The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBIO Survey Tahoe Donner subdivision, Truckee, CA Project vicinity Donner Lake, Truckee CA 1 u .:.. Figure 1. Project vicinity map, Truckee, CA. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 December 2009 10. Public Participation: This California Environmental Quality Act Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for a 30-day public review period beginning December 3, 2009 and ending on January 8, 2010. Written comments maybe submitted by 5:00 on January 8, 2010 to: Michael D. Holley, 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 December 16, 2009 at District Headquarters located at 11570 Donner Pass Road in Truckee. Based on public review and comment of this Initial Study, the District as lead agency, may prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration to mitigate the effects of potential project impacts. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been prepared to help ensure that each mitigation measure, adopted as a condition of project approval, would be implemented(See Appendix A). 11. Environmental Setting of the Project: The Town of Truckee is situated on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains at the base of Donner Summit at an elevation of approximately 6,000 feet. The Truckee area is surrounded by mountainous terrain and is heavily treed with various species of native pines. The Northwoods Boulevard/Zermatt Drive/Davos Drive pipeline project is located within the USGS 7.5-minute Truckee quadrangle. 12. Agency Approvals and/or Permits Required for the Project: Truckee Donner Public Utility District Town of Truckee—Encroachment Permit State Water Resources Control Board—General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity 13. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the Initial Study checklist contained in Section 14. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils F-11 Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ® Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 December 2009 14.2. AGRICULTURAL Potentially Less Than Less Than No RESOURCES -- In determining Significant Significant With Significant Impact ` whether impacts to agricultural Impact Mitigation Impact resources are significant Incorporated environmental effects, lead 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 project is not within any agricultural area and would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or with a Williamson Act contract and, therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required Mitigation Monitoring -None Required Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 December 2009 (c): Construction activities could have the potential to generate emissions through the release of fugitive dust associated with excavation. Construction impacts could also result from equipment emissions. Fugitive dust emissions shall be minimized at all times utilizing control measures including regular sweeping and water applications for dust control as needed. All contractors will be required to comply with the District's Storm Water Pollution Plan (SWPPP) prior to performing any construction activity. In addition, all contractors will be required to attend a District sponsored Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion control training course prior to construction activities as part of the SWPPP program. The District will require the following BMPs as part of the construction to reduce emissions from construction activities. • All equipment will be properly tuned during construction operations. • All stockpiled material will be sufficiently covered when not in use to prevent sediment and other potential pollutants from leaving the project sites and causing a public nuisance or a violation of an ambient air standard. • Construction activities will be conducted so that no track-out from the project areas is visible on any paved roadway(e.g., from staging areas). • Dust control measures will be implemented during project construction. • All material transported off-site will be securely covered as needed to avoid spilling. • All exposed soil surface areas will be mulched (as needed). By implementing the above BMPs the project will not 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. Therefore, potential impacts to air quality standards are considered less than significant. (d)-(e): Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where people reside or where members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants (i.e., children, the elderly, hospital patients, and people with illnesses) are located. Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project areas include single-family residences adjacent to Northwoods Boulevard, Zermatt Drive, and Davos Drive. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment would generate temporary odors during project construction. Once construction activities have been completed, these odors would cease. Construction activities would not 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. No unusual air quality impacts would result from the project. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. These impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s)—None Required Mitigation Monitoring—None Required Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 December 2009 Background: Biological surveys were conducted along the proposed alignments on October 27 and November 9, 2009 by Overlin Biological Consulting and Inland Ecosystems. The analysis presented below also relies on the recently completed Comprehensive Biological Assessment conducted by the District throughout its service area in 2009. Pre-field research included a search of the California Natural Diversity Database and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service database for all records of special-status plant and animal species occurring within the USGS 7.5 minute Truckee quadrangle encompassing the project. A list of all potentially occurring special-status plant and wildlife species that could be present in the project areas and considered in this analysis is provided in Appendix B—Tables 1 and 2. Special Status Species include: • plant and wildlife species that are listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.11 for wildlife, 50 CFR 17.12 for plants; various notices in the Federal Register for proposed species); • species that are listed, or proposed for listing by the state of California as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 670.5); • wildlife species identified by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) as species of concern (wildlife species that do not have state or federal threatened or endangered status but may still be threatened with extinction); • wildlife species that are designated as fully protected by CDFG (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 670.5); • plants considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; and • plant species that meet the definition of rare or endangered under the California Environmental Quality Act(1970). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response to questions: (a);(d): The biological field surveys of the proposed pipeline alignment along Northwoods Boulevard, Zermatt Drive, and Davos Drive included an inventory of habitats, potential for special-status species, and a noxious weed assessment. Based on the surveys, no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed, nor is suitable habitat present to support any special- status species. The field survey covered the different project areas and an approximate buffer of 30-feet on each side of the road. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 December 2009 (e)-(f): The project will not conflict with local policies protecting biological resources or conflict with the provisions of an HCP, NCCP, or other approved conservation plan. The project is consistent with the environmental plans and policies of the Town of Truckee. Therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measure(s) - The following mitigation measure(s) shall be incorporated into the proj ect: (a);(d):The District will have a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction raptor and migratory bird survey no earlier than two weeks prior to the initiation of construction activities or other site disturbances. Should any migratory birds be observed prior to construction the District will immediately consult with the CDFG and other appropriate resource agencies to obtain guidance on minimizing any potential impact such as establishing a buffer zone around any active nest. In order to prevent the further distribution of any noxious weeds the District will coordinate with Nevada County weed abatement staff to eradicate the infestations prior to any construction. Implementation of this measure would reduce the potential for further distribution and establishment of noxious weeds off the site. Weed control measures may include herbicide application or physical removal of plants. Mitigation Monitoring: Truckee Donner Public Utility District Mitigation Monitoring: Truckee Donner Public Utility District 14.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Less Than No -- Would the project: Significant Significant Significant [Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ® ❑ ❑ historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse ❑ ® ❑ ❑ change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a ❑ ® ❑ ❑ unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, ❑ ® ❑ ❑ including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 December 2009 In the unlikely event of fortuitous discoveries of heritage resources, project operations should cease in the area of the find, and a qualified archaeologist should be consulted for recommendations. With the implementation of this mitigation measure potential effects of this project on heritage resources are not considered to be a significant effect on the environment. No further study or special operational constraints need be imposed on the project sponsor concerning these heritage resources. Implementation of the mitigation measures outlined below will reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level. References Cited: Lindstrom, Susan 2009. Heritage Resource Study, Truckee Donner Public Utility District, Meter Box Retrofit Project. Report on file, North Central Information Center, California State University, Sacramento. Mitigation Measure(s) - The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the proj ect: (a)-(d):The District will have a Registered Professional Archeologist on-call during any site disturbance. In the event that evidence of cultural resources is encountered during pipeline installation, the Archeologist 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 cultural resources. Mitigation Monitoring- Truckee Donner Public Utility District Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 December 2009 Response to questions: (a)-(g): The pipeline alignments are not located within any fault zone of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faulting Zoning Map. The project is limited to standard excavation and there is no aspect of the project that would expose people or property to increased risk during strong seismic ground shaking or ground failure. Installation of the pipelines would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from landslides nor would the pipeline be placed in unstable or expansive soils. The project activities do not present significant potential for soil erosion. Soils typical of District pipeline projects during trenching are either trucked away immediately or screened and used for backfill. Other hazards, such as lateral spreading, lurch cracking, regional subsidence and liquefaction, are unlikely to occur during project construction. Therefore, there would be no impacts. (h): There are no demands for wastewater disposal systems included in the project areas. Therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required 14.7 HAZARDS AND Potentially Less Than Less Than No HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Significant Significant With Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ ❑ handles hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 December 2009 project would not directly generate or involve the transfer or disposal of hazardous materials. The Underground Service Alert would be contacted before construction to allow underground utilities to identify the location of their underground facilities and avoid the possibility of hitting an underground source of hazards such as a gas line. Construction would involve commonly used materials such as fuels and oils to operate equipment. Fueling and application of lubricants and fluids will be performed in designated areas with appropriate BMPs. The size of the construction footprint for the project is relatively small and standard construction procedures would be implemented to avoid and minimize emissions of dust or other pollutants. Upon completion of pipeline installation the roadways will be restored with paving. These impacts are considered less than significant. (c): The proposed project would not generate any hazardous emissions or handle hazardous substances or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, there would be no impact. (d): The project area is not 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 not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, there would be no impact. (e): The project area is located outside any airport active land-use plan or safety zone. Therefore, there would be no impact. (f): There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the proposed project area. Therefore, there would be no impact. (g): The proposed project will require a road encroachment permit from the Town of Truckee. Adhering to Town regulations will assure that the project will not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, there would be no impact. (h): The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury, or death attributable to wildfires. Therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures) -None Required Mitigation Monitoring -None Required Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 December 2009 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated g) Place housing within a 100-year ❑ ❑ ❑ flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place structure within a 100-year ❑ ❑ ❑ flood hazard area, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ mudflow? Response to questions: (a): Runoff from construction operations, stockpiling of spoil materials, and other related ground-disturbing activities could contain sediment and other pollutants with the potential to enter waters of the state. The District will install the pipeline in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity that includes development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the protection of water quality. The District shall routinely inspect the construction area to verify that the BMP measures specified in the SWPPP are properly implemented and maintained. The District will incorporate the following BMPs into the proposed project. 1. Retain soil and sediment on the construction site • Construction activities shall be limited to designated work areas including the staging locations. • The District will follow the guidelines established for sediment control methods consistent with the requirements of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. • Ground disturbance will be temporarily suspended prior to and during storm events that could cause runoff, and sedimentation from surfaces exposed by construction. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 December 2009 (c)-(e): The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the • area which would result in substantial erosion or siltation or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff resulting in flooding on- or off-site. No new impervious surfaces and thus increased surface runoff will result from the project. Therefore, there is no impact. (g);(h);(i): The proposed project would not be located within a 100-year flood zone, as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Thus, there would be no impact related to placement of housing or structures in a 100-year flood hazard area, and no risk of flooding is expected. The pipeline will be installed according to standard construction and safety codes to ensure general structural integrity. Therefore, there is no impact. (j): The proposed project area is located inland. Consequently, there is no risk of a seiche 'or tsunami. There is no risk related to mudflow hazard from construction activities and, therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required Mitigation Monitoring—None Required 14.9 LAND USE AND Potentially Less Than Less Than No PLANNING -- Would the Significant Significant With Significant Impact proj ect: Impact Mitigation Impact 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: Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 December 2009 14.11 NOISE -- Would the project Potentially Less Than Less Than No 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? Response to questions: (a): The existing noise environment along the pipeline alignments is dominated by vehicular traffic traveling along Northwoods Boulevard, Zermatt Drive, and Davos Drive. Noise-sensitive land uses include single-family residences adjacent to the roadways. Noise impacts associated Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 December 2009 14.12 POPULATION -- Would Potentially Less Than Less Than No the 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): The project would not affect local population centers or demand for new housing. Replacement of the existing pipelines will allow the District to meet current and future water supply demand and fire flow protection for residents of the area. The proposed project would not induce substantial direct growth in the area. This impact is considered less than significant. (b)-(c): Construction of the proposed project would not result in the displacement of any existing housing units or people. Consequently, there are no population and/or housing displacement impacts associated with the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures) -None Required Mitigation Monitoring -None Required Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 December 2009 (a)-(b): The project would not 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. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required Mitigation Monitoring -None Required 14.15 TRANSPORTATION/ Potentially Less Than Less Than No TRAFFIC -- Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase on either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or ❑ ❑ ❑ cumulatively, a level of service • standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to ❑ ❑ ❑ a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ access? 1) 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 December 2009 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated d)Have sufficient water supplies ❑ ❑ ❑ available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment provider,which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ® ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g)Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Response to questions: (a)-(b): The proposed project would not result in the increased generation of wastewater or the need for expansion of existing wastewater facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact. (c): The proposed project will not substantially increase drainage runoff. Therefore, there would be no impact. (d): The proposed project would not require any other change in water facilities. Therefore,there would be no impact. (e): The proposed project would not affect the capacity of the wastewater treatment provider. Therefore, there would be no impact. (f): Small amounts of construction debris may be sent to a landfill for disposal. This impact would be less than significant. (g): The proposed project construction would comply with all federal, state, and local laws and. regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures) - None Required Mitigation Monitoring - None Required Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 December 2009 With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures incorporated into the project, impacts are less than significant. (b): The project would not result in irreversible environmental damage. Mitigation measures will be incorporated into the proposed project to minimize any potential environmental impacts,which are relatively small when considered in the overall regional context. Cumulative impacts are considered less than significant. (c): As described throughout the preceding checklist sections, the proposed project would not result in any environmental impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects to human beings, either directly or indirectly.Therefore,there would be no impact. REPORT PREPARATION This Initial Study was pre ared under contract with the.Truckee Donner Public Utility District by Inland Ecosystems, cipal aut. was Glenn Merron. Prepared by: . ate: r Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 33 December 2009 Y MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/PMND) prepared for this project documents the impacts and mitigation measures that would reduce, avoid, or otherwise minimize these impacts. This draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will ensure that each mitigation measure, adopted as a condition of project approval, would be implemented. This draft MMRP will comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(d) that specifies the lead agency shall adopt a program for monitoring and reporting on the required mitigation measures to avoid significant environmental effects. ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY The Truckee Donner Public Utility District (District) will adopt this MMRP when conditions of project approval are identified in order to mitigate environmental effects. It will be the responsibility of the District to ensure adoption and completion of the monitoring program. LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND DATE OF COMPLETION The following mitigation measures have been included in the project to avoid potential significant effects: 14.4 Biological Resources (a);(d):The District will have a qualified wildlife specialist conduct a pre-construction raptor and migratory bird survey no earlier than two weeks prior to the initiation of construction activities or other site disturbances. Should any special-status birds be observed prior to construction, the District will immediately consult with the CDFG and other appropriate resource agencies to obtain guidance on minimizing any potential impact such as establishing a buffer zone around any active nests. Any wildlife encountered during construction activities will be herded away from the project site. In order to prevent the further distribution of any noxious weeds the District will coordinate with Nevada County weed abatement staff to eradicate the infestations prior to any construction. Implementation of this measure would reduce the potential for further distribution and establishment of noxious weeds off the site. Weed control measures may include herbicide application or physical removal of plants. Mitigation Monitoring: Truckee Donner Public Utility District Timing Process: Prior to construction Verification of Compliance (Initials, Date, Remarks): 14.5 Cultural Resources (a)-(d): The District will have a Registered Professional Archeologist on call during construction activities. In the event that evidence of cultural resources is encountered during construction of APPENDIX B Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Known to occur, or Potentially Occurring, in the Truckee Area • a Common Fed/State Suitable Habitat y and Legal Preferred Habitats Present/ Scientific Name Status Potential Impacts Meadows, grasslands, desert sinks, Not present. No Northern Harrier __/CSC fresh& saltwater emergent wetlands. impacts expected. Circus cyaneus Nests usually at marsh edge on ground in dense vegetation. Bald Eagle Ocean shorelines, lake margins, and Not present. High Haliaeetus FPD, FT river courses for both nesting and levels of human leucocephalus /CSC, FP wintering. Most nests occur within disturbance. No one mile of water. impacts expected. American Not present. No cliff Peregrine Falcon Breeds near wetlands, lakes, rivers; on habitats, structures, or Falco peregrinus FD/SE, FP high cliffs, banks,mounds; also other forms of nesting anatum human-made structures. substrates. No impacts expected. Cismontane woodland, Great Basin Not present. No scrub, riparian forest, &riparian suitable nesting Long-eared Owl __/CSC woodland. Open land productive of substrates. No Asio otus mice &presence of old nests of impacts expected. crows, hawks, or magpies for breeding. Mixed conifer forest, often with an Not present. No California Spotted understory of black oaks and other dense canopy Owl deciduous hardwoods. Canopy coverage. No impacts Strix occidentalis --/CSC closure>40%. Most often found in expected. occidentalis deep-shaded canyons, on north-facing slopes, and within 300 meters of water. Nests in wetland habitats in NE Not present. No Greater Sandhill California. Prefers grain fields within wetlands, wet Crane ST/FP 4 mi. of a shallow body of water used meadows, or marsh Grus canadensis as a communal roost site. habitat for nesting'or tabida foraging in project area. Breeds in small colonies on cliffs Not present. No Black Swift __/CSC behind or adjacent to waterfalls in suitable breeding Cypseloides niger deep canyons and sea bluffs above habitat. No impacts surf, forages widely. expected. Vaux's Swift Nests in hollow, burned-out tree Not present. No Chaetura vauxi --/CSC trunks in large conifers; most other suitable habitat. No activities are conducted in the air. impacts expected. i Common Fed/State Suitable Habitat and Legal Preferred Habitats Present/ Scientific Name Status Potential Impacts Intermediate to large-tree stages of Not present. No California coniferous forests and deciduous- denning or cover Wolverine ST/-- riparian areas with high percent canopy habitat in or near the Gulo gulo luteus closure. Uses cavities, snags, logs, and project area. High rocky areas for cover and denning. human activity. No impacts expected. Tree cavities, rock outcrops, cliffs, & Not present. No snags crevices for roosting; open habitats for and/or trees with Pallid Bat foraging. Deserts, grasslands, cavities, buildings or Antrozous pallidus --/CSC shrublands, woodlands, and forests. other structures used for breeding and roosting. No impacts expected. Mesic habitats; feeds along habitat Not present. No caves Pale Townsend's edges; roosting and maternity sites in or cave like surrogates Big-eared Bat caves, mines, tunnels, and buildings. such as mines,tunnels, Corynorhinus --/CSC Needs appropriate roosting, maternity, buildings or large townsendii &hibernacula sites free from human hollows in late seral • pallescens disturbance. tree stage. No impacts expected. Arid deserts & grasslands thru mixed Not present. No rock Spotted Bat conifer forests. Needs rock crevices in outcrops, crevices, Euderma --/CSC cliffs or caves for roosting. Only cliffs or caves for maculatum known maternity roosts in cliffs. roosting. No impacts Rarely or never uses mines to roost. expected. Open, semi-arid to and habitat, Not present. No Western Mastiff including conifer& deciduous crevice habitat or Bat woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, suitable maternal Eumops perotis --/CSC chaparral, etc. Roosts in crevices in roosts, hibernacula, or californicus cliff faces, buildings, trees, and tunnels. other forms of roosting habitat.No impacts expected. r a -/- General habitat: Subalpine Not found. Moist meadow Carex davyi CNPS 4 conifer forest, upper montane habitat not found. conifer forest, 1,500-3,200m. avy's sedge Micro-habitat: moist meadows. Similar to C. petasata, may be overlooked. Flowering Time: May- June -/- General habitat: Bogs and Not found. No suitable wet rosera anglica CNPS 2 fens, wet meadows, 1,300- meadow or fen habitat. 2,000m. English sundew Micro-habitat: mossy portions of wet meadows or fens; areas with low meadow vegetation Intergrades with D.rotundifolia Flowering Time: June - August -/- General habitat: Bogs and Not found. Moist wet Glyceria grandis CNPS 2 fens,marshes and swamps, habitats habitat not found. meadows and seeps, 15- merican manna 11,980m. grass Micro-habitat: riparian areas, streambanks, lake margins, bogs/fens, and edge habitats. Flowering Time: June- August SC/- General habitat: Great Basin Not found. No suitable vesia sericoleuca CNPS 1B scrub, lower montane conifer habitat in project area. forest, meadows, vernal pools, lumas ivesia 1,465-2,200m. Micro-habitat: vernally mesic areas, usually volcanic (CNPS 2003), alkaline flats and meadows (USFS 2000). Flowering Time: May- September -/- General habitat: Meadows, Not found. No suitable uncus CNPS 4 subalpine conifer forest, 1,400- habitat in project area. hemiendytus var. 3,400m. abjectus Micro-habitat: damp open areas, generally vernally mesic Center Basin rush Flowering Time: May- July t -/- General habitat: Great Basin Not found. No suitable Trifolium CNPS 4 scrub, lower montane conifer habitat in project area. lemmonii forest, 1,500-1,830m. Micro-habitat: dry, rocky, emmon's clover claypan soils in forest or sagebrush openings Flowering Time: May-July -/- General habitat: Bogs and Not found. No suitable tricularia minor CNPS 4 fens,marshes and swamps, habitat in project area. 800-2,900m. Lesser bladderwort Micro-habitat: various shallow, freshwater wetlands, pools or ponds often with emergent vegetation Flowering Time: July a Status definitions: Federal FE = listed as Endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. FT = listed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. FC = Candidate for listing as either Threatened or Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. FP = proposed for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. FSC= species of concern; species for which existing information indicates it may warrant listing but for which substantial biological information to support a proposed rule is lacking. -- = no listing. State SE = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. ST = listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. CSC = species of special concern in California. -- = no listing. CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY (CNPS) List 1 B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. List 2 = Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. List 3 = Plants about which we need more information. List 4 = Plants of limited distribution: A watch list. R -/- General habitat: Bogs and Not found. No suitable eesia triquetra CNPS 2 fens, meadows and seeps, habitat in project area. (moss) upper montane conifer forest (mesic) Micro-habitat: moist soil substrate, sometimes near fallen, rotting logs Flowering Time: NA -/- General habitat: Bogs and Not found. No suitable eesia uliginosa CNPS 2 fens, meadows and seeps, habitat in project area. (moss) upper montane conifer forest (mesic) Micro-habitat: moist soil substrate, sometimes near fallen,rotting logs Flowering Time: -/- General habitat: Lower Not found. Habitat very Muhlenbergia CNPS 4 montane conifer forest, upper limited. 'onesii montane conifer forest, 1,130- 2,130m. ones'mutely Micro-habitat: open slopes Flowering Time: June - August SC/- General habitat: Cismontane Not found. No suitable Phacelia stebbinsii CNPS 1 B woodland, lower conifer forest, habitat in pro*ect area. meadows, 610-2,010m. tebbins'phacelia Micro-habitat: rocky soils of metamorphic origin, mostly north exposures Flowering Time: June- July -/- General habitat: Marshes and Not found. No suitable Potamogeton CNPS 2 swamps, 300-2,150m. habitat in project area. filiformis Micro-habitat: shallow lakes and other shallow aquatic Slender-leaved habitats ondweed Flowering Time: May-July -/- General habitat: Lower Not found. No suitable Scutellaria CNPS 2 montane conifer forest, habitat in project area. galericulata meadows, marshes and swamps, 0-2,1 OOm. Marsh skullcap Micro-habitat: mesic sites. In Plumas Co., occurs in edge habitats around fen and wet meadow (GANDA) Flowering Time: June - September 4 Table 2. Special Status Plants Known to Occur, or Potentially Occurring, in the Truckee Area. Common and Status a Habitat Preferences Potential for Occurrence Scientific Name Fed/State Flowering Time in the Project Footprint CNPS List -/- General habitat: Upper Not found. Single ndrosace CNPS 2 montane conifer forest, 1,675- documented historic occidentalis var. 1,700m. collection at Emigrant Gap, simplex Micro-habitat: generally not yet re-located(CalFlora simple mesic habitats 2003). androsace Flowering Time: August- September Botrychium -/- General habitat: Lower Not found. Habitat very minganense CNPS 2 montane conifer forest; 1,500- limited. (syn, B. lunaria 1,830m. var. minganense) Micro-habitat: B. minganense described as occurring in ingan moonwort conifer forest along streams. Includes all of B. lunaria var. minganense Flowering Time: July— August -/- General habitat: Lower Not found. Reported ruchia bolanderi CLAPS 2 montane conifer forest, occurrence in Norden Bolander's meadows,upper montane quadrangle (CNPS 2003). bruchia (moss) conifer forest, 1,700-2,800m. No suitable seepy or damp Micro-habitat: damp soil, road cuts. including road cuts In vegetative state, similar to common moss Leptobryum pyriforme Flowering Time: NA -/- General habitat: Lower Not found. Habitat very ulbostylis CNPS 4 montane conifer forest, limited. capillaris meadows,upper montane conifer forest, 395-2,075 in. Thread-leaved Micro-habitat: meadows and eakseed grassy clearings Flowering Time: June-August 4 Common Fed/State Suitable Habitat and Legal Preferred Habitats Present/ Scientific Name Status Potential Impacts Little Willow Willows on edge of wet meadows, Not present. No Flycatcher --/SE ponds, or backwaters; at 2000-8000 impacts expected. Empidonax tradii elev. Requires dense willow thickets brewsteri for nesting and roosting. Nests in riparian habitats dominated Not present. No California by willows, cottonwoods, sycamores, impacts expected. Yellow Warbler --/CSC or alders or in mature chaparral; may Dendroica also use oaks, conifers, and urban petechia brewsteri centers near stream courses in migration. MAMMALS Sierra Nevada Not present. No Found in dense thickets of conifers, Snowshoe Hare suitable habitat for Lepus americanus --/CSC riparian vegetation, or chaparral in nesting. No impacts tahoensis boreal life zones. expected. Found in sagebrush,juniper, subalpine Only sparse foraging Western White- conifer, montane meadows, and early habitat present, tailed Jackrabbit --/CSC successional stages of conifer forests. scattered scrub not . Lepus townsendii Open stands of trees, brush, and suitable for breeding. herbaceous understory. No impacts expected. Sierra Nevada Dense growth of small deciduous trees Not present. No Mountain Beaver and shrubs, wet soil, and abundance of suitable habitat in Aplodontia rufa --/CSC forbs. Needs dense understory for food project area. No californica and cover. Burrows into soft soil. impacts expected. Needs abundant supply of water. Variety of habitats from wet meadows Not present. No Sierra Nevada to forested areas. Uses dense denning or cover Red Fox ST/-- vegetation and rocky areas for cover habitat in or near the Vulpes vulpes and den sites. Prefers forests project area. High necator interspersed with meadows or alpine human activity. No fell-fields. impacts expected. Mixed evergreen forests with more Not present. No Pacific Fisher than 40% crown closure. Needs snags/logs or other Martes pennanti --/CSC variety of different-aged stands, essential elements. No particularly old-growth conifers and impacts expected. pacifica snags which provide cavities for maternal dens. J1 Table 1. Special-Status Wildlife Known to Occur, or Potentially Occurring, in the Truckee Area. Common Fed/State Suitable Habitat and Legal Preferred Habitats Present/ Scientific Name Status Potential Impacts FISH Lahontan Historically in all accessible cold Not present. No lakes Cutthroat Trout waters of the Lahontan Basin in a or streams in or near Oncorhynchus FT/-- variety of water temps. Cannot project site. No clarki henshawi tolerate presence of other salmonids. impacts expected. Requires gravel riffles for spawning. AMPHIBIANS Streams, lakes, and ponds in montane Not present. No signs Mountain Yellow- riparian, lodgepole pine, and of suitable aquatic legged Frog --/CSC ponderosa pine; wet meadows and habitats in or near Rana muscosa other montane habitats. Always project site. No encountered within a few feet of impacts expected. water. BIRDS Ocean shore, bays, fresh-water lakes, Not present. No Osprey and larger streams. Large nests built suitable forest. High Pandion haliaetus __/CSC in treetops within 15 miles of good levels of human fish-producing body of water. disturbance. No impacts expected. Sharp-shinned Breeds in coniferous forests,black Not present. No Hawk --/CSC oak, and riparian habitats. Nests breeding records for Accipiter striatus usually within 275' of water. Nevada County. No impacts expected. Cooper's Hawk Open woodland & conifer forests. Not present. No Accipiter cooperii --/CSC Nest sites mainly in breeding habitat or npanan/deciduous trees, or live oaks. impacts expected. Nests within or near coniferous Not present. No Northern Goshawk __/CSC forests: usually on north slopes near impacts expected. Accipiter gentilis water. Lodgepole &Jeffrey pines, red fir, & aspens are typical nest trees. No impacts Foothills &mountains throughout Not present. No expected. Golden --/CSC, California. Cliff-walled canyons & breeding habitat or Eagle FP large trees for nesting. impacts expected. Aquila chrysaetos the project, the Registered Professional Archeologist would be notified to assess the site. The District will coordinate any findings with the appropriate state, federal, and tribal entities according to standard reporting procedures to avoid disruption of any archaeological resources. Mitigation Monitoring—Truckee Donner Public Utility District Timing Process: During construction Verification of Compliance (Initials,Date,Remarks): APPENDIX A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Potentially Less Than Less Than No 14.17 MANDATORY Significant Significant Significant Impact FINDINGS OF Impact With Impact SIGNIFICANCE Mitigation Incorporated a) 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? b) 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)? c)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 does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of any fish, plant or wildlife species nor create adverse effects on human beings. The project consists of installing 6,800 feet of pipeline and associated infrastructure within existing road prisms. 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. The project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 32 December 2009 Response to questions: (a): Pipeline installation will occur along Northwoods Boulevard, Zermatt Drive, and Davos Drive which are all paved public roads. Work within town roads requires an encroachment permit from the Town of Truckee. The encroachment permit contains standard conditions including traffic control and lane closure plans intended to maintain safety along the road during construction. All work shall be planned and carried out so as to create the least possible inconvenience to the traveling public. During construction, the roadway surface shall be kept free of dirt or gravel as much as practical. Transportation of construction material will not exceed roadway capacity. The project would not have an impact on parking. Impacts related to traffic are temporary and considered less than significant. (b)-(g): The project would not exceed a level of service standard established by the Town of Truckee nor result in a change in traffic patterns that results in substantial safety risks. 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. The project would not generate substantial traffic, such that alternative transportation modes would be needed. Roadways will be restored to pre-project conditions. There would be no impact to these issues of transportation and traffic. Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required 14.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE Potentially Less Than Less Than No SYSTEMS -- Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 30 December 2009 14.13 PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would Potentially Less Than Less Than No the project result in substantial adverse Significant Significant Significant Impact physical impacts associated with the Impact With Impact provision of new or physically altered Mitigation governmental facilities,need for new Incorporated or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations,response time or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a)Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Response to questions: (a)—(e): No schools, parks, or other public facilities exist within the project areas. The project activities would not interfere with, or create demands on police or fire protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required Mitigation Monitoring -None Required 14.14 RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Response to questions: Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 28 December 2009 with the project would result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels during excavation activities. The construction equipment to be used during pipeline installation includes an excavator, backhoe, dump truck, water truck, and power tools. The District will incorporate the following BMPs to help minimize noise impacts during construction activities. • Construction will be limited to daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. • All equipment will be properly tuned during construction operations. • No equipment will have an unmuffled exhaust. • Unnecessary idling of construction equipment will be avoided. The temporary increase in noise levels during construction will not expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies and is considered less than significant. (b): The proposed project would not expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration noise levels. Therefore, there would be no impact. (c): Construction activities would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project areas above levels existing without the project. Therefore, there would be no impact. (d): Construction activities would result in temporary increases in noise above existing levels. However, as indicated in Discussion (a), construction activities would be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. This impact is considered less than significant. (e)-(f): The project site is not within an airport land use plan and would not expose sensitive receptors to excessive noise levels from airport/aircraft operations. Therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required Mitigation Monitoring -None Required Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 26 December 2009 (a)—(c): The project would not physically divide an established community. 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 is no impact. Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required 14.10 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 proposed with this project. Pipeline installation would not 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. Therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation Measure(s) -None Required Mitigation Monitoring -None Required Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 24 December 2009 • The District will ensure that all spoil piles are stabilized and covered with heavy-duty plastic sheeting during any precipitation event. All excavated material not used for construction will be disposed in designated landfills. • In order to reduce the potential to release fugitive dust associated with excavation activities, dust control measures including street sweeping and regularly applied water will be carried out as needed. • Construction will include surface restoration including repaving the roadway and mulching any exposed soil surfaces. 2. Non-Storm Water Management • During saw cutting a wet vacuum shall be used to lift the slurry from the pavement. • Water that will be used to flush and pressure test the pipeline will be discharged into the Truckee Sanitary District (TSD) sanitary sewer system. No water will be discharged to any perennial or ephemeral surface waters. • Storm drain protection will be in place at any down-gradient inlets that may be impacted by the discharge of non-storm water(or other construction related fluid). 3. Spill Prevention and Control • All equipment will be inspected for leaks prior to and during construction operations. • The contractor will have on-site, at all times, a Spill Containment Kit for immediate deployment in the case of a sudden and unexpected spill of contaminants. 4. Maintenance, Inspection, and Repair • All temporary and permanent BMPs implemented for this project will be properly maintained by both the contractor and the District to ensure their effectiveness. • The District will conduct inspections of the construction sites on a daily basis and more frequently prior to and after storm events. A weekly BMP inspection will be conducted by a SWPPP consultant. Equipment, materials, and workers will be available for immediate repairs and rapid response to emergencies. Implementation of the above measures would ensure that the project does not have the potential to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and, therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. (b): The proposed project would not utilize groundwater resources, deplete groundwater supplies, or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Therefore, there is no impact. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 22 December 2009 14.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER Potentially Less Than Less Than No QUALITY -- Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a)Violate any water quality standards ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (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? 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? Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 December 2009 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated d) Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ ❑ included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f)For a project within the vicinity ❑ ❑ ❑ of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within the project area? g) Impair implementation of or ❑ ❑ ❑ physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Response to questions: (a)-(b): The proposed project involves installation of water pipelines largely within the existing road prisms. No known regulated or unregulated hazardous waste generators, leaking tank spills, toxic spills, or other sites affecting the environment are located within the project areas. The Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 18 December 2009 14.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would Potentially Less Than Less Than No the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known Fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b) Expose people or structures to potential ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? c) Expose people or structures to potential ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Expose people or structures to potential ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? e)Result in substantial soil erosion or the ❑ ❑ ❑ loss of topsoil? I)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that ❑ ❑ ❑ is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? g) Be located on expansive soil, as defined ❑ ❑ ❑ in Table 18-1-B of the uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? h) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 16 December 2009 Response to questions: (a)-(d): California environmental review policies, in compliance with guidelines established by CEQA, require a consideration of the potential impacts of a project on heritage resources. Accordingly, a heritage resource study was conducted in November 2009 by consulting archaeologist Susan Lindstr6m, Ph.D. Dr. Lindstr6m has over 36 years of professional experience in regional prehistory and history, holds a doctoral degree in anthropology/archaeology and has maintained certification by the Register of Professional Archaeologists since 1982. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the water pipe replacement project along Northwoods Boulevard, Zermatt Drive, and Davos Drive fall within the same APE as a project initiated in the summer of 2009 by the District entitled, the District-Wide Metering Project (Lindstr6m 2009). Therefore, archaeological findings for the District-Wide Metering Project are not yet out of date and can be applied to the current project. No new or updated records search at the North Central Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System is required as the one conducted as part of the recent District-Wide Metering Project (NCIC File No.: NEV-09-28) is up to date. Search results disclosed that the current project area has never been previously surveyed and there are no prior archaeological studies adjacent to the project. No prehistoric or historic sites have been recorded within or adjacent to the project area. Records were reviewed to identify any properties listed on the National Register, California Register and other listings, including the files of the SHPO and the below sources: ✓ National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources listings ✓ Office of Historic Preservation's Historic Property Directory(2007) ✓ California Inventory of Historical Resources (1976) California State Historical Landmarks (1996) ✓ Points of Historic Interest(1992) ✓ 1987 and 2002 Caltrans Bridge Surveys ✓ 1865 General Land Office Plat No new or updated Native American consultation is required, as the one completed for the metering project is also up to date. Darrel Cruz, Director of the Washoe Tribe Historic Preservation Office, was contacted as part of the District-Wide Metering Project in order to incorporate the Tribe's opinions, knowledge and sentiments regarding any potential concerns. No immediate concerns were identified (see attached correspondence). As far as is known, the project should not result in the alteration of or adverse physical or aesthetic effect to any significant heritage site, feature and/or artifact within the project APE nor should the project have the potential to cause a physical change that would affect unique ethnic cultural values or restrict historic or pre-historic religious or sacred uses. No specific project concerns were identified by the Washoe Tribe and there are no state recognized Native American Sacred Lands within the project area. Since no archaeological sites have been identified within the project APE,no construction archaeological monitoring is recommended. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 14 December 2009 On both sides of the roadways the vegetation consists primarily of ornamental landscape plants which are common on adjacent home owner properties. The native vegetation is defined as Mixed Conifer Forest and is dominated by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), and white fir (Abies concolor). Understory species include Sierra chinquapin (Chrysolepis sempervirens), Huckleberry oak (Quercus vaccinifolia), and mahala mat (Ceanothus prostratus). Two weedy populations of bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) were found close to or along the alignment. One population is on the west side of the road and not part of the alignment. This population is approximately 40 plants, 10 feet in diameter, and surrounds a public utility pole in front of 11456 Zermatt Drive. The other population is approximately 50 plants, 20 feet in diameter, and is within the proposed alignment just off the road in front of 16650 Northwoods Boulevard. The District will coordinate with Nevada County weed abatement staff to eradicate the infestations prior to any construction. An understanding of the habitat requirements for wildlife species potentially utilizing the project area and the degree of existing human development in the immediate area were factors considered in the impact assessment. No signs of any active nests or animal sign, such as molted feathers, whitewash, prey remains, or regurgitated pellets were observed. The pipeline alignments are located largely within the road prism with little or no natural habitat value. Residential homes and road density make it very unlikely to support nesting raptors. There is no suitable habitat for any special-status bat species. While no sensitive species were observed, numerous raptor species could potentially nest in the vicinity of the project site prior to construction in 2010. Raptor nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and by Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. Disturbing an active raptor nest would violate Department of Fish and Game Codes 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. The District will have a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction raptor and migratory bird survey no earlier than two weeks prior to the initiation of construction activities or other site disturbances. Should any migratory birds be observed prior to construction, the District will immediately consult with the CDFG to obtain guidance on minimizing any potential impact such as establishing a buffer zone around any active nest. Construction activities will not interfere with established native residents or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Implementation of the mitigation measures outlined below will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. (b)-(e): The proposed pipeline alignments will be installed primarily within the existing road prisms with little or no natural habitat value. No wetlands or waters of the state are located within the project footprint. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive habitat in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, there would be no impact. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 12 December 2009 14.4. BIOLOGICAL Potentially Less Than Less Than No RESOURCES -- Would the Significant Significant With Significant Impact proj ect: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a)Have a substantial adverse effect, ❑ ® ❑ ❑ either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect ❑ ❑ ❑ on any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect ❑ ❑ ❑ on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native residents or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies ❑ ❑ ❑ or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ ❑ adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 10 December 2009 14.3. AIR QUALITY -- Where Potentially Less Than Less Than No applicable, the significance criteria Significant Significant With Significant Impact established by the applicable air Impact Mitigation Impact quality management or air Incorporated pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the proj ect: 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)-(b): The Town of Truckee Planning Division is responsible for the Town's air quality planning and enforcing air quality programs (www.townoftruckee.com). These programs are in addition to the programs and services provided by the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD). The Town's air quality efforts since incorporation have focused on particulate matter (e.g., woodsmoke, road dust, etc.), and the Town Council adopted a Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan in 1999 to reduce particulate matter emissions and improve air quality in the Truckee air basin. The proposed project consists of installing 6,800 feet of pipeline and associated infrastructure primarily within the existing road prism. Construction would not conflict with an applicable air quality plan or violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore, there is no impact. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 8 December 2009 14. 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. 14. 1. AESTHETICS -- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a)Have a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ❑ ❑ ❑ but not limited to, trees, rock croppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ❑ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, ❑ ❑ ❑ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Response to questions: (a)-(d): The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or scenic resources and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area along Northwoods Boulevard, Zermatt Drive, or Davos Drive and their surroundings. No new source of substantial light or glare would be created. The pipeline and service laterals will be located underground. The new fire hydrants will replace existing fire hydrants that will be removed. Therefore, there would be no impact to aesthetics as a result of the project. Mitigation Measure(s) - None Required Mitigation Monitoring -None Required Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 6 December 2009 ~� Photo 1. Generalized , I pipeline eline alignment between Davos Drive and F. Ski Slope Way. x �" 3�Ta1'fxy�):e1Ge.>e�lfs� � CT c'f a �s "` s fi �� .x r fir: f ,�.€•'{y{ice, ' a a n� ' ;�� f� Generalized pipeline alignment r z Photo 2. Generalized pipeline alignment between Zermatt Drive and Bolzano Way. ,,�f s n �3� � ��y�� `�3 '. • a �.� sf�i' s�/ is F bs.g2 'y�. .; �" g x��c��^�� 'h'YY�/n��sl� �s"s:{."..:.,hn,4.,•,� 3,cx�.ks ., ,.,..t.,z.,.�.s s .�� s y�l£'_.-:. $n "s8«¢ r Generalized pipeline 11M-ft ` alignment {k £`•4�Y r b a �`'l�i� K l6 a'�4sWk 1h { 4 jug hal II°��'� 1 Photo 3. Generalized pipeline alignment xy, between Bolzano Way f, and Davos Drive.. h'y Vle � S n Generalized pipeline {' alignment ,Y a ! f Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 December 2009 r r Truckee Donner Public Utility District ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY (Prepared pursuant to Article V of the Environmental Guidelines of the District) 1. Project Title: Northwoods Boulevard/Zermatt Drive/Davos Drive Pipeline Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District 11570 Donner Pass Road Truckee, CA 96160-0309 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Michael D. Holley, P.E. General Manager (530) 582-3916 4. Project Location: Northwoods Boulevard, Zermatt Drive, and Davos Drive, Truckee, CA 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District 11570 Donner Pass Road Truckee, CA 96160-03 09 6. General Plan Designation: Residential Cluster Average Density(1 du/5 acres) 7. Zoning: Rural Residential RR-0.20 (1 du/5 acres) S. Project Purpose: The Truckee Donner Public Utility District (District) proposes to upgrade existing pipelines along portions of Northwoods Boulevard, Zermatt Drive, and Davos Drive in Truckee, CA. A Project vicinity map is shown in Figure 1. Pipelines will extend from the intersection of Northwoods Boulevard and Ski Slope Way on the east end to Northwoods Boulevard and Innsbruck Avenue on the west end and include sections of Zermatt Drive and Davos Drive as shown in Figure 2. The new pipelines will replace existing 8-inch and 10-inch pipelines that are in poor condition with new 8-inch, 12-inch and 16-inch diameter lines to meet current and future water demands and fire flow protection to area residents. Homes along the alignments will be provided service connections to the pipelines along with in-line meter boxes. Approximately 12 new fire hydrants will be installed replacing existing fire hydrants. The total pipeline length is about 6,800 feet. The project is scheduled for the 2010 construction season. 9. Project Characteristics: The project is comprised of standard construction activities associated with installation of water distribution pipelines and associated appurtenances. The great majority of excavation will take place within the existing road prisms (See Photos 1-3)with about 400 feet located in an easement running from Davos Drive to Zermatt Drive. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 December 2009