The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9 CEQA Review Pioneer Drive Agenda Item # 9 TRUCKEE DONNER Public Utility District 1i Memorandum To: Board of Directors From: Neil Kaufman Date: April 26, 2007 Subject: CEQA Review of the Pioneer Drive Conduit Installation project 1. Why this matter is before the board: Board authorization is required to approve a CEQA Initial Study and direct that it be circulated. 2. History: At the April 4, 2007 meeting, Joe Horvath gave a presentation regarding installation of new electrical cable. The Electric Department had initially planned to install this circuit using overhead poles. However, property owners in the area had objected to the overhead installation and requested that the cable be placed underground. After receiving input from the Electric department and from local residents, the Board of Directors determined that the new installation should be underground. 3. New information: After the April 4 meeting, Joe and I discussed the issue of CEQA review for an underground conduit installation. Joe and Sanna Schlosser have been extremely busy dealing with developer projects, management of the field crews in Jim Wilson's absence, and other issues. I agreed to help Joe with the permitting and preparation of the contract documents for the conduit installation. I called Glen Merron of Inland Ecosystems and asked him to review the previous CEQA work performed at Donner Lake related to the water pipeline construction. It was hoped that the prior CEQA work would be broad enough to encompass the new conduit installation. After further discussion, Glenn Merron and I agreed that a new CEQA review would be required because all of the field survey work was about five years old. Glenn pointed out that some of the key personnel involved in preparation of a CEQA Initial Study would be in Truckee to perform the pre-construction surveys covered in the contract with Inland Ecosystems approved by the Board on April 4, 2007. Glenn further stated that cost of the field surveys for a new CEQA study could be reduced because there would not be travel time costs. Dr. Lindstrom also agreed to perform the cultural review of the project site at no cost. The cost for the Alder Drive Pump Station CEQA Study was $4,796. Glenn felt that the CEQA for Pioneer Drive TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT ♦ ♦ Environmental Quality Act Initial Proposed Negative for the Pioneer Drive Conduit Installation Project Pioneer Drive 0 Interstate- 8 . z. • �_'f C3M �asJ,3 1 A► 1) 0 r4 L AVA CIO Prepared For Board of Directors Truckee Donner Public Utility District 11570 Donner Pass Road Truckee, CA 96160 Prepared By Inland Ecosystems 1000 Bible Way, Suite 16 Reno, NV 89502 Contact: Glenn Merron May 2007 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (District) as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and addresses the environmental impacts of constructing the Pioneer Drive Conduit Installation project. The IS has been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines. 1.2 PURPOSE This project entails installation of approximately 700 feet of underground electrical conduit and two electrical vaults along Pioneer Drive that will connect to existing electrical infrastructure in the area. The new conduit will improve service to the District's customers. 1.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Section 3 of this IS contains the Environmental Checklist that identifies potential environmental impacts and a discussion of each impact that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Based on the Environmental Checklist the proposed project would result in the following impacts: • No Impact: aesthetics, agricultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. • Less-than-Significant Impacts: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and traffic/transportation. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, a Negative Declaration may be prepared if the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment There is no substantial evidence that the proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment based on the available project information presented in this document. Therefore, a CEQA Negative Declaration is proposed to be adopted. 1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION This Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration is available for a 30-day public review period beginning May 3, 2007 and ending on June 3, 2007. Written comments may be submitted by 5:00 on June 3, 2007 to: Peter L. Holzmeister, General Manager Truckee Donner Public Utility District P.O. Box 309 Truckee, CA 96160-0309 Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration May 2007 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2 Figure 1. Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration May 2007 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 4 I � y y, v y Pioneer Drive r:• Figure 2. Aerial view of the Pioneer Drive alignment between its intersection with Reed Avenue on the east and Denton Avenue on the west,Truckee, California. �f Photo 1. View looking east along Pioneer Drive where the proposed project will take place on the south shoulder. Photo taken April 24, 2007. Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration May 2007 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 5 3.2 AGRICULTURAL Potentially Less Than Less Than No RESOURCES-- In determining Significant Significant Significant Impact whether impacts to agricultural Impact With Impact resources are significant Mitigation environmental effects, lead Incorporated agencies may refer to the California Agricultural 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 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 proposed electrical conduit will be installed along Pioneer Drive adjacent to residential homes within the Town of Truckee. The proposed alignment does not occur within any agriculture area and, therefore, there would be no impact as a result of the proposed project. Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration May 2007 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 7 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native residents or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ ❑ adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration May 2007 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 9 Common and Scientific Name Fed/State Status Habitat Present/Impacts Little Willow Flycatcher(Empidonax tradii brewsteri) --/SE No,none expected California Yellow Warbler(Dendroica petechia brewsteri) --/CSC No, none expected MAMMALS Pallid Bat(Antrozous pallidus) --/CSC No, none expected Townsend's Big-eared Bat(Cotynorhinus townsendii) --/CSC No,none expected Sierra Nevada Snowshoe Hare(Lepus americanus tahoensis) --/CSC No, none expected Western White-tailed Hare(Lepus townsendii townsendii) --/CSC No,none expected Sierra Nevada Mountain Beaver(Aplodontia rufa californica) --/CSC No,none expected Sierra Nevada Red Fox(Vulpes vulpes necator) --/ST No,none expected Pacific Fisher(Mantes pennanti pacifica) --/CSC No,none expected California Wolverine(Gulo gulo ltttetts) --/ST No,none expected LEGAL STATUS CODES FOR SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Federal Status Codes: IState Status Codes: FE= Federally listed as Endangered SE= State-listed as Endangered FT= Federally listed as Threatened ST= State-listed as Threatened FPE= Federally Proposed for listing SCE= State-Candidate for listin as Endan ered FPT= FederallyProposed for listing SCT= State-Candidate for listingas Threatened FPD= FederallyProposed for DelCSC= California CDFG Special Concernspecies FD= Federally Delisted: to be mFP= Fully Protected: may not be taken without permit FC= Federal Candidates eciesfrom the CDFG Response to questions: (a): No federal or state listed threatened or endangered wildlife species were observed during the April 24, 2007 survey nor is suitable habitat present to support any listed species. No California Department of Fish and Game concern species were observed and habitat capable of supporting any special-status species was lacking. High human activity along the project sites and minimal suitable habitat conditions were among the factors considered for the impact assessment. The associated vegetation communities are not comprised of any sensitive or unique plant communities of high wildlife value (such as riparian habitats) generally associated with the vast majority of special-status species. The project has a small footprint (influencing little of the surrounding native habitats) with a short duration of anticipated construction activity. The underground conduit will be embedded on road fill and in areas that have been previously disturbed by the installation of other underground utilities. These factors contributed to a determination that no special-status species would be impacted. A number of migratory bird species which are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act could potentially be impacted when construction commences. However, no migratory birds were Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration May 2007 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 1 1 3.5 CULTURAL Potentially Less Than Less Than No RESOURCES — Would Significant Significant Significant Impact the project: Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Cause a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly ❑ ❑ ® ❑ destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human ❑ ❑ ® ❑ remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Cultural Resources Background The cultural resources responses are based on a literature review of former archaeological work within or adjacent to the project area. The required Records Search at the North Central Information Center (NCIC) at California State University at Sacramento (NCIC File No. NEV- 07-18) was initiated 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. Local Native American organizations were contacted as part of the project. An intensive field survey was conducted by Dr. Susan Lindstrom, a Registered Professional Archeologist. The findings of Dr. Lindstr6m's field survey and Record Search database is described below. Response to questions: (a)-(d):The cultural resources Record Search results disclosed that no archaeological sites are known to occur inside or bounding the project. On April 20, 2007, an intensive archaeological survey of the 700-foot alignment on Pioneer Drive was conducted by Dr. Lindstrom. During the survey ground surface visibility was excellent. No heritage resources were encountered on the surface and it is unlikely that artifacts occur beneath the surface, as the roadway and road shoulder have been constructed on road fill and in areas previously disturbed by the installation of other underground utilities. Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration May 2007 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 13 3.6 GEOLOGY AND Potentially Less Than Less Than No SOILS -- Would the Significant Significant Significant Impact project: Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Expose people or ❑ ❑ ❑ structures to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known Fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b) Expose people or ❑ ❑ ❑ structures to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss injury, or death involving strong seismic ground -shaking? c) Expose people or structures ❑ ❑ ❑ to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Expose people or ❑ ❑ ❑ structures to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? e)Result in substantial soil ❑ ❑ ® ❑ erosion or the loss of to soil? Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration May 2007 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 15 Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required 3.7 HAZARDS AND Potentially Less Than Less Than No HAZARDOUS Significant Significant Significant Impact MATERIALS -- Impact With Impact Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ ❑ handles hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ ❑ included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within ❑ ❑ ❑ an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration May 2007 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 17 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND Potentially Less Than Less Than No WATER QUALITY -- Significant Significant Significant Impact 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)? c) Substantially alter the ❑ ❑ ❑ existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the ❑ ❑ ❑ existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration May 2007 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 19 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, no impacts to hydrology and water quality would occur from the proposed project. Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required 3.9 LAND USE AND Potentially Less Than Less Than No PLANNING -- Would the Significant Significant Significant Impact project: 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 installation of approximately 700 lineal feet of underground conduit along Pioneer Drive. 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, and will therefore not impact such plans. Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration May 2007 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 21 3.11 NOISE -- Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project result in: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ ❑ generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ ❑ generation of excessive groundborne vibration noise levels? c) A substantial permanent ❑ ❑ ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located ❑ ❑ ❑ within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the ❑ ❑ ❑ vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration May 2007 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 23 Response to questions: (a)—(c): 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. 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES -- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project result in Significant Significant Significant Impact substantial adverse physical Impact With Impact impacts associated with the Mitigation provision of new or physically Incorporated altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered facilities, the construction of which could cause significant impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response time or other objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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. Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration May 2007 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 25 3.15 TRANSPORTATION/ Potentially Less Than Less Than No TRAFFIC -- Would the Significant Significant Significant Impact project: Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Cause an increase in traffic, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase on either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually ❑ ❑ ❑ or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase ❑ ❑ ❑ hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency access? 0 Result in inadequate parking ❑ ❑ ❑ capacity? g) Conflict with adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration May 2007 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 27 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Result in a determination by ❑ ❑ ❑ the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with ❑ ❑ ❑ sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, ❑ ❑ ❑ and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Response to questions: (a)-(g): The proposed project does not require wastewater treatment or solid waste disposal and, therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration May 2007 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 29 Response to questions: (a): 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 associated with installation of an underground conduit. The project will not adversely affect any species identified as a candidate for sensitive or special status species, in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (b): The proposed project would not result in any cumulative impacts or 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 environment 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, I r P ipal auth�r was Glenn Merron. .Prepared by: ✓�' ' 2'!�! ' 12 % Date: ��'�� Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration May 2007 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 31