proposed project entails replacement of pipelines that will improve the public water service and provide increased fire flow protection in the project areas within the Tahoe Donner subdivision. The project does not require construction of stormwater drainage facilities, new water supplies, wastewater treatment or solid waste disposal and, therefore, there would be no impact to utilities and service systems as a result of the project. Mitieation Measure(s) - None Required r Mitigation Monitorine - None Required ; s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 26 April 2006 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 plant 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): The proposed project is comprised of standard construction activities associated with pipeline replacement activities within the road prism of residential roadways. The project does not 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 reduce the habitat of any wildlife species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contained in Appendix A would reduce any potential impact to biological and cultural resources to a less than significant level. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 April 2006 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, there is no impact. (c): The project does not have 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 28 April 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Inland Ecosystems Agenda Item # • � - . NNER Memorandum To: Board of Directors From: Neil Kaufman Date: March 10, 2006 Subject: Tahoe Donner Pipeline Replacement CEQA 1. WHY THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE BOARD The District is proposing construction of the District Pipeline Replacement— 2006 project. 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 Pipeline Replacement — 2006 project entails construction of about 17,200 feet of pipeline. Of this total, about 5,300 feet of pipeline will be increased in size and is subject to CEQA review. The remaining 11,900 feet of pipe is not increased in size and is categorically exempt under CEQA. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Initial Study covering the 5,300 feet of pipe was prepared and adopted by the Board of Directors on March 1, 2006. The draft Initial Study used the name 'Tahoe Donner Pipeline Replacement' and discussed only those portions of the overall project that were subject to CEQA review. The Initial Study was then 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 March 15, 2006. No public comment was received at the March 15, 2006 hearing. The 30 day time period for submitting written and oral comments on the CEQA document would normally have closed on April 2, 2006. The Board of Directors chose to continue the public hearing to the April 5, 2006 Board meeting. 3. NEW INFORMATION In response to comments from Director Sutton, the discussion of erosion control has been revised to include other erosion control measures besides wood chips and pine needles. The General Plan designation and zoning have also been clarified. No written comments have been received to date. Along with this memo are the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Notice of Determination. Filing the Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse and Nevada County Clerk completes the CEQA process for the project. Page 1 4. RECOMMENDATION I recommend the Board take the following actions regarding the environmental review for the District Pipeline Replacement—2006 Project. 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 judgment. Attachments: Notice of Determination Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2