HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Quality Control Board AUG-15-01 03 :49 PM CABONA'8 9165878842 P. 05
ua. l,y,ua 1ti:OJ $' SH1.7F AIH. LY
�OCA:(r10
EXIIIBIT A
AUG-15-01 03 :50 PM CRSONA-S 9165878842 P. 06
08115101 16104 a Sin:TE.HIHALY jnnT•ntu
E1Eit:l/2UF71 06: 34 5^65442?79 CMCH
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
ahontan Region
iasteo E Kttkaa tbleroet Addreet:
!t[rrla tier = 1(t 1"M iW'[M .=C3Ur,gch[. tire n.vls
7'. SCI take 7Yhx eaik'1td,tiaot tAke'rihoe.C7Ufotaa �7A1 SO
Ee.-troxnrnte. Dltoee(,ti0!lSa.5000'FAX(f!tl)Sea-271!
D.,Nenisn
August 9. 2001
Bill Combs
Facer County Planning Department
11414 B Avenue
Auburn, CA 95603
COMMENTS ON NOTICE OF PREPARATIONFOR VIARTIS VALLEY
COt11N"ITY PLAN'UPDATE DRAFT ENV7RONW-NTAI. IMPACT REPORT,
PLACER COU1\IY, 5CH#2001072050
Tne Lshontan Regional Water Quality Control Board(Regicna) Board) has received froul the
State Clearinghouse a copy of the above mentioned Notice of Preparation (NO?) for the Mattis
Valley Community Plan Update (Community Plan)Draft Environmental Impact Report CEIR),
with a request to provide comments on the scope and content of the NOP. Thank you for
providing RegioLai Beard staff the oppomtnity to comment on the project documentation. We
have the following comments regarding the proposed pvject,
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Placcr county is proposing to update the current 1975 Mattis Valley Community Plan
(Community Plan) to addross new environmental and land use issues in the ttron as wall. es bring
die utilonal Plan into consistency with the 1994 Placcr County General Plan.
The protect area encompassed by the Comiriunity Plait consist.4 of approximately 35 square miles
of Jai area generally bounded by the Placer/Navada County litre to the north,Highway A9 to tide
west, the Luce Tahoe Basin boundary to the south and the California/Neva in state line to the
east.
CONMIENTs
1. The Regional Boa_d Is a responsible agency pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act(CEQA) for this proposed project. Water quality control standards for the
Truckee River Hydrologic Unit contained in the Water Quality Control Plant for the
Lahowan Region (Basta Plan) are applicable to WS project, The Regional Board hss
i•dentifred significant water quality:slues with the Truckee River,Maras Creek, and their
tributaries. Specifically, water quality thrcatened to be exceeded for ch:0.1des and
phosphorus. In addition,the Truckee River is listed on the Clean Waver Act Section
303!d) List as an "impaired water body"due to high sediment levels. Increases in other
California Environmental Profeetion Agency
Th<cnerpr<tuWenKc fee:M1tt CattWntla r!real.Vu7 caurolwan ntecs to tshc U� dwc action to rsducc energy
eeaeuvy'?,an.Per a Urt o(srayk rvsYa you o,pt reduce deraarxl avid cute Your evtmyyGPrta,arc our Web-sate ut
hat haww.w MiLa.aov
Rm*!t/rarrr
AJJG-15-01 03 :50 PM CAPONA'S 9165878842 Pe07
unrta�UL 16M a W-ITAULALt'
;I1ii.4:rllG
09e29 5MAA2271
CR4CJC8
Bill Combs Z.
nutrients in waters of Mantis Creek and the Truckee River cow:d also impact 'nene iris]
uses of those surface waters. The EM should addess &t impacts development i3enttFled
within the Community will have on flows and water quality within Minis Creel:, the
Truckee River, and their tributaaes.
TI'SA is aigtay depand6nt on flews and existing water quality in Mattis Creek' and Oc
Truckee River to assimilate discharges from its wastewater rreatrnent facility to the
subsurface disposal field near the confluence of those two water bodies aid to meet its
permit conditions. For that reason,the EIR should address the impacts that projects
allowed under the Community Plat will have or. flows ant: water quality within Mares
Creek and the Truckee River and its effr r on TTSA's ability to assimilate discharges a-id
mee:its permit condlOoni
3. Land development and construction of the associated infrastructure identifnt in the
Community Plan has the potential to cause etusiun and incr eased sediment production
during storm water events in Mantis Creek: the Truckee River,and their tributaries, if
Aggressive Treasures are not mken during planning,development and construct ton The
Community Plat should address measures that will need to be imposed to control crosior
during planning,design and construction of developments Ideitifsed within the
Community Plan. '
4 Several of the new developments proposed w7thin the Community Plan wti: include new
golf courses. The Coniraunity Plan should include conditions on tna piaaatng,
development and operation of epproved golf courses that bush and regulate the use of
chemicals, including fertilizers,pesticides,and other economic poisons. Additional
guidelines in the Community Plan should specify criteria w minimize the acreage of the
playing areas retptiring chemical use. Both Placer County and the Regional Board new
require the rlevelopinent of chemical application management plans (C>'iAMPs)for new
golf courses. Enforcesbie guidelines for the development of CHAMPS that minimize
chemical use should be included in the Community Plan. Taldna these adidelines into
account,the EM should address impacts of the cumulative development and uperation of
all new golf courses approved w+thin the Community Plan,is Conjunction with those drat
have already been developed,to demonstrate that aA wirer quality standards contained in
the Basin Plan can be met.
i. New residential and commercial development will increase the use of fertilizers,
pesticides, and other economic poisons within the project area. Unlike large golf courses
with CHAAiPs, chemical use by individuals and commercial establishmems cannot be
easily regulated or controlled. The EIR should address impacts from the cumulative
development and if such usage is ahou.n to adversely affect ground or surface water
quality, the EIR and the Community Plan should include effective controls to litnit such
usage, or proposed m)tigition measures that will ensure compliance with x2ter quality
standards
California EnvirenmsraW Pralection Ageney
'Tine anexV raaaemee ratinr cab(crosa is tee. Z wy cawou"a nerds to take anmechau seaon to red%,ee w -vv
earsiurIIp44m t'9r a Rat a itmple ways you can mdum dsuund and out ycvr onrp costa.ssa our web•uu a:
httpr/ltvt«rawreh.m$av
OUG-15-01 03 :50 PM CABONR'S 9165878842 P. 08
09, tb•ni Ia:05 a SIItTEXIIAGf �f1iHt 01n
�a .r`14l11 as ^>_ 59@S9a?Z`i t"V&A,o
Bill ('ombs _3-
G. Ntw land development identified in the Community Plan cat potentially encioacn upon
wetlands, other surface waters. and lands within the 100,year flood plain of the Triekee
River. Martis Creek and thcir tributaries. The Basin Piro prohibits the discharge or
threetr.ned discharge, attributable to human, activities, of solid or liquid waste materials
iuctuding sail, silt, clay, sand and ether organic and ca.-then materials to lands within tic
100-yea: flood plair, of the Truckee River,`vfarti&Creek, or any of their tributaies.
Trihuta:ics include peienmal and ephomorsl surface waters (river, streams, lakes,
wetlands, etc.). Please note the Regional Board considers any disturbance ro theca
prohibition areas a significant impact. Projects identified in the Community Plan shrjuld
tnal-tain the existing wetlands and other surface waters in their current condition,rather
than destroying and relocating the features in violation of the Basin Fan prehibitons.
The M should consider whether additional buffer zones are appropriate and ncoassary to
protact wetlands,surface waters and 100-year flood plains of Ntartis Crwk, the Truckee
River, and their tributaries,and-to ensure compliance with other water quality standards
Wetlands will be impacted not only from individu,! developments but also from the
utilities and road infrastructure neces9t y to serve these developments. The Community
Plan should specifically address altemative construction practices Otaizcd in consttucti4e
underground utility lines,such as boring, in order to avoid impacts to wetlands and other
surface waters,
R. Fr direct impacts to wetlands may result from deve'opments and from ;heir proximity to
%enslave areas. The Community Plan ihonld iticn-ify cowmunity programb to prntect
these sensitive areas. The community may wish to construct farces at lomrions where
there is easy access to wetlands and other surface waters and erect signs to educate the
community on the i npertance of protecting natural resources, The EIR should addicas
hove indirect impacts such as increasing runt traffic into wetlands will be avoided. If
access to wetlands is unavoidable, the cra$muniryplan should address eonstrueuoit of
alternate walkways that can avoid impact to wetlands. The Community Plan or EIR
should also address how such walkways/access will ensutte compliance with water qualit%/
standards,
9 We presume the Community Plan will require severing of most areas where development
wilt be permitted and that no on-site septio.$)5tems will be allowed. The Community
Plan shou:d address wastewater treatment and disposal ailernatives for any development
that may be allowed in outlying areas not served by existing and proposed sewers, The
Basin Plan contains a prohibiticn on new septic systems in the Truckee River Hydrologic
Unit(Unit),
10. Davelopment within the area addressed by the Corr.muidty Plan will requite subsmiriti al
new domestic watex supplies, We presume most new water supply development will be
froth the,, ground water aquifer. This Fes been addressed in the hfarch 2001 report
Ground Water Availubttiry in the Marris Yatley Ground Water Basin, which was prupared
for the major water PVveyors in the area. While the tepatt addresses the availability of
ground water for new development In the area, the report does not address envirammnmal
California EnvIrOnmenml Protection Ageney
She c,ery rballtnts tacayt Crtil'o(n{a is hair Flay caklamim"""to Wets Lta* dve-action to ree„ct encir
eazw=tpdan, Torn lice aneple vnas you CfR!redo¢eeLltind end o.R yoia ss�gz¢,nos. wr nnr tv4b.N<n�•
!st¢�,hwo+eaRssy.d sT
AUG-15-01 03 :51 PN CRBONA'S 9165878842 P. 09
<.,•ut 10:00 a SHVIT,HIA4L1'
�Bil3 '29Pt Of: 32 5195:42271 Ckta�tCE r 4aZ11
111 ol(I
Big tombs 4-
consequences of entrac!jng largo amounts of ground waver within the study area, such as
tho lowering of ground water levels affeetiug the sustenance and viatyility of existm.-
springs, wetlands, and other surface waters. The EM should address the consequences of
substantially expanding around water extraction for new development.
11 Portions of the ground water basin and tributary watersheds extend within Nevada
County Alrlt;ugh the Community Plat, cannot irr.pcse controls beyond the county
houndary, t ne EIR's cutnufat!ve irnpsCls analysis should address immpacts associated with
proposed development in Nevads County and the Town of Truckee. The ER will
a,ere_`ore require coordination with Nevada County and the Town of TrIckee to develop
realistic assumptions of the future development within[heir jurisdictions.
12. Mitigation effectiveness monitoring should b roquh-sd by the EiR. This monitonng
program must be capable of deternsming if water quality control standards contained in
the Basin Plan are being met. It is possible that despite the implementation of mitigation
measures, development may cause observable dagradation of ground and surface wars,
The Community Plan musr identify what adeitional treasures will be taken if monitoring
indicates that water quality control standards are not being met, or if unpredtcted impacts
are shown by monitoring results.
13. The Community Plat, should institute specific controls to ensure the abovc concams are
atitquately addressed Please be aware drat the Community Plan and ER cann2t deer.
reliance upon dha Regional Board's end other agencies' regulatory ptugrdns as
mitigation. The M must address the poteru: , impacts and detnonstrate compliance with
agency standards. independent of An agency implementing its regulatory rols.
Regional Board staff's review of development identified within the Marda Valley Community
Plan indicates that the development has potentially sfgriscant impacts on surface and ground
waters,including Martis Creek and the Truckee River.
Thank you for providing us uith the opportunity to comment on this projoat,If you have any
questions or-would like to discuss theta comments further,please contact me at(530) 542 S432
or T. lerrold Peacock at C530)542-5435,
Sine Y, �
Scott C, Ferguson
Chief. Northern Watersheds Unit
er. State Clearinghouse
nwv r+N ane�eLey Comiwetr.Phu,CyQA
Ra>`'eu FdN101T9.vdr valley CDRIMM!ty Piaal
California Environmental Protectinn Ageney
4he enaray a:ti�:.�'acsryt Ca:tfiMe is eea7.L6�W ceidsr:u.en Mtae to vise rrt...,.d3AW a=nat se reduce mars+
conavmauor, re:a:e'•o. eI-npte axpa yew can rtetuee derUM and cut vrur ener&coats, eee o web•stte at
http;l tw-w.rnzb.cf.gov
IIN. t18�it1 t5:5d 'd' $ST�l'f:,)iIHAi.I' �18t?'U01
SHUTe, MIHALY P WEINBERG;:R T.1 P
ATTORNEYS AT LAx LISA T, OMNKY
E. CLEMENT SMU I It. JM. KATHERINE A.
MARK 1,WEINBERGER TRISOLINI
MARC a MIHALY; �,C. 99C HAYES STREET VAIAN A,eCHM)DT
FRAN M. LAYTON ANETTE E.SCHUE
RACHSIL b. HOOHEP SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 9:UAN J. JOHNSON
ELLSg1 J. GARBER
0 IR1%A S. GAYLO ER TELEPHONE(415)552-7272 ,AUREL L. IMPETT,
PI I IRON FOLK FACSIMILE (415)552.SW ATOP
R;CHARO S.TAYLOR bR®4N PLAN"R�`
SUEANNAHT. FRENCH WWWSMW LAW.COM a-IyABEII'•M. UCJUli
WILLIAM J. WHIT!: GAY n NA"I
R;76ERTg :o co�ussL
PCRLPAUT"ER
OSA L. ARMI September 5, 2001
Via.Hand Uellvery
Members of the Board
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
P.O. Box ?09
Truckee,CA 96160-0309
Re: Negative Declaration
Brifte Sut::gr A i AO Water$:i Tank
Dear Board Nlembers:
Ou behalf of SierraWatch and the Mountain Area Preservation Foundation
("MAPF")on August 15, 2001 we submitted comments on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Initial Study("1VRD")prepared by the Truckee Donner Public Utility
District("District")as lead agency under the Calif-Mill Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA'), Public Resources Coda section 21000 tjegea., for the Bridge Street 6160 Water
Storage Tank ("proposed project"), Wo understand that ro written responses to
public
comments have been prepared at this time. This letter is to supplement our earlier
comments.
As noted in our earlier comments,the MND does not indicate the source of
the Water to be used to supply the proposed project and does not indicate the environmental
effects of develuping that supply. It may be that the District plans to rely on ground water in
the Martis Valley Gtouud Water Basin. MAPF and $let Wfttch are cnnrerned that tilt,, snfc
yield of the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin has not been adequately studied, and thus,
the availability of ground water for the proposed project and other projects intending to rely
on Around water has not been established. These concerns are borne out by the attached
anatvsis of the Ground WarerAvailabilily in the Jklarris Valley Ground 11ater,Basin report
prepared by Nimbus Engineers (March 2001) ("Basin Study"),prepared by Acton,
•AME") h dro eologss consulted by MAPF andMtckals n Environmental, Inc
(
SierraWatch.
uQ:rrStut ls:sJ 2s SHCTEORKA1.1' �1t;1;1:nna
'tlennbers of the Board
September 5,2001
Page 2
The analysis provided by XIVIE is summarized by the follu"virug poims-
The Basin Study assumes that all ground water flowing into the Truckee
lave„ Prosser Creek Reservoir, and Prosser Creek is available far extraction
to supply growing water needs in Truckee and the surrounding region. The
Basm Study provides no analysts of the environmental consequences of
stopping all ground water discharge to the Truckee River,Prosser Creek
Reservoir,aid Prosser Creek..
The Basin Studymakes numerous assurptons regwduug rechdrgc
efficiencies and Basin conditions that have the likely effect of overstating the
amount of groundwater available for extraction. The assumptions in the
Basra Study are not sufficiently supported by explanation or in mmarion
available in peer-reviewed literature. The assumptions operate to overstate
the amount of ground wate7 available for extraction,but the assumptions
4iouid be const nvative since groundwater from the ivlartis Valley Ground
Water Basin will be the principal supply of water for growth in the uegiui(see
Master Plan at 5-9)and since a sig,lificant amount of additiorwl ground water
estrac+ion from the Basin Is planned already for the District's system
improvements (see Master Plan at 5-9).
A calibrated numerical model should be developed for the Martis Valley
Ground Water Basin. Such a model would tnore reliable than the water
budget approach employed by Nimbus Engineers.
In adelidtm to developing an informative model of the safe yield of the biro tib
Valley Ground Water Basin,the District must analyze the environmental consequences of
extracting iatge amounts of ground water iiom the Basin be*are committing to withdraw
water for the proposed project or other system improvements.
Thank you for this opportunity w provide these commews. We would be glad
to discuss the issues that these comments raiae.
Veuy truly yours,
SHHU"T�E", MIHA/LY & WEINBERGER LLP
/11c l ctd '7 *6V
RtCHARD S.IAYLOR
P.V PLF1MAUI'' ffO 19r.wp1
S£P-05-01 04 :07 PM CABOHO'S 9165878842 P. 05
SEP-05-2001 aED J4,38 NM ACTOM MiCKELD ENV FAX NO, 91691^97573 ?, 1;21
AU MN
MICKELSON
i'.INN]RONMI*I"\ lAL, INC.
Consolthwr Scientists, Engineers, and Geolrogists
Septenibir 5, 100
Ms, Siefani Olivier!
Mountain Arts Fivsmacon Foundation
P.O.Box 971
Truckev. Culifomia 96160 9(xU01
subjccr Documeni Review! Ground warm eivaitahilit,
in the MOrh.O Volley GrottnJ Water Basin
War Nk, Olivied:
Acton • 'vflck01s011 - Environments!, file., ha6 reviewed it your request the document cntiticd
Urnund Matey AvailabiliN Irt the Mark, 1!711ey Growid Water Basin (Nimbus Engineers, 2001)
(t3nsin Study]. This letter provides out coromcnt5 on the review of the document.
Two approaches to estimating safe yields from �raund water basins are the use of a hydroloc ice!
budget model and tho use or a calibrated numerical model. The use of the hydrologic budget
approach to estimate safe yields ham a basin, as was done in the Basin Study, is "fraught w Mi
problems" (Frieze and Cherry, 1979 Ipugc 2071), As discussed in the ensuing colnutanis, thane
is much uncertainty in many of tiro budget inputs,and in this ease, the budget inputs seem to rely
considcrably upon the judgment of personnel at Nimbus Engineers (Nimbus) rather than on
objective dsm or inromiminn acaliable In published literature.
Ti:r ground writer lit the Basin was assumed to be in a steady state condilinn (Basin Study,
pnpa ld), As such, recharge equals discharge in Equation i (Basin Study, page 13) became iu
lolig'Urin, ;Wdy stute Undilions, iht: watep ill storage is CQm'ahnl (i.e., citangos in storage arc
zero). Observed changes in storage arc in response to short-terns deviations from average
conditions. lncmnsed discharge through increased ground water exhactian will result in a
lowering of the water table.
'Inc safe yield of a basin is the amount of ground water diet can hi withdrawn without causing
the following'
o DepIctinn of En ound water rescue es
Contravention ofexiating water righrs
• Detcrioratitm of economical advantages of pumping
• 2sxcossive depletion ofstroamnow
* Land subsidence
• Invasion of water of undesirable in.dity
' iU�di ttnh.•rt,t.%linlicug Parh. iiy (916)9 i).Yra..:755U
i•a Nn,;,tiv Inik, I'nlilbrntp W(l ran (9r6!93'/=lSi0
SEP-05-01 04 :07 PM CABONA-S 9165878842 P. 06
5tr-a^--euul t.tt) J4tdb NG 9GTUN PIGKELSJN ENV FAA" M 916939757) P, U
Mg. STLIbili OliviZri
September 5, 2001
Page 2
The development of a calibrated numeric mcdet to simulate the ground water Basin is a better
approach to managing the Basin than the water balance approach, especially in light of plans it,
rely on increased use of ground water to supply to gtorving water needs for 'truck" and
elsewhere in the region.
Specific comments regarding tite Basin Study'g estimation of recharge and safe yield arc
enumerated below;
+ Page 11. last sentence. Hydro-Search, Inc designated tell zones (A thrott_+h J} th t
were estimated to have similar ground waterrechaige and rnovemcrit. 'rhe 7c;ncs are
showti on Nimbus Figure 3. The text (.Basin Study, !urge 11) indicates that Bennett
Pat and Jumper Flat were "...underlain by predornin Or illy volcanic rucks with
significantly less storage potential than the deep all'ivial Basin and ate not included in
this ground water storage eat.ulalion." Bennett Flat is in Zone F and Jttuipar Flat ill
Zone E. 'Fable 2 and Figures 17 and i8 indiviuc Zones E sad F wcro Indeed included
in the ground water Ntorage calculation.
+ Page 13, last fatal paragraph. This paragraph seems to haply that the lower water table
resulting from increased ground water extraction is Only temporarv, and that the
change in sorigo will recover once the system ro-asiablishes equilibritnn, This is not
correct. The rutu of change of storage will recover, but the water table will remain
depressed m long as the increased pumping continues.
+ Page 17, 2"i Paragraph. This purtigraph classifies the four hydrologic soil types (A,
H, C, D) into three categories (favorable, moderate, and not favorable), 'Type P, sril
has the Moir rapid infiltration rater, Type D the slowest. 'Typos A and B wire
classified as favorable, 'typo C moderate, and Type D unfavorable. Types B and C
may be more appropriately classified es mod0r4% spice ttUe Yi lu;S lie hehmil the
upper and tower values. Figure 8 shows most of the soils In the Basin are Type 0. if
the Type B soili are improperly classified as favomblc, than the estimate of the
umount of ground water recharge and the estimate of walcr available for extractim
could be overestimated,
+ Pain; 17, 3'a Paragraph. Classifying the Basin Gil voloauit: unit as inoderaie may
result in tut overestimation of recharge, The vol anic rOP{:S atv shown on figure 4 al
bciu®tiquitards. These aquitards were noted on page t I as being relatively conipeten!
in limiting the transfer of shallow g.rrsnd water to die middloluwer aquifer system.
'I he volcanic rocks were also described on page 11 as having "significantly less
stamge potential" than the alluvium. These data suggest that the ptnucability cr the
volcanic rocks is much lower than the alluviumn, probably ors tht4 Order of one to
several orders of magnitude. However, the recharge dirfereuce between favorable
�trraN •
SnckIA OS
EN%JI(0NVII:N'IAl.. INC.
r
r'„n.ultio};ttctouligi v, r:nninmcrr,pad rioadal;t,ls
_ SAP—@5-01 04 :08 111 GHBUNHi 9165878542 P. 07
SEP-05-c001 WED A4 39 FM ;UPON MICKELSON ENV FAX NO, 91683PM P, !"I
lets. Siefanl blivieri
StpiemhQr 5, 2001
Page 3
and moderate was only 22 to 26 percent (Table 1). The much lower permeabititS
associakd with the volcanic rocks may warrant classification as not favorable,
• Page 17, 5'h Paragraph. 1t is suspected that precipitation recharge etficicnrics art
seldom as high as 65 percent and can be Icss than i 1 percent (ag., over bedrock). in
'f blo 1, the assignment of recharge efficiencies appears to be overly judginental.
Under the Icast favorable conditions, a recharge efficiency of 15 percent wa.i used
(Table 1), and over the entire Basin, a recharge ci7ieiency of 25.3 percent iwas used
(Table 2). A Basin-wide reehargo otiicienoy of 25.3 percent is greater than the
11 percatt value referenced in literature (Borger, 2000). (Pleven percent was likely
for the Basirt as a whole, not just rile most unfavorable portions since the (Berger,
2000) study was titled "Warertfudlget E.stiarates,for the /4 Hydrographte•4reatt In the
Muddle-Humboldt River Hann".) Pour out of live of the assigned rechnr�c
efficiencies ill the Basin Study exceed 33 percent (Table 1). Therefore, the one
literature attained value of 65 percent, which dots not appear to be published m peer-
rcvicwtd, unlike the other rcfcronccs cited, wan used to adjust lccharge efiiciencirt
upward, Because the literatare atwinod values are so highly variable, assessing the
amount and sputial distribution of recharge may best be accomplished via calibra('um
of a numeric model,
• Pago 18, last paragraph. The uplifted basement rocks to the south were eslitnated to
contribute 5,336 acre feet per ycar(Arlyr)of ground water(Tables 7 and 8). Ground
water recharge from the watershed upgradicnt of the Basin was included in the water
halancc. 'these aspens of the Basin Study are inconsistent with other stat:•nsnts in
the study. Ou page 7, It :vas stated that "Basement rocks in the Truckee Attar
typically contain, irdnsn it, and yield relatively small quantities of ground eater."
Tile hnsrmnnt rocks are not anticipated to contribute significant ground water to the
l3asin for the reasons stated or. the first paragraph of Section 7.11.2, 1l iS not clear
why ground water recharge from the watershed upgradient of die Basin was included
in the :eater balance when, as stated on page 23, "No ground water transfer into the
basin was included from these areas."
• page 21, Section 7A,1, Literature presented values of ground water contributions to
the Trucl;ee River ransed from 8,180 to 12,000 AFiyr; but the water balance usod a
much grvaler value of 20,207 AF/yr(Table 8). Nimbus then used this value as part (if
the ground water that is available for extraction (Table 12). The greater Truckee
River ground water discharge value was calculated by balanchig inputs and nutputs.
As discussed above, the inputs may be anifleially inflated by precipitation recharge
values, and possibly by the ground water transfers into the ELmin. Therefore, the
milount of vtstcr available for axtracuon, assuming it is acceptable to stop all ground
Water discharge to the Truckee River,would also be inflated,
tCrtflti
lldf all•.P.Sf)N .
t�.tii'It;tltiSt1?tiT,it.,t!{:. a{.:nt�.�
COnSLltin2 S.•ivo9iN s. Fnjinrer•,and gb,.b,g sA
5tP-Ub-'.UUI 0 04:10 PM 9CTON NICKEL ON ENv FAX NO. 916939757�-J
NIS. Stefani 011vied
Soptcuiber 5, 2001
Paco 4
• Table 7 and Figuce 11. There ere some discrepancies hctwecn Table 7 and Figure. 11.
For example, on Figure 11, 7.nne A is nosed to loose 854 AF/?r to Zone U, and
977 AF/yr to Zone D for a total of 1,831 (the value in Intrabasin OW Transfer Out
(Table 7)). Figure I I itulicatcs Zone B only receives Intrabasin GIN transfers front
Zone A, yet the Intrabasin GW transfer into Zone B is 1,981 AF/yr, not the 854 AF/y.-
provided by 'Lone A. An explanation for the difference is not provided.
• Table 12 The volume of ground water available for extraction (24,701 AF/yi) wets
calculated using ati of the ground water that was estimated to provide flow tr the
Truckee River, Prosser Creek, and contribute to Prosier Creek Resercon. For this
nppruuch to work,the wntar(nbla would uniformly have to be iowured to the thulwcg
elevation of the..w current ground water discharge points. In reality, pumping will
create comes of depression that will crcato an uneven water table surface. Ponlons of
the streams that were ground water discharge reaches will become ground water
recharge reaches.
Plonse call should you have any queations regarding the inforination presented.
Very truly yours,
ACTON a MICKELSON P ENVIRONMENTAL.,INC.
Walter D,Floyd, R.G., CIRO, Michael A. Acton, R.E.A.
Californis Reglstored Geologist#6092 Vice President
California Certified 14ydrogeotogist#493
WI)F:NA A:ddb
cc: Air. Richard S. Taylor, Shute, bf ihaly&Weinberger LLP
MWKEUSON
F:N}tlt�)N�11iN'1:�1,.INC ot•zaf�:
Cmamieiog scicutlgn.r"gincev,,Ind
0-3? 20D1 10:34 FROM-PORTER-SIMON 5305871316 T-712 P.0021005 F-925
17 1. 15:59 ` --.. SitPTE,N.IR�23'
ZH I'E, '11?iAl.I' to W—ZI'N$ERGi~R LLP
A`Y=IN!v,S AI t_bh- .rs..r tts e. ac-ve
ns llSs:,'"4c4a CP GGN 9NnN ,.. dPh'64r+
p1/i(• C. MiVA-�, P.`. MAQ'rih� `3 BYYtht ',,.
n..n h 4-AYIliH 30+5 7iArG5 3T➢iCLT NdMN a - CKrT• ',,.
raceF E ++�OPCm 5AN FMANC=0. CA-IrORNIA 94142
f:rL .: GlSa'Q
+:3Tt H TAYLOP. "E_Er":t4t+e {4I :Au R!! ' :wPcr Av,,'
Ton-NA IS0A1ANYCR 3: �5#2.737s
..�:��)N ,00. FAvS:M!:.E".4 Sl 53?-51R Ica r.17APf rT'9 w. none.n GMs"3 8. Tmvt.�n
4 Ia 6..NAN 7 CRChCp Y{yy}N.$M'PJLnlW.::K]M 7A4t6 NAKI
NOT wip$ngT to
Ctc;ober 17, 2t701
Via Facyld"110
I+Ietzibcrs of the Board
7 rnv.kee Donner Public Utility Oistlict
1' 0. Box 309
Ttuckec, CA 96160-0309
1t2: atZdl;eJU;Lt+16QWa ter Lip ejv*
Dear Bowd Members:
Can laeli0tof SitrraWatch alid the Muuntaixi Aran Preservation Foundation
(`NIAPF°), this lerrer provides additional :ommems on the Mitigated Negative
:Declaration and rrdtiel Study(*MND")prepared by the Truckee Dower Public Viility
Distiici(',Distriut' or"PUD") u lead agency under due Califomia Environmental Quality
Act ("CF-QA'l Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 i<I SCQ, for the Bridge Street 6160 'water
Storage Tank("proposed project"). This Icrer supplerneuuts our earlier comrnemt of
August 15.2001 and September 5, 2001.
We understand that the District is considering amending the 112.yI) and
adopting mitigation measures for the growth-Inducing impacts of the proposed project-
We strongly agree thaw, the iti ND should be amended to address K11 potendally significant
efi'erts of flip project, including growth-inducing effects, the enviTonmentel effects
discussed in our earlier correspotidence. and efforts on visual resources diqusscd by the
'Down of Iruekoc. Por the additional reasons discussed below, we believe that the District
Should amend and recircuiste an emvironmentsl review doeumerr, for the proposed
Mooed,
Fir(,t, SieruWatch and MA;PF are concerned that the?YM improperly
••edes on the "l'own of Truckee General Plan ELK ("UeneraI Plan FIR") firr analysis a;tlae
Proposed project°s cumulative impacts. 'Gering o:lf of an ratlicr EIR is appropriate only
10-31-2001 10:35 FR0M-PORTER-SIMON 5305871315 T-712 P 003/005 F-525
1O 17 p: t5;51 Tr- - Sflt"TE.ISrA,tLl' , fr,J i7Y'Y
Nferntsers of tho Board
t ctvterI', ?fGl
k'sze 2
If the impacts of The proposed proj= were (1)mitigated or avoided as a re5vlt of the prior
EIR, or(2) analyzed at a SUMv.iew level of detail in Ike prior EIR.sue-h that the earlier
analysis can he relied on to idendfy project-speck evoidance or mirigation rneasure- in
sabsequent environmental review. (,err Pub. Res. Code § 21094(a); LR9 a1LQ CEQA
liuidelinr_s I S1S2(f).) Reliance on an earlier EIR for analvsis of a proposed project's
cwttulative impacts is not appropriare if circumstances liave changed significantly since
the prior MR.was prated because the prior EIR could not have analyzed the projet:t'S
cumulative impacts under the new circumstances,
The cumulative impacts of the proposed project were not analyzed at a
stafiicicat 1evc1 of detail in the GeMer41 Flan Elk. Evers if it is appropriate to a9surne chat
the cumulative impacts of the Pr(tpased project are incorporated in the General Plan FIR
onalysis of the cumulative impacts of buildout, the General Plan FIR should not be. relted
Lln for analysis of the proposed proj=fs cumulative impacts because the General Plan
t=1R does not contain an adequate analysis ofthe cumulative impacts of buildout. For
exanpie, the General Flan SIR does not analyze the cumulative impacts of buildout on
feg;oval neater supplies, such as the Mattis Valley Ctround Water Basin. The General
Plan FIR contains some analysis of the Cumulative effecli of build-out on water quality
,4; General Plan FIR at 12) but largely deters analysis of the cumulative affects of;
buildout on the region's water supply to the District. (51ge General Platt, Final I echnicttl
Appendix, Part 3 at 28 ("All of the special districts [including the Pt M)plan for tl:e
provision Of service to their district based on their own projections of future growth . _
[and] include areas outside of Truckrc!."); ewe Alm Truckee General Plan at 140 ) Given
th, lack of analysis in the General Plan EIR, the District cannot be eonf jent that the
cumulative effects of the proposed project on regional water supplies will not be
The District also cannot rely on the General Plan EIR for rw%lysis of the
Prapesed prPiat's cumulative impacts because circumstances have changeKl since +hc
General Plan EIR was adopted. MAPP has identified several such changes!
tl) The District is poised to acquire the Gicashite Mutual Writer Company.
which operates sevtxal wells"undergoing a degradation in water quality,
including increased levels ofarsenic, radon, and iron."(initial Snrdy,
Glenshire Water System Acquisition and Improvements, at 1.) The
proposed acquisition will require transfer of District water to supply
(ilenshire customers. (JU a at 2.)
10-314001 10:35 F PC,M-PORTER-SIMO"! 55O5871318 T-712 P OO41OO5 F-925
-�FJ rM }tfl. NR " CSs?7^^de +a•t
tLtY. r,l 1.,S9 "1S SRVTRBMALS q'i, q'.2.016
V-MIN- 4 of*hc Hoard
Pa,-e �
i2) Homeowners at .Monster Lake roust obtain,water from a now source because
their e;cisting water system is contaminated, and the Dis-sicr has acquired
die Donner Lake Rater Company, requiring diversion of Districx supplies
for Dormer Lake customers.
(i) Nvelopment densities in the region have exceadcd the densities
contemplated in the general Plan.
(1) Several new gulf courses have beer, built or are under devrlopmeat in Ebe
region, beyond those anticipated in the general Plan. Those new courses
will place additional, unanticipated demands on the Mantis Valley
Groundwater Basin.
Given the inadequacy of the General plan EM as a first-der document witk
respect to cumulative impacts, the District must addresa the project',, cumulative impacts
itL the :VlND, or, if those effects are significant and cannot be rendered insignificant
through adoption ai mitigation mcasures, in an E1R. (Pub. R.es. Code § 21080(c)(2), (d).i
Second,as we noted in our two previous letters, the water source for the
prOpased prnjc,:t Must be identified and the effects of the project's withdrawals from that
source must Ue addr:ssed in a revised M1v'D of an EIR. As described in our letter of
September 3, 2001 and the letter attached thereto prepaid by Acton, Michelson
.Environmental, lac. ("ANM ), if the propo;ed project requires withdravhais from the
Nlar:is valley Ground Wator Basin, the project that indeed cause significant
environmental effects. Absent discussion of ftse effects; the NM does not comply
t:nal ly. we none that alreratioa of the MND ro add discussion of a rue are
sigtlif' ,nt effect or mitigation Ineaswe would be a 'substantial revision" requiring
recirculation of the document. Linder CEQA Miidel'utes section 15093.5, a substantial
revision has occui-red, and recirculation is required, if"[a)new, avoidable significant
reflect is identified and raltigation measures or project rr:vWons rmtst be added in order to
reduce rho effect to ins;gruficance." (CEQA Guidelines § 15073,5(b)(1).) The revisions
discussed in this lene, such as adoption of new mitigation measures to address the
prr�jaci's gsuwdtainducing impacts. plainly come within the ambit of that subs ect3cn.
(The NIND prosonfly indicates that there are no s.enific4or growth-inducing impact_% of
The proposed project.) CEQA Guidelines section 15074.1,Which provides for v12�1R1?
0-8t-2C�01 10:35 FROM-PORTER-SIMON $305871115 T-712 P 005/005 F-925
tp i �1 1E:59 '�'_... SHt:TE,M7%iLY zau.l Ulf
kaerrii"m of the Pnn i
Omber I7. 21"l;1
PAg,t 4
uftate mitigation measure for another, is not to the contrary. Section 15014.1 allows the
sepiacentent of misting"infeasible or oshercuise undesirable"mi*agation ra"sttres for an
already-idcnuttad significant effect. (C;EQA Guidelines § 15074,!(a).) The re-05ions
discussed in this letter involve the idcntifwaticn of new significant impacts and mitiafttion
MPMUMI
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. We wou:d be
glad to discuss the issues that these comments raise
Very truly yours,
SHUTS, btIHAtT..Y EIN ERGr-R I,L,P
MATT"HEW D. Zt'e''v
,r a�.rnz,.rwaz;ol.+.,wu1
Nn,-01-2001 08:52am From-TRUCKE9 DONNER PUD +5305871189 T-096 P 002/002 F-365
of the Board
I'mr-t-t e Dnnner public I.Jrility t)istnct
B 1:
f'A 96tf50-0'09
pj- ';cvntivc Declaration Bridge Street 6160 Water Storage Tank
Moubers:
npj wjititug js a concerned citizen
and resident of the Prosser area. There are approximately 10
nme on Prosser Dam Rd and in Panora Ranchos, all of which use well water from Wells
drilled t1L)on each property. I am lvery concerned because the information c0tuiu.- from TI)PUD
to indicate that there, is an infinite amount of glomidwater in the Martis Valley aquifer
ith -,-,hich to fill the proposed water storage ranks. It does not appear that this conclusion has
T)—, T`,•-iCbed using the best available hydrological testing and quantification methods, nor
-V?J11qtiTJV 111 of the future cumulative impacts.
I ant very concerned because in all the hearings conducted on PC-2, and all the other huge
development projects that are proposed or in the planning process. TDPtT]) seems to be willing
T
t,�, give"will serve- letters without the knowing what the cost is to provide the infastruct-ure, and
if the aquifer really can serve all of the,proposed development on an indefinitely sustainable
To addition, it seems that with the (Tlenshire wells having been depleted, the sad state of
flue 1)onrier 1-1kexater supply, and several of my neighbors' wells having to be drilled deeper,
that pprh-apq the aquifer is not fit as;bountiful position as the Nimbus Engineers seem to imply in
tlle,ir rl;ontt,
J,To%vbexe to iny knowledge has the cumulative effects of all the proposed gulf cowses,
rq,jttinq,residential, commercial, and industrial water usage been quantified or estimated for the
aquifer. it is pretty obvious, to rue that living in the high desert, with Reno in an uncontrolled
Ur-nwtl, made, that Truckee and the Manis Valley have the distinct possibility of turning into the
vallev,
Whit steps and safeguards are being put ititcj place to protect the quality and quantity of the
exi
sting wells in the Prosser area? Will the project developers be required to book all of us up to
I PPUTD -,vater, when our wells go drY,, because they,wasted water on all of the green desert golf
-IMSP51 flow is TDPT-q) going to provide protection to the existing residential wells?
I would like these questions answered. I would also encourage TI)PUD to prepare a frill FIR fW
q1I of the contemplated development in the Nlarris valley as well as just Truckee. I would like to
s e nioi--than one hydrology interpretation the
company used, in order to determine what data d, -1
�X[)rT-ts 20—Tep and disagree upon. Thauk-,,on for your attention to this very critical issue.
0
1',,4 Prnqser T)lln Rd- Tnickee, C� Q6161,
Sauers Envineerins Inc. 5302656834 P. 04
I
I
i
Truckee Donner Publie 17tiIlly District
ENVIRONMENTAL INIf,IAL STUDY
t. PRujee(Title:Bridge Street 6160{hvater Storage Tank
2. Lead Agency Name and Addressf
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
P.O.Box 309
Truckee,CA 96166-0169
I
3. Contact Person and Phone Nun(tjer:
Peter L.Holzmzistci General Manager
(530) 582-3916
4. Project Location:
Nevada County Ass ssor's Parcel Numbers 19-40-13, 19-42-37,and 19-42-38
Near Bridge Street a d ruer Valley Road, Truckee,CA
Section 10. Townslti 17 North,Range 16 Fast, MDM
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Aet ress:
Truckee Donner Pub is Utility District
P.O. Box 309
Truckee,CA 96160- 309
9
6. General Plan Designation: j
1940-13 -Residend l (Idul2acre)
19-42-37-Residem:ial(ldul2acre)
19-42-38-Industrial
7. Zoning:
19-40-13 -RS 0.5(1 u,'2acre)
19-42-37-RS 0.5 (1 ul2acre) j
19-42-38 -M(Manu actui ing and Indusriai)
l
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases
of the project, and any secondary,supp rt,or off-site features}teeessary for its implementation.)
The proposed project involves the construction of two new wa.er.storage tanks,access road, and
underground utilities including pipelires, electrical conduits a Id communication conduits. The storage
tanks will provide approximately 4,OOD 000 gallons of storage lin two tanks. The first tank will be q:
1,500,000 gallons and the second tank 4,500,000 gallons.This project is expected to lake place ill two
phases. The first phase will involve all lofthe site work, the pipeline and conduits, the access road,and
cu,ts[tuctiun of the first tank. The second phase, expected to be completed in 3 to 5 years,will consist of r
the construction of the second tank.
The first tank is expected to be approxii�Irttately 90.5 feet in diar>teter by 32 feet high constructed of welded
steel. The second tank will be approximately 116,0 feet in diameter by 32 feet high also constructed of
welded steel. Construction will also intlolve grading a level li jd for the tanks and nccea.a around the
tanks,construction of a retaining wall,and grading of a cut slope on the uphill side ofthe tanks. The I
f !k
I
r
i
I
Sauers Ensineerins Inc. 5302656834 P. 05
i
access road will involve approximatol}� 1,200 feet of new road construction. The underground utilities
will involve construction of approximately 1,200 feet of pipellne and conduits.
The proposed Bridge Street 6160 Wal i Stn*age Tank project Is included in and consistent with the
District's"Truckee Water System Wat r Master Plan Update"along with the Environmental initial Study
and Negative Declaration adopted in 201. The master plan was in turn based on the General Plan of the
Town of Trucker. This project,along with all of the pwjm;ts n the Water System Master Plan Update arc
intended tv provide water service for itje growth and developTent described in the general plan. `l he
Town of Truckee General Plan was approved and the General(Plan pleat klR certified in 1996.
ti
Construction of the tanks,paved accessI around the tanks, and access road will result in approximately 1.1
acres of new impervious surface. The uroject will result in a tptal of approximately 2.1 acres of ground
disturbance. 1I
CFQA Tieirm2 Process
The California Environmental Quality ct(CirQA)encourage lead agencies to utilize,pievivus
environmental analyses when a propostd project is related to an earlier project that was subject to CEQA
analysis. Tiering is used on site-specitic projects to avoid repetitive discussions of issues previously
analyzed as part of a broader project E G'EQA Guidelines�ection 15152 includes the following:
i
"(a)`Tiering' refers to using the an lysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR(such as one
prepared for a general plan or polic statement)with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower
projects; incorporn... by rafere is the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating y
the later EIR or negative decisratioi solely on the issues ecif c to the later project."
"(b)Agencies arc encouraged to tic' the environmental analysis which they prepare for scparatc but
related projects including general pans,zoning:Barges, a'PLl devcluprount projects. This approach
can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues anC focus the later EIR or negative declaration
on the actual issues ripe for decisio at each level of environmental review,"
"(d)Where an EIR has been prepar d and certified for a p�ogram,plan,policy,or ordinance
I
consistent with the requirements of this section,any lead agency fnr i later project pursuant to or z
consistent with the pmerarn,policy' or ordinance should bruit the EIR or negative declaration on the i
later project to effects which: t
(1)Were not examined as significa t effects on the caviroinncnt in the priui EIR; ...'''
I�
y
This Initial Study utilizes the tiering pr cess, "tiering off'the 'own of Truckee General flan Final EIR
with regard to cumulative impacts assojiated with the water storage tank project. This laitial Study,
therefore, focuses on the environmental issues which are relevant to the construction of the water storage
tank and underground utilities which wre not examined in the General Plan EIR.
t
r.
9. Other agencies whose apprnval is required(and permi needed): b
California Regional Water Quality Corn of Board, Lahontan Region (Report of Waste Discharge)
California Department of Forestry(Pub is Utility Right of Way Exemption)
10. ) nvironruental Setting of the Pro ectt
The tanks, access road,and underground utilities will be located on two district owned parcels
approximately 0A miles north of downtown Truckee. Adjacent to these parcels to the west is a third
District owned parcel which contains th!e old Sha-Neva quarry; Immediately to the north of the project
d
2
I
Sauers Ensineerins Inc. 5302656834 P. 06
I
�I
i
location is a Sierra Pacific tower C'on any easement and ov�rhead transmission power line. An electric
substation is located east of the projec The project area can be accessed from Lauer Valley Road near
Bridge Street as Bridge Street crosses under the Interstate 80 i vercrnssing or from the northeast corner of
the properties near the Sierra Pacific :aihstatian.
A number of projects are proposed for the areas surrounding the project property, These include
residential development to the north.ad commercial and ligh industrial to the east_ Interstate 80 and
downtown Truckee lie to the south of e project ptopcity.
The project site is a tree and shrub cov red hillside at an elev tion of between 6,000 feet and 6,190 feet
above sea level, The project is on a generally southern exposµre with slopes across the project site
ranging from 16%to 45%.
i
Flora includes yellow pine Pinus pondernsa ,Jeffery pine.Pin'is jefferyi,white fwAbies coneoloe, sage
brush Armad:in tridentata,squaw carpet Ceanothus prostratu.8,and manztmita Aretostaphylos. Fauna
whieh inhabit the surrounding area inejudo mule deer Odoeoikw hemionus, mountain coyote Canis
latrans,Yellow bellied marmot Marna to flaviventris,and Cavomia grey squirrel Citellus beecheyi.
The access road will extend from then rtheast corner of the pxoperty south along the eastern property line
to the overhead powerlme casement where it will proceed to the southwest to the tank site, The new road
will be constructed to the tank site at a lope of approximately,12%. Underground utilities will be
constructed along the access road frorn,the tank site to the nolbeast corner of the District's property_ The
utilities will connect to a pipeline and conduits to be constructed as part oFan adjacent development.
To the west of the project site is the.o�Sha-Neva quarry which is no longer in operation. The quarry
produced cinder rock material used for aggregate. The gnarryl�oovcrs approximately 7 acres, It is
anticipated that excavated earth and rock material from the project silo work will be disposed of within
the quarry, ?
R
i
I
s
I
I
w
i
^v o.o,ecra Eno nocr i no rnc.. SS�365683�1 P. ®7
j
i
i
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The envirownental factors checked below would be potentinll� af£tctcd by this project,involving at]cast
one impact that is a"Potentially Signi.4cant Impact"ur"Pulci'ually Signifieaut Unless Mitigated,"as
indicated by rbe rberkliv fin the folinv{ing Pages.
I
U Land Use and Planning Q L II ransportation7Circulaficn Cl Pubite Services
❑ PupulaGou and Housing Cl piological Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems
Geophysical CI kncrgy and Mineral I{�sourcas ❑Aesthetics
1
2 Water Ci I Iazards Cultural Resources
U Air Quality CI'Iv'Oise ❑ Kecreation
CI fandatory Findings ol�Significance
Lletermmnarion.
(To be completed by the Lead Ngencyl)
I
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COUL..) NUT have a significrit effert on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Q
i
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the
attached sheets have born added to thclproject. A NEGATIV�DECLARATION will be preparod. Q9
I find that the prnpnsed project MAY ave a significant eMci on the environment, and an
EN VIKUNMEN IAL 1MPACY Rkllf-) T is required. � D
I find that the proposed project MAY (have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least
one cTfeot 1)has bceu adequately a_tal�Lcd in an earlier docu4tcot pursuant to applicable legal
standards,and 9)has been addressed by mitigatinn measures rased on the earlier analysis as decc,,riheci
on attached sheets, if the effect is a"potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless
mitigated." An E?+`VIRONMENTAL, IrACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I
it
Signature Date
PeterZ. Flolzmeistes, tgeneralMananei 1ruckee.Donner Public Utility District
Printed Name FPr
i
I
� 1
Sauers Engineering Inc. 5302656834 P. OS ....
i
I
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: j
1) A brief explanation is required for ailanswers except "No Impket"answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cite&in the parentheses,followeng each question. 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(c.g.the project falls outside a fa�It rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer
should be explained where it is based n project-specific factor as well as general standards(e.g.the project
will not expose sensitive receptors to Pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved,in�luding off-site as well as ou-sile,cumuladve as
well as project-level,indirect as well 03 direct,and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if all effect is significant or potentially significant,or if the lead
agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. I'there are one or more"Potentially. Significant
Impact"entries when the detetminatioh is made,FIR is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless\Iitiga�ed"applies where the in corporation of mitigation measures has reduced
an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact". The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures,and riefly explain how they teducc the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section X Il,"Earlier Analyses", tray be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where,:pprsuant to the tiering,pro;ram FIR,or other CFQA process,an effect has
been adequately analyzed ix an earlier FIR or negative declaration- Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses
are discussed in Section XVII at the erjd of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to inecrisorate into the checklist references to information sources for potential b
impacts(e.g,general plans,zoning ord)nanecs). See the sample question below. A source list should be
Attached,and other sources used or ind'viduals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
i) this is only a suggested form,and lea agencies are free to use different ones. .&
Sample Question; !
Potentially
;Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues(and Supporting Information Source:) Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? (1,6) ❑ ❑ ❑
(Attached source list explains that 1 is the pencral plan, '
and 6 is a USGS topo map. This answer would probably
not need further explanation.) i
I
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING. WojCId the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan desiga�tion or zoning?
(source#(s):) ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Conflict with applicable environmeral Plans or
policies adopted by agencies wiih'jurisdiction over the
project? O ❑ ❑ ❑ ® s
e) Affect agricultural resources or operations(e.g,
impacts to soils or farmlands,or impants from
incompatible land uses)? 0 ❑ ❑
I
5
t
III
Sauers Engineering Inc. SZ02656BZ4 P. 09
i
i
I
i
j rotentially
(Potentially Significant i,essThan
<igni6cant Issues(ond supporting Information Sources UnIC33 `3igntGvuat No� Impact MldSsted Impact ImPct
I
IL POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the prcposat:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (23) ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either direetly or
indirc 1y (e.g,through projects+in an nndcvetnped
area or extension of major infrr trontnre)? (2,3) ❑ ❑ ❑
s
c) Displace existing housing,espeainily affordable
housing? (2,3) I ❑ ❑
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Wnvld&0 prapo al result in or oxpose
penple.tnrntenrfnl impacts ivnmh+in,g;
� l ]
a) Seismicity: fault rupture? {) ❑ ❑ [}� ❑
b) Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? (} ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Seismicityy: geieheortsunanii? (1) ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Landslides or mudslides? (1) ❑ ❑ ❑
1
e) Erosion,changes in topography 4r unstable soil y
conditions from excavation,grading or fill? O ❑ ® ❑ ❑ i
f) Subsidence of the land? O ❑ ❑ ❑
E) Expansive soils? () ❑ ❑ ❑
h) Uniquc geologic or physical fca�vcs7 O ❑ ❑ (3� ❑
1 )
IV. WATER. If 9uld the prupuau1 renwtt tn:
� t
a) Changcs in absoiptiva iiatea,dicinage patterns,or the
rate and amount of surface runut. O ❑ ❑ ® ❑
b) Exposure of pcuplc or pruparty t water related
hazards such as flooding? (1) 1i ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality(e.g.temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)-! O ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (1) ❑ ❑ ❑ (� M
e) Changes in currents,or the couts' or direction of
water movements? p) ❑ IJ ❑ ® g
f) Change in the quantity ot'grounjwaters,either i i
through direct additions or withdtiawals,or through y
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?() ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?O ❑ ❑ ❑
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 'O Cl ❑ ❑ M
i.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
I
a) Violate any air quality standard of contribute to an %
existing or projected air quality violation? O ❑ ❑ ❑ � ,�
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollptants? O ❑ ❑ ❑
� I
i
I
Sauers Ensineerina ilnc. 5302656834 P. 10 „.
I
i II
potentially
I potentially Signitleant Less Than
tswies(and sappurdrig Iarurmatloa 9oareQg] Stgnifteant Utilesa siurlin ant h40
i Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Alter air movement,moisture,lir temperature,or 1
cause any change in climate? () i 0 ❑ ❑
d) Create objectionable odors? () ❑ ❑ ❑
VI. TRANSPOKfATIONlCiRCULATION.
Would Cite proposal result in: i
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? O �] [� (� ❑
b) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g.sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible
uses(e.g.farm equipment)?O ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Inadequate emergency access o;access to nearby
uses? () ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or ofl=site? O ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or hicyrlists? () ❑ O ❑
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts bicycle racks)? O ! ❑ ❑ O Q
g) hail,waterborne or air traffic impncrs? (1) ❑ ❑ ❑
VIL BIOLOGICAL BESOTIRCES.
Would the prapnsal),,silt in intpartl to:
i
a) Frulangered,rhraatened or rare species or their habitat
(including but not limited to plat is,fish,insects,
animals,and birds)? O fQ ❑ ❑
b) Locally designated species(e.g. eritoge trcca)? (} ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Locally designated natural comn unities(c.g.oak
forest,costal habitat,etc.)? (J 0 0
d) Wetland bibitat(e.g,marsh,riparian and vernal
pool)? O ❑ ❑ U CD
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration cutririurs? () ❑ ❑ Li
will, ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES }
Would the proposal., i
t
a) Conflict with adopted energy curiservation plans? O ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Use non-rcncwabtc resuuructl In�wastefitl and i*
inefficient nratnrc-- O ❑ ❑ ❑
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposat dnvQlve: �
a) A risk oPnccidenral explosion or Irelease of hazardous
' t
substances(including,but not linirited to: oil,
pesticides,chemicals or radiation)? O Q ❑ ® ❑ "`o
b) Possible intctfercnce with an em4gency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (} Q ❑ ❑
?
I !
�i
Savers Ensineerins Inc. 5302656834 P. 11
I
I
i Potentially
' Potentially Significant Less Than
ic.nes(and supporting Information 3uu1cks) Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated 110pnct inipao
I
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health ❑ ❑ ❑
hazard? (}
d) Exposure of people to existing sources Of potential ❑ ❑ ❑
health hazards? O
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brusb.
grass,or trees? O ❑ ❑ ® ❑
X. NOISE, Would the proposal result�in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? O ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? O ❑ ❑ ❑
Xl. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the piopacal have,»,effect
upon, or result in a need for new o;^ltltered gavarnmpn r
allservices in any of the following are :
a) Fire protection? O ❑ ❑ ® Q
b) Police protection? () ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Schools? () ❑ ❑ ❑ M
d) Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? (} ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
e) Other governmental services? () ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
XIi. UTILITIES ANTI SFRVYCE SStSTEtvIS. Would the I
proposal result in a needfor new,rys`erns, or substantial
alteratlors ra tho following utiltlies:
n) Power or natural gas?(} ❑ Q Q
b) Communications systems?
❑ .� l�
e) Local or rogional water n'eahnetq ur distribution
facilities? () i ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
d) Sewer or septic tanks?O ❑ ❑ IJ
e) Storm water drainage?O ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Solid waatc disposal? ❑ '.1
I S
XIII,AESTHETICS, FF'ould the p'opos,.7
a) A11 t a sccnst:vista or scenic highway!(} ❑ ❑ Cl
b) Havc a demonstrable negative ae?thesis effect?() U ❑ ❑ 12 ?,
c) Cicaic light or glare?() Li ❑ ❑ [�
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. woul(�the proposal; j
a) Disturb paleontological resources,!O ❑ ❑ ® Cl
b) Dietucb archaeological resources l (} ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Affect historical resources? (} { ❑ Q (A Q
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultur�values?() ❑ ❑ ® ❑ y
8 to
i
I
Saueri Ensineerins Inc. 5302656834 P. 12
I
Potentially
�I
1 Potentially Significant Less Than
Signircant Unlcss signi[icaut iN0
rs3ues(and supporting Information svuteYs) Impart Mitigated Impact Impact
i
I
i
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the i
potential impact area?O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
i
1
RV. RECREATIOty, Would the prop9I al:
I
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facil}ties?O I ❑ ❑ ❑ l�
b) Affect existirg recreational opportunities?O ❑ ❑ ❑ C�
i
XVI.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
I
a) Does the project have the pctea�ial to degrade the
quality of the environment,substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife spec es,cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop helo}v self-sustaining
levels,threaten to eliminate a pl?nt or animal
community,reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the majo�periods of California
history or preh istory? I ❑ ❑ ❑
b} Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
tend,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental
goals?? I ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Does the project have impacts thnt arc individually
limited,but cumulatively eonsidcrabie?
("Cumulatively considerable"means that the
incremental effects of a project afro considerable when
viewed in connection with the c.ffecte of past pt'ujccts,
The effects of other current projc ts,and tiro effects of
probable future projects.) ❑ ❑ Q W
d) Does the project have environrr. rtal effects which
P J
will cause substantial adverse cffccts on human
beings,either dirceCly ur irtdirec'tl'y? ❑ ❑ ❑ � ii
CVIL EARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier. EIR or negative declaration. See Guideline ,
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). �t
t$
a) Earlier analyses used. Idcnlify earlier analyses and Mate where they are available for review.
R
This Initial Shady u[ilizes the tiering process. Thep revious environmental document related to this
pwjccc, which is hereby incorporated by reference is:
p II
i
Sauers Engineering Inc. 5302656834 P. 13
I
Tow
n of Truck
ee
General Plan Final EIR(State Clearinghouse 494092041)
Certified by the Truckee Town Council,February 1996
This document is availahle tor public review at:
Town of Truckee
Community Develop entDepartment
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee
,, _A .q bldl
!
h) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlicr document.
The previous document addr ssed cumulative inipa$ts that may be associated with the water storage
tank project.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potenti Illy significant"or"potentially significant
unless mitigated",dcscribc die mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the exl�lnt to which they address site-specific conditions for the project
Cumulative impacts associated with this project hav�been adequately addressed as described in the
CEQA Gui.dclines Section 15152(f)(3).
I �
EXPLANATION OF CHECKTIST ANSWERS
A brief explanation is required for all answer except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by
the infurrnation sources a lead agency ites in the parentheses following each question.
I. LAND USE ANI)PLANNING;
This project involves the construction of a water storage,tank and pipeline to provide water service to
existing and proposed development within the Town of Truckee. The Town of Truckee adopted a
General Plan and associated envirronmental documents iji 1996 which included the area to be seared by
the Bridge Street 6160 Tank. The General Plan sets fcrklt die land use and planning policies for the
town, Provision of water supply facilities allows the lmplementatinn of the General Plan,
I
This project is included in the Diarists Truckee Water�ystem Water Master Plan Update and
associated environmental documents. This project,along with all the projects proposed in the
masterplan, is based on the general plan of the Town of Truckee. The project is consistent with tlic
environmental plans and policies of the Town of TntckeIe
The project will result in the construction of a new public water supply tank and undorground utilities.
The new tank and pipeline will bG an acceptable land use based oil the land use[rod zoning dcsignaliuu
of the project parcels.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSIN�
The Bridge Street 616t1 Water Storage Tank and pipeline will be designed to accomrodate the
continued development of the District's water service area consistent with the population and housing
projections of the Town of Truckee's general plan. The i)rojcct is needed to aocwnmudate the
District's existing customers anc proposed new development in order to insure adequate supply during
peak demand periods and to provide increased fire protecttion. The project does have lie potential to
serve a population greater than th�current population in accordance with the District's master plan and
the Town's general plan. Althnn�h the,project will accommodate growth, it is not considcicd to either
10
Sauers Ensineerins Inc. 5302656SZ4 P. 14
i1
directly or indirectly induce growth. Water Scrvicc would be made available to undeveloped areas
only after complying with all other planning, land use, and environmental requirements imposed by the
Town of Truckee. It is these planning and environmental agencies which arc responsible fit the level
and direction of growth which w uld be accommodated'by this project.
11I. GEOPHYSICAL
The project will roquitc a fairly extensive amount of grading to prepaie a level pad fur the tanks. The
tanks will be placed on a pad cut into the hillsido. Tire l�cpth al the back of the cut will be
approximately 30 feat. In utdoi to stabilize to exposed dmbankment,it is anticipated that a retaining
wall will be cvnsu uctcd for a puitiun of the embankmeti<t and that the remainder of the embankment
will he sloped back at a stable slope. Pipeline and cond{it constriction will involve excavation and
backfill of tionchca. As is slanuaid with all District conItruction projects of this type, trenching and
backlill upemtiuns will include s?rface restoration elrhe with paving or other permanent erosion
control measures. Because of thq extent of the tank pad excavation,this is considered a potentially
significant impact unless nougat d. fi
The following mitigation meauurF is added to the project to reduce potential impacts to less than
significant: g
i
r
M-1. Prior to excavation at the tank site a gcotechnical investigation of the tank site will be
conducted to determine the stability of ibe soil and rock material to be exposed during
construction. The tank grading plan wi l specify the maximum slope for cut areas and
engineered till slopes based on Cho slop stability determined by the gcotechnical
investigation.
IV. WATER j
There will be an inemase in the amount of impervious surface as a result of this project including the
tanks,access road and paved tank access area. This is expected to be approximately 49.000 square feet
(1,1 acre). Drainage will flow from the impervious area to an infiltration basin adjacent to the tank
site location. The infiltration basin will be sized to accommodate runoff from a 1-hour,20-year storm
as defined by the Lahontan Regional Board. The basin will also be sized to accommodate the possible
overflow from the tank as well as water being drained from the tank. This is considered a less than
significant impact.
Given the location, geology and depth of cut a snciated with the tank project, construction of the tank
and underground utilities will not affect groundwater movement, quantity,or quality. Similarly,the
project will not affect the amourd, current,or course of any surface water.
During cnnstnictinn,there is a potential for excavated material to migrate offaite in the event of a rain
atnrm event. Prior to site disturhilrg activities,the District will prepare a Report of Waste Discharge in
rnmpl iance,with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. Best management practices
(RMPs)will be incorporated into'the project to protect Nyster quality during and after construction.
This is considered a potentially significant impact unles mitigated. ;
i e
The following mitigation measur�s are added to the projnct to reduce potential impacts to less than
significant:
M 2. Temporary BMI.'Q will be ineorporatcd into the project dcsigu to be implemented
before and during construction. B.MPs ipchide construction of silt fence down slope of
tank excavation activities,covering tom orary spoils piles to piulmi,hum rainfall, and
removal of speiismatorial to permarient locations protected from uffsilo migration.
M-3. Permanent BMPs will include revegetati�on of exposed soil areas on the cut and fill
slopes,asphalt pavement on access road and tank asses area, and permanent disposal
I
i
i
Sauers Ensineerins Inc. 53026566S4 P. 15
I I
i
of surplus excavated material at an acceptable location protected from offsitc
migration.
V. AIR QUALITY
There will be no air emissions fr�m the water storage tank. Then;may be incidental emissions dutiug
construction from contractor's operations including vehicles and mechanical equipment.
Construction activities have the Potential to generate FM 10 cwissiuna thwugh tic rulcase of fugitive
dust associated with grading and excavation activities. �he following tuitigativa muasures are added
to the project to reduce potential impacts to less than siguificatet,
i I
M-4, Fugitive dust emissions resulting ftmn site cleating and any project improvements shall be
minimized at all times utilizing cuntrul mcusujres including dust palliative,regularly applied
water,graveled or pav�d haul roads,etc. Access or haul roads adjacent to the project must
be treated as necessary';to prevent off-site migration and accumulation of dirt, soils,or other
materials which can subsequently become enoaincd in ambient air,either ttom construction
related vehicles or from any vehicle using adjacent affected roads.
M-5. when Transporting material during site preparl tion or construction,measures shall be used to
prevent materials from,spilling or blowing on street and highways. Earthen materials,if
transported, shall be adequately sprayed with water or covered prior to transport onto public
roads. Vegetative mat�riai shall be tapped as n'ecessary prior to transport. Specific control
measures shall be note on improvement and/or grading plans.
gg
VL TRANSPORTATION/CIRCLTA11ON 3
During construction there will bean ircrease in vehicle Jrips to the project site associated with the
contractor's activities- This is considered a less than significant impact. None of the construction will
take place along any public streetts. The project will.not have any affect on emergency access, access
to nearby uses,or alternative trap portation.
The project will include parking or District vehicles.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Construction of the storage tank and access road will involve clearing trees and hrnsh from
approximately 2.1 acres. Prior to removal of marketable trees,the District will nhtain a:Public Utility
Right of Way Exemption from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The
removal of vegetation and replacement with the tank facilities would decrease the amount of available .
habitat for birds and small mammals. The project site does not provide n vahlablc or unique habitat
and the impact is, therefore,considered less than cignifi+nnt. The project site is not considered habitat
for threatened or endangered species nfplants or nnimal�, The site contains no locally designated r
species or nnhirnl communities. The site is in an upland area containing no wetlands. The project will
have no impact on wildlife dispersal or migration.
Vitt. FNERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
The operation of the tank facilities will not involve the utilization of any significant energy resources. a
IN. HAZARDS
s
During construction there is a ris of accidental release oaf hazardous substances such as fuel or oil
from spillage. District construction contracts require the contractor to be prepared for such accidents
and provide clean-up which in thus case would likely be hrrited to the project site. This is considered a
less than significant impact.
The project will have no impact on emergency responses.
K
12 l4
Sauers Engineering Inc. 5302656834 P. 16
i
I
X. NOISE
During tank and pipeline construction, there will be an increase in noise levels associated with
contractor operations including operation of mcchanica�equipment such as a backlwo,generator,and
compressor. Because of the distance to any sensitive receptors,thcsc noise levels are considered a less
than significant impact.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
This project is based on and consistent with the gcncral platy of the Town of Ti ticket;including
projections needed for public smI ices. The project willlnot icsult in lho need for new or altered
government services.
X11. UTILITIES AND SERVICE S VSTEMS
The project will result in improvements to the District's water system by increasing the capacity and
reliability of the system. Following construction, the project will not generate any appreciable amount
of solid waste. Solid waste geneiated daring consrruction will be disposed of by the contractor at the
local refuse transfer station. I
i
XIII. AESTHETICS
The tank may be visible from lti rstate 80, The tank will be screened by a number of trees located
around the tank site. The tank color will be chosen to blend with the surroundings. There will be no
new lights associated with the project. 'Ibis type of facility may be considered to have a negative
aesthetic effect,but given the existing tree screening and distance to any visual receptors,it is
considered less than significant.
XIV, CULTURAL RESOURCES ('
An archeological review was conducted for the tank site;and access road. A cultural resources report is
included as Appendix A. As indicated,no significant cultural resources were identified on the project
site. Because the project involve excavation,there is a possibility of uncovering cultural resources
not identified during the field review. The following mitigation measure will reduce the potential
impact to less than significant.
M-6. If artifacts,paleontological or cultural,or unu$ual amounts of stone,hone, o shell are
uncovered during eons4uction activity,work$hall be halted and a qualified archaeologist
shall be consulted for an on-site review. Mitigation measures,as recommended by the g
archaeologist and approved by the District in ccordanec with Appendix K of the CFQA
Guidelines, shall be implemented prior to recommencement of cnngtmcrion activity. If any
bone appears to be hurrlan,California law marldates that the Nevada County Coroner and the
Native American i-leriti ge Commission be cotjtacted.
XV. RFC'RRATION
The,project is based on and consistent with the general plan of the Town of Truckee including
projectinns for needed recreational facilities. The project will have no impact on recreation facilities or
nppnfitnities.
XVL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The project will take place on a rglstivcly small site witl limited vegetation or potential habitat and ;
will not affect plant or animal species or habitat or eliminate prehistoric or historic resources.
The project achieves both short ream and long term environmental goals by increasing water supply;
water System reliability, and fire protection capability while avoiding potential sliuitagcs it,capacity,
and allowing the implementation of adopted land use and environmental plans.
Public water supply is one of many services needed to allow the continued orderly growth and ,
development of the Truckee area.i Issue:;related to growth and development including intensity,
13
'rF
I
Sauers Ensineerins Inc. 5902656834 P. 17 ..
I
I
I
density,location.and timing, among others, are the responsibility of the appropriate planning agency,
in this case the Town of Truckee. Similarly any impacts associated with the growth and development
of the Truckee area are also tha'responsibihry of the appropriate agencies and ace addreascd in the
various land use and environmental plans adopted by those agencies. This Initial Study tiers off of the
Town of Truckee General Plan FFinpl EIR which provides a detailed analysis the uupacts associated
continued growth and development of the town.
Implementation of this project rp 1 allow the District to continue to provide an adequate public water
supply. Provisinns of a safe and reliable water supply is considered to have a beneficial effect on
human beings. I
REPORT PREPAPUTION
This Initial Study was prepared under contract with the Truc Donner Public Utility District by Sauers
Engineering,Inc. Principal author was Keith Knibb.
Prepared br.. + Date:. ,-p
i
i
I
i
i
I
'i
I
i
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
14 Ir
Sauers Engineering Inc.. 5302656834 P. 18
I
i
REFE.RENC�S
These references are available for rev ew at the Truckee Don her Public Utility District office, 11570 Donner
Pass Road, Tnrekee, California,
1, USGS Truckee Quadrangle, 7.5aMinute Series.
2. Truckee Water System Water Master Plan Update,Truckee Donner Public Utility District, March 2001
I
3. Negative Declaration and Environmental Initial Study,;Truckce Water System Water Master Plan
Update, Truckee Donner Public Utility District, March'2001
i
I
i
i
' I
I
i
i
I� I
i
i I
I
I
I
i
I
15
ion
Vdw
TOPUD 0"we RVCKEE
--mrw-
To T
NORTH
IT,
4 1/1
IN LOCATION MAP
I .
6160 BRIDGE STREET TANK Truckee Donner Sauers E ee Inc.
n9m rmg
Public Utility District Civil and Environmental Engineers
VICINITY MAP TRUCIM, CAUF010" 440 Lower Gross Valley Road, Suite A, Nevada City, CA 95959
Telephone (530) 265-8021
w
fl
Ln
O Y�
M,Cjy;
�C
CO
�160 BRIDGE STREET TANK Truckee Donner Sauers Engineering, Inc.
Public Utility District Civil and Environmental Engineers
PLAN VIEW ��`�
TRUCKEL CMJCrOMNA 440 Lower Grass Valley Road, Suite A, Nevado City, CA 95959
Teiepnone (530) 265-3021 ',
6160 WATER STORAGE TANK PROJECT
11ERITAGE RESOURCE INVENTORY
'I'RUCKEE, CALIFORNIA
NEVADA COUNTY
(TRUCKEE 7.5' QUADRANGLE)
BY
SUSAN LINDSTR6M, PFI.D.
CONSULTING ARCHAEOLOGIST
11.0. BOX 3324
TRUCKEE, CALIFORNIA 96160
PREPARED FOR
SAUERS ENGINEERING
440 LOWER GRASS VALLEY ROAD, SUITE A
NEVADA CITY CA 95449
JULY 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY I
PROJECT DESCRIPI ION, LOCATION AND SCOPE I
BACKGROUND 2
METHODS 5
RESULTS C
RF.I'ERI'NCES (TIF.t) 7
FIGURES
1. Project location map (1986 USGS 7.5' Quad)
2. Archaeological coverage map
C'ORRI':SPONDENC'F
I. North Central Inia,rmaGon Center
2. Washoe Trihc of Nevada and C'aliti�rui<j
SUMMARY
The Truckee Donner Public Utilities District (TDPUD) plans construction of a water
storage tank on a 1.5-acre site, along with a 1200-foot pipeline within a 50-foot wide disturbance
corridor. The 2.4-acre project area is near Truckee, California (Nevada County). The Town of
Truckee requires the project sponsor to consider potential project impacts on heritage resources.
Accordingly, a heritage resource inventory was conducted. Prefield research entailed a literature
review of prehistoric and historic themes for the project area and included a review of prior
archaeological research and of pertinent published and unpublished literature. A records search
at the North Central Information Center (NCIC) at California State University Sacramento
(CSLIs) was completed in order to identify any properties listed on the National Register, state
registers and other listings, including the files of the State Historic Preservation Office (SI1PO).
Oral history intcmct%s were conducted with (1) Kelly Shane, prior owner of the property and
Sim-Neva Coiporetion. (2} memhers of the Truckee-Donner Historical Society, and (3) long-term
residents of"fruckct'.
An mchncolo0cal reconnaissance was conducted on July 2, 2001, with helpful field
orientation by Keith Knibb of Sauers Fngineering. The entire project area was examined by
systematically %calking parallel nansects at no greater than five-meter (15-foot) intervals.
"the heritage resource inventory disclosed no significant prehistoric or historic sites.
Isolated finds include: one fragment of historic light green bottle glass, observed in the rock
outcrop smronnding the project area: and one historic high cut stump. These isolates are not
significant heritage resources according to CEQA criteria. All of their potentially important
information has been recovered with the preparation of this report. As the heritage resource
survey disclosed no significant prehistoric or historic sites, features or artifacts, the project
sponsor should not be constrained regarding heritage resources. Although the project area has
been subject to systematic surface archaeological investigations, it is possible that buried or
concealed heritage resources could be present and detected during project construction activities.
In the event of fortuitous discoveries of additional heritage resources, project activities should
cease in the area of the find and the project sponsor should consult a qualified archaeologist for
recommended procedures. The Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California has been notified of the
study findings.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION AND SCOPE
The Truckee Dormer Public Utilities District (TDPUD) plans construction of a water
storage tank on a L5-acre site, along with a 1200-foot pipeline within a 50-foot wide disturbance
corridor. The 2.9-acre project area is near Truckee, California(Nevada County). The project area
falls within Township 17 North, Range 16 East, Section 10 (Figure 1).
Current environmental review policies, in compliance with guidelines established by Placer
County and the State of California (('EQA) require a consideration of the impacts of an
undertaking on heritage resources. Such heritage resource studies are customarily performed in
1
a series of phases, each one building upon information gained from the prior study. Each of
these phases are generally performed under separately negotiated contracts.
INVENTORY: First, an archaeological reconnaissance is performed to inventory
existing heritage resources and constraints. If properties are discovered and if they
may be subject to project-related impacts, their significance must next be
evaluated.
EVALUATION: Next, and pending the outcome of the initial inventory, heritage
resources subject to project-related impacts may need to be evaluated to determine
their significance. Potential impacts to these significant resources can then be
specifically assessed and detailed recommendations to mitigate impacts can be
proposed. if project redesign to avoid impacts is unfeasible, then mitigation
measures must be developed and implemented in order to recover the significant
information contained within these heritage properties prior to project ground
disturbance activities.
IMPACT NIFf lGAJION AND DATA RECOVERY": A third and final phase may
involve the implementation of mitigation measures recommended during the prior
evaluation phase. Mitigation, or data recovery, typically involves additional field
study, excavation, archival research, photo documentation, mapping, etc.
Objectives of this heritage resource study are designed to satisfy antiquities requirements
pertaining only to the initial i n,enlori, of heritage resources by:
w heritage properties
1. conducting _reYteld research to determine the presence of known p P b P P
and expected level of archaeological sensitivity of the project area;
2. performing an archaeological field surface survey of the project area; and
3. repoilkw preliminary field findings, to include a general assessment of'development-
related impacts to inventoried heritage properties and mitigating measures to minimize the
adverse impacts.
Heritage resource significance and impact mitigation are generally performed under separate
contract negotiations.
BACKGROUND
PHYSICAL ENk IRONNIEWT
The project area consists of approximately 2.9 acres located along the moderately steep,
northeast facing slope of a cinder hill northeast Truckee. The project area bounds an abandoned
gravel pit, opclatcd by Sha-Neva ca. 1966 to 1968, and enlarged by Teichert ca. 1972 {Shane,
2
personal communication 719101). Utility lines pass above the project area, and modern discarded
insulators on the ground. A downed telephone line crosses the project area; it may have once
connected the cinder gravel pit with Sha-Neva offices to the east.
Project topography is moderately steep with elevations ranging from 5990 to 6190 feet,
"There is no flowing water on site; the Truckee River is located 2000 feet south of the property;
"Grout Creek is approximately 600 feet to the southwest.
The project area is situated in the Truckee Basin, an alluviated structural basin west of
the Carson Range and east of the main crest of the Sierra Nevada. Low hills and ridges are
Tertiary and Pleistocene volcanic rocks (Birkeland 1963) and valley floors are covered with
relatively flat laying alluvial, glacial and glaciofluviatile deposits (Birkeland 19641). Holocene
glaciation within the past 10,000 years was limited to the advance of small cirque glaciers.
Pleistocene volcanic activity occurred between 2.3 and 1.2 million years ago. These flows are
correlated with the Lousetown Formation, a series of early Quaternary basaltic rocks extruded
from several local vents which underlie much of the Truckee Basin and its flanks (Birkeland
1963). The presence of tool stone-quality basalt in the project's vicinity (at Alder hill, due north
of the project) attracted prehistoric populations into the general area for the purpose of stone tool
manufacture (Elston, Hardesty and Clerico 1981; Elston, Hardesty and Zeier 1982; Rondeau 1982).
However, basalt occurring natrually within the project area is coarse-grained and unsuitable tool
stone.
The study area lies �%ithin Storer and Usinger's (1971) Yellow Pine/Jeffrey Pine Belt_ In the
Truckee Basin JefGey pine (Films iefbeyi) dominates forest stands and on the project site it
shares dominance i%itb ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa) and lodgepole pine (P. murrayana).
L!nderstory species i ncl udc sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata),bitterbrush(Pursia tridentata),current
(Ribcs spp.), squaM CMIM (('canothus prostratus), and assorted fortis and grasses. It is doubtful
that modern plant ((,r animal) communities closely resemble their pristine composition due to
historic and modern disturbance. In prehistoric times the area is thought to have supported a
luxuriant groyvtb of native hunch grasses which allowed an abundant large game population and
provided a nutritious soince of seeds for use by early peoples.
PREHISTORY
A large vice divides the prehistory of the Sierra Nevada and adjoining regions into
intervals marked h-� changes in adaptive strategies that represent major stages of cultural evolution
(Elston 1982, 1986). In broadest terms, the archaeological signature of the Truckee Basin marks
a trend from hunting-based societies in earlier times to populations that were increasingly reliant
upon diverse resources by the time of historic contact (Elston 1982; Elston et at. 1977, 1994,
1995). The shift in lifeivays may he attributed partially to factors involving paleoclimate, a
shifting subsistence base, and demographic change.
'I lie arelracolopy of the region was first outlined by IIeizer and Elsasser (1953) in their
study of sites located in the "I ruckee Basin Martis Valley area. They identified two distinct
3
prehistoric lifeways Mach are believed to have once characterized the area's early occupants.
Subsequent studies have further refined the culture history of the region (Elston 1971; Elston et
al 1977). Some of the oldest archaeological remains reported for the Tahoe Region have been
found in the Truckee River Canyon near Squaw Valley. These Pre-Archaic remains suggest
occupation by about 9,000 years ago (Tahoe Reach Phase). Other Pre-Archaic to Early Archaic
occupation dating from about 7,000 years ago was documented at Spooner Lake (Spooner Phase)
near Spooner Summit overlooking Lake Tahoe. The most intensive period of occupation in the
region may have occurred at varying intervals between 4,000 and 500 years ago (Martis Phases
during the Early and Middle Archaic, and Early Kings Beach Phase during the Late Archaic).
The protohistoric ancestors of the Washoe (Late Kings Beach Phase), also of Late Archaic times,
may date roughly from 500 years ago to historic contact.
NATIVE AMERICAN PERIOD
The project area falls within the center of Washoe territory, with primary use by the
northern Washoe or Wa She Shu (Downs 1966; Nevers 1976; Steward 1966). Washoe settlements
are known to have existed in the project vicinity. Truckee town is at the location of the large
Washoe village site of K'ubuna detde'yi' and below Truckee, at Trout Creek, was the village site
of Pele ma'lam detde'vi'. The Washoe name for the Truckee River is a'wakhu wa't'a. The
terraces on either side of the river at Truckee are known as tugiya (d'Azevedo 1956:51, 55).
The Washoe once embodied a blend of Great Basin and California in their geographical
position and cultural attributes. While they were an informal and flexible political collectivity,
Washoe ethnography hints at a level of technological specialization and social complexity for
Washoe groups, noncharacteristic of their surrounding neighbors in the Great Basin.
Semisedentism and higher population densities, concepts of private property, and communal labor
and ownership are reported and may have developed in conjunction with their residential and
subsistence resource stability (Lindstr6m 1992).
The ethnographic record suggests that during the mild season, small groups traveled
through high mountain valleys collecting edible and medicinal roots, seeds and marsh plants. In
the higher elevations, men hunted large game (mountain sheep, deer) and trapped smaller
mammals. The 'Truckee River and tributaries were important fisheries year-round. Suitable
toolstone (such as basalt) was quarried at various locales north and east of Truckee. The Washoe
have a tradition of making long treks across the Sierran passes for the purpose of hunting, trading
and gathering acorns. Archaeological evidence of these ancient subsistence activities are found
along the mountain flanks as temporary small hunting camps containing flakes of stone and
broken tools. In the high valleys more permanent base camps are represented by stone flakes,
tools, grinding implements, and house depressions.
The Washoe are part of an ancient Hokan-speaking residual population, which has been
subsequently surrounded by Numic-speaking intruders, such as the Northern Paiute (Jacobsen
1966). Even into the 20th Century, the Washoe were not completely displaced from their
traditional lands. I he contemporary Washoe have developed a Comprehensive Land Use Plan
4
(Washoe Tribal Council 1994) that includes goals of reestablishing a presence within the "Tahoe
Sierra and re-vitalizing Washoe heritage and cultural knowledge, including the harvest and care
of traditional plant resources and the protection of traditional properties within the cultural
landscape (Rucks 1996:3).
HISTORY
As one of the major urban areas of Nevada County, Truckee has been what historians call
an "urban frontier," or an urban area with many characteristics of the frontier. At least through
the 1920s, what exposure Truckee gained outside the immediate area had to do with its many
brothels, its violent discrimination against Chinese, and its general reputation as a rough lumber
and railroad town.
A history of the community of"Truckee is marked by the arrival of.Joseph Gray, who built
a stage station near the present-day downtown in 1863. The "log house" shown on Figure 4 may
be Gray's. Gray was soon joined by a blacksmith named S. S. Coburn, and the fledgling
settlement of Gray's Toll Station was renamed Coburn's Station. This tiny way station grew
from two structures in to a thriving town which accommodated emigrants, stagecoach travelers
and freight wagons in route westward to California's gold fields and eastward to the Comstock
Lode in Nevada. In 1868 Coburn's Station burned and the name was changed to Truckee.
'Throughout most of the 19th centurv, Truckee thrived on the related fields of lumber, railroading
and ice. By the 1920s. this industrial economy and society had largely disappeared, due in major
part to the relocation of the train switching yard to Roseville, the depletion of local timber
supplies and the development of mechanical refrigeration. In its place, the community began to
develop into a recreation-based economy, boosted by the completion of a good state highway over
Donner Summit. The 1960 Winter Olympics at nearby Squaw Valley secured Truckee's position
as a center point for year-round recreation.
METHODS
Archaeological research and field survey was conducted by Susan Lindstrom, Consulting
Archaeologist to Sauers Engineering. Lindstrom has 28 years of professional experience in
regional prehistory and history, holds a doctoral degree in anthropology/archaeology and has
maintained certification by the Society of Professional Archaeologists (now Register of
Professional Archaeologist) since 1981
PREEIELD RESEARCH
Prefield rescarch entailed a literature review of prehistoric and historic themes for the
project area. This included a review of prior archaeological research and of pertinent published
and unpublished literature. Sharon Pace Arnold, native and long-term resident of Truckee and
spokesperson for the Truckee-Donner Historical Society,was interviewed. Howard Snider, native
and long-term resident of Truckee, also offered historic information during a series of telephone
interviews. Representatives of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California have been notified
5
of the results of this study and asked to identify any potential Native American concerns (see
Correspondence).
A formal records search at the North Central Information Center, California State
University at Sacramento (NCIC-CSUS) 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 (see Correspondence). References checked include archaeological sites and
surveys in Nevada County, the National Register of Historic Places (listed properties (1996) and
Determinations of Eligibility (1997), the California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976),
California Historical Landmarks (1990 and updates), California Points of Historical Interest
(1992 and updates), Gold Districts of California (1970), Survey of Surveys (Historic and
Architectural Resources 1989), Directory of Properties in the Historical Resources Inventory (HRI
1997), Caltrans Local Bridge Survey (1989), Historic Spots in California (1966 and 1990) and
Early California-Northern Edition (1974).
According to NCIC-CSUS tiles, none of the project area has been subject to
archaeological survey. Adjacent studies within a '/4-mile radius
include: Jensen (1993, 2000), Lindstr6nn (2000), Noble (2000), Smith (1989) and NCIC study no.
2653.
No previously recorded prehistoric sites are known to occur within the project area.
Within a '/4-mile radius, prehistoric sites include: one lithie scatter (Coombs #1). There are no
previously recorded historic sites within the project area. Historic sites located within Y4 mile of
the project area include: two trash scatters (Coombs #2, Nev-457-11) and a historic camp site
(Nev-456-H).
FIELD RESEARCH
An archaeological reconnaissance was conducted on July 2, 2001. The entire project area
was examined by systematically walking parallel transects at no greater than five-meter (I 5-foot)
intervals. Ground surface visibility was moderate to poor, being partially obscured by brush and
pine duff. Cardinal directions were maintained by compass and pacing. Keith Knibb of Sailers
Engineering provided helpful field orientation. The archaeological coverage map is roughly
keyed to this coverage strategy (Figure 2).
RESULTS
The heritage resource inventory disclosed no significant prehistoric or historic sites.
Isolated finds include. one fragment of historic light green bottle glass, observed in the rock
outcrop surrounding the project area: and one historic high cut stump. These isolates are not
significant heritage resources according to CEQA criteria. All of their potentially important
information has been recovered with the preparation of this report. As the heritage resource
survey disclosed no significant prehistoric or historic sites, features or artifacts, the project
sponsor should not be constrained regarding heritage resources. Although the project area has
been subject to systematic surface archaeological investigations, it is possible that buried or
6
concealed heritage resources could be present and detected during project construction activities.
In the event of fortuitous discoveries of additional heritage resources, project activities should
cease in the area of the find and the project sponsor should consult a qualified archaeologist for
recommended procedures. The Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California has been notified of the
study findings.
The heritage resource inventory disclosed one historic site (Site 1), a sawmill building and
associated outbuilding constructed and operated ea. later 1940s, and two historic isolated features,
a trash scatter consisting of barrel hoops, bedsprings and baling wire (IFI), and a wooden
Emigrant Trail marker (IF2); however, the trail does not pass through the project area. These
heritage resources are summarized below, with detailed discussions and mapped locations
contained in the attached confidential appendix. A few high-cut stumps, remnant of historic
logging activities, were noted but not formally recorded. None of these stumps are suitable for
dendrochronological (tree-ring) dating as their bark and outside wood have weathered.
REFERENCES CITED
anonymous
2001 Historic Property Survey Report for bnprovements to I-80 in Nevada County, 03-
NEV-80, K_P.4.0124.9, 03-0A6300. Report on file NCIC-CSUS No. 2653.
Sacramento.
Arnold, Sharon-Pace
2001 Personal communication. Truckee Donner Historical Society. Truckee.
Birkeland, Peter W.
1963 Pleistocene Volcanism and Deformation of the Truckee Area. North of Lake
l ahoe, California. Geological Society of America Bulletin 74:1452-1464.
1964 Pleistocene Glaciation of the Northern Sierra Nevada, North of Lake Tahoe,
("alifmnia. Journal of Gcology 72:810-825.
d'Azevedo. Warren
1986 Washoe In Handbook of North American Indians Volume I (W. d'Azevedo,
cd.). Washington: Smithsonian Institution. pp. 466-498.
Downs, J.
1966 1 lie "l wo Worlds of the Washo. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. New fork.
Elston, R. G.. J. O. Davis, A. Leventhal and C. Covington
1977 fhe Archeology of the Tahoe Reach of the Truckee River. Report to Tahoe
Truckee Sanitation Agency, Truckee, CA. Ms on file, Special Collections,
Gctchell Library. I INR.
7
e
Elston, R. G., J_ O. Davis, G. Townsend
1976 An Intensive Archeological Investigation of the Hawkins Land Exchange Site
(FS-05-17-57-33) 4NEV184. Ms. on file, Special Collections, Getchell Library,
University of Nevada, Reno.
Elston, R. G., D. Hardesty, S. Clerico
1981 Archeological Investigations on the Hopkins Land Exchange, Vol. 1.
Intermountain Research. Silver City, Nevada.
Elston, R. G., D. Hardesty, C. Zeier
1982 Archeological Investigations on the Hopkins Land Exchange, Vol. II.
Intermountain Research. Silver City, Nevada.
Heizer, R. F. and A. B. Elsasser
1953 Some Archaeological Sites and Cultures of the Central Sierra Nevada.
Universi A�of California Archaeological Survey Reports, No. 21, Berkeley.
Jacobsen, W. II., Jr.
1966 Washo Linguistic Studies. In: The Current Status of Anthropological
Research in the Great Basin, 1964, W. d'Azevedo, ed., pp. 113-136. Desert
Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences 1:113-136.
Jensen, Peter
1993 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Proposed Subdivision of AP# 19-400-10 c.
110 ac on Lower Alder Mountain near Trout Creek, Nevada County. Jensen
and Associates. Chico.
2000 Archaeological Survey, APN 19-42-34. On file NCIC-CSUS. Sacramento.
Lindstr6m, Susan G.
2000 A Heritage Resource Inventory of the Mancuso Commercial Project, 40 Acres near
Truckee. Report on file NCIC-CSUS. Sacramento.
Nevers, J.
1976 Wa She Shu A Tribal History. University of Utah Printing Service. Salt Lake
City.
Noble, D.
2000 An Archaeological Survey of Highway 80 from West of Soda Springs Overerossing
to the Trout Creek Overcrossing at Truckee, Nevada County, 03-Nev-80, .P,
R4.0124.9, 03254-0116300. Report prepared for Caltrans District 3, Marysville.
Report on file NCIC-CSUS, Sacramento.
Price, J. A.
8
1962 Washo Economy. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Paper 6. Carson
City.
Rondeau, M.
1982 1`he Archaeology of the Truckee Site, Nevada County, Ca. Foundation of
California State University, Sacramento, CA.
Rucks, M.
1996 Ethnographic Report for North Shore Ecosystems Heritage Resource Report
(HRR905-19-297). Ms. on file, USFS - Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit,
South Lake Tahoe.
Shane, Kelly
2001 Personal communication. Owner, Sha-Neva Corp. Truckee,
Smith, D.S.
1989 Alder/Prosser Compartment Archaeological Reconnaissance Report 05-17-782.
Report on file NCIC-(,SUS, Sacramento.
Snider, Howard
2001 Personal communication. Long-term resident of Truckee. Grass Valley.
Storer, T. and R. Usinger
1971 Sierra Nevada Natural History. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Washoe Tribal Council
1994 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Ms. on file, Tribal Government Headquarters,
Gardnerville.
9
- , - SCALE 1:24 000
f
i
66„ Ii
r
CONTOUR INTERVAL, 40 FEET
62
- A � Bennett Hat
i
U
� r
Q
r h
9M 5110
/ Watar
Tan
uckee
JLft
+z' eo or�i Pack
00,1NER Pp SS ft0A0
S I I i= [ 9
�d h 06p 7✓ V.M Tw kee v1e Cert, l0f
High 5 h ��.1�., ) .-5i..
TRUCKEE, CA --� 6160 WATER STORAGE TANK PROJECT
aelzo cz-Tr-oza \ HERITAGE RESOURCE INEVNTORY
1992 -_ Tl7N/R16E _ —.--
Figure 1. Project location map (USGS 7.5' Quad 1986)
SC.ALF L.24 OOU
Figure 2. Archaeological coverage map Y.
= intensive coverage, 5 meter (15-foot) intervals
,J� w
i
CONTOUR INTERVAL 0.0 FEET
aAobtl o-•.e r�
�p � ...: . i� X ❑ e '�
�e
M t
� r,
1; � b` dlk
---
'---�'r�
srn ooN�E"' a'4ss ROAD
tl4 rt a y .. 8 bKSa'.- saeo� v isa
4 J ` —�iaso a1 n y,n w n � Go
r
TRUcxEe, CA 6160 WATER STORAGE TANK PROJECT
:59120 C F 2-T029
HERITAGE RESOURCE INEVNTORY
„`: 1992 WI /R16F.
CORRESPONDENCE
California ink" AMADOR Department of Anthropology
Historical EL DORADO California State University, Sacramento
Resources
N EVADA
PLACER 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819-6106
Information SACRAMENTO Of (916) 278-6217
(I
System YUBA FAX (916) 278-5162
Summary of Results for Records Search
June 29, 2001 NCIC File No.: NEV-0 1-54
To: Susan Lindstrom
Consulting Archaeologist
P.O. Box 3324
14931 Denton Ave.
Truckee, CA 96160
From: Kristean Berry, Researcher
Project: TDPUD Bridge ST. Tank, Truckee, CA
• Sites In or Within Radius: 456-H, 457-H, COOMBS #1 and #2
(locations mapped, copies sent)
• Studies in or Within Radius: Jensen (1993 and 2000), Noble (2000: NCIC study
no. 2654), Smith (1989), FS# 05-17-1038, and
NCIC study no. 2653 (locations mapped,
bibliographic referendes enclosed)
• OHP Historic Property Directory (HPD): Nothing Found
• California Historical Landmarks (1996): Nothing Found
• California Points of Historical Interest (1992): Nothing Found
As indicated on the attached agreement form, the charge for this record search is
$393.30, Payment instructions are included at the bottom of the form. Please sign where
indicated and return the YELLOW copy with your payment.
Thank you for using our services, If you have any questions please do not
hesitate to call 9 1 6/278-62IT
DATE: July 7, 2001
TO: William Dancing Feather
Washoe Native American Coordinator
Washoe Archival and Cultural Center
861 Crescent Drive
Carson City NV 89701
702-888-0936
FROM: Susan Lindstr6m
Consulting Archaeologist
P.O. Box 3324
Truckee CA 96160
530-587-7072 (587-7083 (fax)
RE: Truckee Donner Public Utilities District Tank Project
Truckee, California, Nevada County
I have been retained by Sauers Engineering of Nevada City, California to conduct a
heritage resource survey of a 2.9-acre parcel located near Truckee, California(see enclosed map).
I have completed an intensive survey of the project area and recorded no
prehistoric/Washoe heritage sites, features or artifacts. I have recommended to the project
sponsor that any previously unidentified archaeological remains fortuitously discovered or
exposed during project operations should be afforded full protection until qualified personnel are
able to assess the situation.
I wish to bring this project to your attention and invite your opinions, knowledge and
sentiments regarding any potential concerns for traditional Native American lands within the
project area. I look forward to hearing from you if you have any additional information
regarding this area.
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
To:_ Office of Planning and Research From: Truckee Donner PUD
1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 P.O. Box 309
Sacramento,CA 95814 Truckee,CA 96160-0309
X County Clerk
County of Nevada
201 Church Street
Nevada City, CA 95959
Subject:
Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
Bridee Street 6160 Water Storage Tanks
Project Title
2001072060 Peter L. Holzmeister (5 3 0)5 87-3 8 96
State Clearinghouse Number Responsible Agency Area Code/Telephone
Contact Person
Truckee, Nevada County
Project Location(include county)
Project Description:
Construction of two new water storage tanks, access road, and underground utilities including pipelines,
electrical conduits and communication conduits.
This is to advise that the Truckee Donner Public Utility District has approved the described project on _ and
® Lead Agency ❑ Responsible Agency Date
has made the following determinations regarding the above described project:
L The project[❑will ®will not] have a significant effect on the environment.
2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
® A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures[® were ❑were not]made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [ ❑ was ® was not] adopted for this project.
5. Findings [S were❑were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
This is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the
General Public at:
Truckee Donner Public Utility Dist., P.O. Box 309, 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, CA 96160-0309
Peter L. Holzmeister,General Manager Date
DFG Fee $ 1,250.00
Date received for filing at OPR:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
( ) Proposed
(XX) Final
NAME OF PROJECT: Bridge Street 6160 Water Storage Tanks
LOCATION: Truckee, California
Entity or Person Undertaking Project:
(XX) Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Other( ) Name:
Address:
Phone:
PROTECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed project involves the construction of two new water storage tanks, access road, and
underground utilities including pipelines, electrical conduits and communication conduits. The
storage tanks will provide approximately 4,000,000 gallons of storage in two tanks.
Finding: It is hereby found that the above named project will not have a significant effect upon
the environment.
Initial An initial study of this project was undertaken and prepared in accordance with Article
Study: V of the District's local environmental guidelines and Section 15063 of the EIR
Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act for the purpose of ascertaining
whether this project might have a significant effect upon the environment. A copy of
such initial study is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Such initial
study documents reasons to support the above finding.
Mitigation The following mitigation measures have been included in the project to avoid
Measures: potentially significant effects:
M-1. Prior to excavation at the tank site a geotechnical investigation of the tank site
will be conducted to determine the stability of the soil and rock material to be
exposed during construction. The tank grading plan will specify the maximum
slope for cut areas and engineered fill slopes based on the slope stability
determined by the geotechnical investigation.
M-2. Temporary BMPs will be incorporated into the project design to be
implemented before and during construction. BMPs include construction of silt
fence down slope of tank excavation activities,covering temporary spoils piles
to protect from rainfall, and removal of spoils material to permanent locations
protected from offsite migration.
M-3. Permanent BMPs will include revegetation of exposed soil areas on the cut and
fill slopes,asphalt pavement on access road and tank access area,and permanent
disposal of surplus excavated material at an acceptable location protected from
offsite migration.
M-4. Fugitive dust emissions resulting from site clearing and any project
improvements shall be minimized at all times utilizing control measures
including dust palliative,regularly applied water,graveled or paved haul roads,
etc. Access or haul roads adjacent to the project must be treated as necessary
to prevent off-site migration and accumulation of dirt, soils, or other materials
which can subsequently become entrained in ambient air, either from
construction related vehicles or from any vehicle using adjacent affected roads.
M-5. When transporting material during site preparation or construction, measures
shall be used to prevent materials from spilling or blowing onto street and
highways. Earthen materials, if transported, shall be adequately sprayed with
water or covered prior to transport onto public roads. Vegetative material shall
be tarped as necessary prior to transport. Specific control measures shall be
noted on improvement and/or grading plans.
M-6. If artifacts, paleontological or cultural, or unusual amounts of stone, bone, or
shell are uncovered during construction activity, work shall be halted and a
qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for an on-site review. Mitigation
measures, as recommended by the archaeologist and approved by the District
in accordance with Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines,shall be implemented
prior to recommencement of construction activity. If any bone appears to be
human, California law mandates that the Nevada County Coroner and the
Native American Heritage Commission be contacted.
M-7. Trees shall be planted on the downslope side of the tank in the fill slope areas.
The number, location, and spacing of the trees shall be determined following
design of the grading plan and determination of the extent of the fill slope areas.
Tree size and species shall be selected so as to insure a high likelihood of
survival given the competition from existing trees.
M-8. .(Truckee General Plan Land Use Policy 2.3) - To provide for projected
population growth in an efficient manner, accommodate development at the
highest densities in infill areas, consistent with the goals for environmental
protection and land use compatibility.
M-9. (Truckee General Plan Land Use Policy 3.1) - Work with all special districts,
including the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District, to ensure that
development within the Town is coordinated with provision of services.
Date: By:
Peter L. Holzmeister, General Manager
r
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Bridge Street 6160 Water Storage Tanks
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring Program insures the enforcement of mitigation measures included in
the project's negative declaration. The Environmental Initial Study identifies mitigation
monitoring responsibilities including method of implementation, timing of implementation, and
responsible party.
The following Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist provides a method to verify
implementation of mitigation measures. Typically, mitigation measures are implemented at
three phases of a project; project planning and design, project construction, and following project
completion. The checklist shows verification of implementation at each phase for each
mitigation measure.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Bridge Street 6160 Water Storage Tank
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
Mitigation Measure Mitigation Monitoring Verification at Verification Verification at Comments
Planning/Design During Project
Construction Completion
M-1. Prior to excavation at the tank site Project Engineer- Geoteehnical
a geotechnical investigation of the tank investigation will be completed as
site will be conducted to determine the directed by Project Engineer with
stability of the soil and rock material to recommendations implemented in
be exposed during construction. The project design.
tank grading plan will specify the
maximum slope for cut areas and
engineered fill slopes based on the slope
stability determined by the geotechnical
investigation.
M-2. Temporary BMPs will be Project Engineer-Project Engineer
incorporated into the project design to be will be responsible for design of
implemented before and during temporary BMPs, inclusion in project
construction. BMPs include design, and implementation during
construction of silt fence down slope of construction.
tank excavation activities, covering
temporary spoils piles to protect from
rainfall, and removal of spoils material
to permanent locations protected from
offsite migration.
M-3. Permanent BMPs will include Project Engineer-Project Engineer
revegetation of exposed soil areas on the will be responsible for design of
cut and fill slopes, asphalt pavement on permanent BMPs, inclusion in
access road and tank access area, and project design, and implementation
permanent disposal of surplus excavated during construction.
material at an acceptable location
protected from offsite migration.
Mitigation Measure Mitigation Monitoring Verification at Verification Verification at Comments
Planning/Design During Project
Construction Completion
M-4. Fugitive dust emissions resulting Project Engineer- Engineer to be
from site clearing and any project responsible for including air quality
improvements shall be minimized at all mitigation measures in construction
times utilizing control measures specifications and monitoring
including dust palliative,regularly compliance during construction.
applied water, graveled or paved haul
roads, etc. Access or haul roads adjacent
to the project must be treated as
necessary to prevent off-site migration
and accumulation of dirt,soils,or other
materials which can subsequently
become entrained in ambient air, either
from construction related vehicles or
from any vehicle using adjacent affected
roads.
M-5. When transporting material during Project Engineer-Engineer to be
site preparation or construction, responsible for including air quality
measures shall be used to prevent mitigation measures in construction
materials from spilling or blowing onto specifications and monitoring
street and highways. Earthen materials, compliance during construction.
if transported, shall be adequately
sprayed with water or covered prior to
transport onto public roads. Vegetative
material shall be turned as necessary
prior to transport. Specific control
measures shall be noted on improvement
and/or grading plans.
Mitigation Measure Mitigation Monitoring Verification at Verification Verification at Comments
Planning/Design During Project
Construction Completion
M-6. If artifacts,paleontological or Project Engineer-Conditions of this
cultural, or unusual amounts of stone, mitigation measure will be included
bone, or shell are uncovered during in contract specifications and
construction activity, work shall be implemented, if necessary, by the
halted and a qualified archaeologist shall District during construction.
be consulted for an on-site review.
Mitigation measures, as recommended
by the archaeologist and approved by the
District in accordance with Appendix K
of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be
implemented prior to recommencement
of construction activity. If any bone
appears to be human, California law
mandates that the Nevada County
Coroner and the Native American
Heritage Commission be contacted.
M-7. Trees shall be planted on the Project Engineer- Engineer will be
downslope side of the tank in the fill responsible for including tree
slope areas. The number, location, and planting in construction plans and
spacing of the trees shall be determined confirming during construction.
following design of the grading plan and
determination of the extent of the fill
slope areas. Tree size and species shall
be selected so as to insure a high
likelihood of survival given the
competition from existing trees.
M-8. (Truckee General Plan Land Use General Manager, Water
Policy 2.3)-To provide for projected Superintendent, District Civil
population growth in an efficient Engineer-District to be responsible
manner, accommodate development at for infrastructure planning consistent
the highest densities in infill areas, with general plan goals for
consistent with the goals for environmental protection and land
environmental protection and land use use compatibility.
compatibility.
Mitigation Measure Mitigation Monitoring Verification at Verification Verification at Comments '
Planning/Design During Project
Construction Completion
M-9. (Truckee General Plan Land Use General Manager, Water
Policy 3.1)-Work with all special Superintendent, District Civil
districts, including the Tahoe-Truckee Engineer- District to be responsible
Unified School District,to ensure that for coordinating infrastructure
development within the Town is planning with all other special
coordinated with provision of services. districts.
i