The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8 Glenshire Transmission Pipeline CEQA Agenda Item # � u Memorandum To: Board of Directors From: Ed Taylor—Water Utility Manager Date: August 2, 2002 Subject: Glenshire Transmission Pipeline CEQA The District contracted with Garcia and Associates to prepare the CEQA document for the Glenshire Transmission Pipeline Project. All required steps have been completed. The Board of Directors held a Public Hearing on July 3, 2002. No comments were received. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review period is closed for the Glenshire Transmission Pipeline Project CEQA mitigated negative declaration. The State Clearing House was contacted and no comments were received from agencies on their distribution list. The final CEQA documents included with this report are: • Comments and Responses • Final Mitigated Negative Declaration • Notice of Determination • Final Environment Initial Study RECOMMENDATIONS: I recommend the Board of Directors take the following actions: a)Adopt of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration b)Approve the project for purposes of CEQA c)Authorize to filing the Notice of Determination with the Nevada County Clerk and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research d)Adopt a finding that the draft documents circulated and the Negative Declaration reflect the District's independent judgment • Page 1 Glenshilre Pipeline Installation Project ® i e SCH # 2002 3 r ut m r � i Pipeline Route - _y t f ti t g ..., !/y Prepared For: Truckee Donner Public Utility District 11570 Donner Pass Rd Truckee, CA 96160 'a�!.'e -:r3s3ar,. rfF336tt3^i iti§5###fr t#3#tf- i v � REGULATORY AGENCIES GANDA Prepared By: Garcia and Associates (GANDA) 1 1550 South Wells Avenue, Suite 104 Reno, NV 89502 Contact: Glenn Merron 775.329.1788 fax 775.329.7527 August 7, 2002 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 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. Glenshire Pipeline Installation Project Project Title 2002062039 Peter L. Holzmeister (5301587-3896 State Clearinghouse Number Responsible Agency Area Code/Telephone Contact Person Eastern end of the Town of Truckee Nevada County Project Location(include county) Project Description: The proposed project is to provide a water supply to the Glenshire residential community that will comply with the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act's(SDWA) maximum containment level (MCL)of 50 micrograms per liter(µg/L)for arsenic. The TDPUD is proposing to install approximately 12,600 linear feet of 16-inch water distribution pipeline to connect the Glenshire residential community with the TDPUD domestic water distribution system. This is to advise that the Truckee Donner Public Utility District has approved the described project on August 7,2002 and ®Lead Agency ❑Responsible Agency Date has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project f❑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[®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 District P O Sox 309 11570 Donner Pass Road Truckee CA 96160-0390 Peter L.Holzmeister,General Manager Date DFG Fee$1,2500 1 Date received for filing at OPR: NEGATIVE DECLARATION ( )Proposed (XX) Final NAME OF PROJECT: Glenshire Pipeline Installation Project LOCATION: Truckee, California Entity or Person Undertaking Project: (XX) Truckee Donner Public Utility District Other( ) Name: Address: Phone: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is to provide a water supply to the Glenshire residential community that will comply with the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act's (SDWA) maximum containment level (MCL) of 50 micrograms per liter (µg/L) for arsenic. The TDPUD is proposing to install approximately 12,600 linear feet of 16-inch water distribution pipeline to connect the Glenshire residential community with the TDPUD domestic water distribution system. 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 Study: Article V of the District's local environmental guidelines and Section 15063 of the FIR 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,revised to include comments, 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: potential significant effects: 3(b): Fugitive dust emissions shall be minimized at all times utilizing control measures including regularly applied water, and graveled and paved haul roads. When transporting material during site preparation or construction, measures shall 2 be used to prevent material from spilling or blowing onto streets and highways. Site cleared vegetation shall be treated by legal means other than open burning, including chipping, shredding, or grinding. Specific control measures shall be noted on grading plans. 4(a): The pipeline will be directionally bored under a vernally wet meadow to avoid impacts to wetland functions or values. Construction and silt fencing will be installed to prevent heavy equipment or potential sediment movement into the vernally wet meadow. P �'Y A botanical monitor will be on-site during construction near the meadow habitat to prevent indirect or accidental impacts to Plumas ivesia. Sensitive biological resources shall be protected by placing orange construction barrier fencing or stakes and flags. Fencing or other barriers will remain in place until all construction work that involves heavy equipment near the vernally wet meadow is complete. Raptor and migratory nest surveys will be conducted prior to construction activities. If an active nest is located,construction activities shall be limited in the vicinity of the nest based on recommendations by the surveying biologist and consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. 4(b)-(c): The pipeline will be directionally bored under a vernally wet meadow to avoid impacts to wetland functions or values. Impacts to conifer forest habitat will be minimized to the extent possible by working with landowners to avoid large trees. Should any mature pine trees be removed the TDPUD will replace at a 2:1 ratio these trees with a minimum 15-gallon trees of the same species on the project site. The proposed project will require the issuance of a State of California Regional Water Quality Control Waste Discharge permit. Issuance of this permit, and associated mitigation measures will ensure the project complies with environmental regulatory standards. 5 (a)-(d): The TDPUD will have a cultural/historic resource surface inspection conducted by a qualified archeologist prior to any site disturbance. Written documentation of the inspection by the archeologist shall be provided to the TDPUD. Additionally, in the event that evidence of cultural resources is encountered during installation of the pipeline, a registered archeologist would be notified to record the location of such resources and gather available information. All construction work at the site would be halted during this investigation and plans for alternate locations would be developed to avoid disruption of the archaeological and historical resources. 15(a): Traffic control and lane closure plans will be submitted to the Town of Truckee for approval as part of the encroachment permit process. Date: By: Peter L. Holzmeister,General Manager 3 Truckee Donner Public Utility District FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY (Prepared pursuant to Article V of the Environmental Guidelines of the District) I. Project Title: Glenshire Pipeline Installation Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District P.O. Box 309 Truckee, CA 96160-0309 3. Contact person and phone number: Peter Holzmeister, General Manager (530) 582-3916 4. Project Location: Town of Truckee, CA 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District P.O. Box 309 Truckee, CA 96160-0309 6. General Plan Designation: Varies 7. Zoning: Varies 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.) PROJECT PURPOSE The proposed project is to provide a water supply to the Glenshire residential community that will comply with the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act's (SDWA) maximum containment level (MCL) of 50 micrograms per liter (µgll) for arsenic. The proposed project will ensure compliance with the more stringent arsenic concentration level of 10 µgll that must be met by January 1, 2006. t BACKGROUND The initial construction of the Glenshire Mutual Water Company (GMWC) water system occurred in the early 1970's. Up until 2002 the GMWC provided potable water, exclusively from groundwater wells, for this service area. The Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD) acquired the GMWC in 2002 and is now responsible for operating the water system. Some of the Glenshire water system's wells contain high concentrations of arsenic. Recent arsenic testing indicates that several wells fail to meet the 1986 SDWA maximum containment level of 50 µg/l. These wells have been removed from active duty. As a result, the Glenshire water system has struggled to provide an adequate supply of water that complies with the appropriate regulations. The installation of the proposed pipeline will allow the TDPUD to provide a water supply to Glenshire that complies with current and future drinking water regulations for arsenic. PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project site is located on the USGS 7.5-minute Martis Peak quadrangle within the eastern portion of the Town of Truckee, Nevada County, California. The proposed pipeline alignment runs from the Featherstone 5988 storage tank eastward to the intersection of Glenshire Drive and Dorchester Drive within the Glenshire residential community (Figure 1). The total linear distance of the pipeline is approximately 12,600 feet. The primary project access points to the project site are off Old Airport Road, and along Glenshire Drive. The project area is bounded by rural land with residential land use on the eastern most end of the pipeline alignment within the Glenshire subdivision. Antelope bitterbrush, and conifer forest of Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) dominate the project area west of Glenshire Drive. One small portion of the alignment neesse will be directionally bored under a vernally wet meadow near the old Truckee airport A population of the California ative Plant Society I listed Plumas ivesia (Ivesia sericoleuca) occurs in this meadow approximately 50 feet north of the proposed pipeline alignment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The TDPUD is proposing to install approximately 12,600 linear feet of 16-inch water distribution pipeline to connect the Glenshire residential community with the TDPUD domestic water distribution system. Approximately 6,000 linear feet of pipeline extending from the Featherstone 5988 storage tank eastward to Glenshire Drive will be installed mainly in undeveloped gently rolling terrain. An approximate 150-foot wide vernally wet meadow is located within this section of the project area. A imate n nz acres of we'-A nm -'1'he pipeline will be directionally bored snider the meadow to avoid impacts lo-eFes>snwetland functions and values. would net be adversely impae &d-by pfej��The remaining approximate 6,600 linear feet of pipeline along Glenshire Drive from southeast of the Glenshire Bridge to the intersection of Dorchester Drive will be installed within the road right-of-way either along the shoulder of the existing paved road (approximately 4,300 linear feet) or within the road pavement (approximately 2,300 linear feet). The pipeline 2 installation along Genshire Bridge will be routed through the interior of the bridge and no impacts to the Truckee River will result from the proposed project. The proposed project will require the issuance of a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Wate Quality Certir: a;ie, a State of California Regional Water Quality Control Waste Discharge permit, Issuance of tlnsese permits, and associated mitigation measures will ensure the project complies with environmental and-cultural regulatory standards. 9. PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahoman Region U.S. A......oaf gmeer- Town of Truckee Truckee Sanitation District Tahoe Truckee Sanitation District 3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ® Air Quality ® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards&Hazardous ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/ Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ® Transportation/ Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On behalf of this initial evaluation: [ I 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [XI 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 revisions have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. [ ) I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" effect on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [ I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier FIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier FIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Peter L. Holzmeister, General Manager Truckee Donner Public Utility District Printed Name For 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, a brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited ❑ ❑ ❑ to,trees,rock croppings. and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ ❑ ❑ the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would ❑ ❑ ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Response to questions: (a)—(d): There would be no impact to aesthetics as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure(s)-None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required 5 �? AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether Potentially Less Than Less Than No impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental Significant Significant Significant Impact effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Impact With Impact Evaluation and Site assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Mitigation California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use Incorporated in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime farmland, Unique farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to ❑ ❑ ❑ their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? Response to questions: (a)-(c): There would be no impact to agriculture as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure(s)-None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required 3. AIR QUALITY -- Where applicable,the significance etiteria Potentially Less Than Less Than No established by the applicable air quality management or air Significant Significant Significant Impact pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following Impact With Impact determinations. Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ❑ quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ ® ❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑ ❑ ❑ criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ people? 6 Response to questions: (a): The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. (b): Construction activities have the potential to generate PMIO emissions through the release of fugitive dust associated with grading and excavation activities. In order to reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level, fugitive dust emissions shall be minimized at all times utilizing control measures including regularly applied water, and graveled and paved haul roads_ When transporting material during site preparation or construction, measures shall be used to prevent material from spilling or blowing onto streets and highways. Site cleared vegetation shall be treated by legal means other than open burning,including chipping, shredding,or grinding. (c)-(e): There would be no impact to these issues of air quality as a result of the proposed project. No unusual air quality impacts would result fiom implementation of the project. Mitisation Measure(s) -The following mitigation measures(s) shall be incorporated into the project: S(b). Fugitive dust emissions shall be minimized at all times utilizing control measures including regularly applied water. and graveled and paved haul roads. When transporting material during site preparation or construction, measures shall be used to prevent material from spilling or blowing onto streets and highways. Site cleared vegetation shall be treated by legal means other than open burning, including chipping,shredding, or grinding. Specific control measures shall be noted on grading plans. MitiHation Monitoring-Truckee Donner Public Utility District 4. BIOLOGICALRESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through ❑ ® ❑ ❑ habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands ❑ ® ❑ ❑ as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native residents or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ ❑ biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Response to questions: 7 The biological resources responses are based on field reconnaissance and habitat mapping provided by Garcia and Associates biological resources consultants. Field work included a wetland delineation, special-status species survey, literature review and consultation with resource specialists. (a): A search of the California Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB) and review of resource databases indicates that eight plant, one fish, one amphibian, twelve bird, and twelve mammal species could potentially occur within the project site or in the vicinity of the project site. Surveys for special status species were conducted by qualified biologists on May 3 and May 17. 2002. A population of Plumes ivesia (]vesia seri(oleuca), was observed approximately 150 feet outside of the project footprint. Plumas ivesia is a California Native Plant Society 1B species that is not protected tinder the state or federal endangered species acts. No other special status species were observed dining survey work. Implementation of the mitigation measures outlined below will ensure that potential impacts to Plumas ivesia would be less than significant. Numerous raptor species forage and nest in various habitats throughout the Sierra Nevada. Raptor nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and by Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. The Jeffrey pine forest habitat within the project site support potential nesting habitat for several raptor species. Disturbance to an active raptor nest could occur during construction activities. Disturbing an active raptor nest would violate Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the Department of Fish and Game Code and would be considered a potentially significant impact. Migratory bird habitat also exists in the project site. The nests of all migratory birds are protected under the MBTA, which makes it illegal to destroy any active migratory bird nest. Numerous migratory bird species have the potential to nest within the project site. Implementation of the mitigation measure outlined below would reduce this impact to less than significant. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on rare, endangered, threatened, or other special-status species identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFG or USFWS. (b)-(c): A routine wetland delineation was performed by a qualified wetland delineation specialist on May 17,2002. pipchge w--ill he dtrecoonaliv bored under a vernslli ciet mcado" to avoid impacts to wetland function and val tes. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified below will ensure that the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive habitat in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by CDFG or USFWS. The TDPUD is committed to minimizing the removal,if any, of mature pine trees along the proposed western end of the alignment by working closely with the landowners. (d): The proposed construction activities will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native residents or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. During the course of the construction period, proposed to begin in mid July and extend until October 15, 2002. limited short-term interference to wildlife movement may occur,however not to such a degree that it would be considered to be a significant impact. Any wildlife encountered during construction activities will be allowed to leave the area unharmed, or herded a safe direction away from the project site. Wildlife migration could occur relatively undisturbed during non-working hours,in the evenings, and on weekends. (e)-(f): The project will not conflict with local policies protecting biological resources or conflict with the provisions of an HCP,NCCP, or other approved conservation plan. Mitigation Measure(s)-The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project: 4(a): A tin fool tvide :ee a.. ,run .,;.w t, .;,.,;1, a i t, ,. project a -eon pl�tt2--arrsn�-c=in;4E�-Fivvn-1}rrtt-ter--#t r� er-st�tkv-� ..,,a t7`... r-E?�iitg-oz�tlu=t+et=s-svil _ . . . 8 c-o- -T he l,neline will tie direcoontd!v bo ed under the rernaliv wet ineadiw to avoid rmpiets to wetland fitncuons of value , Construction and silt fencinvz will ba installed to prevent heavy equipment or sediment movement into the v c lan d. A botanical monitor will be on site donne the boring profess to prevent indirect or accidental mpact�to I'lurnas ntsia. Scn,itive biolagical resources shall be proic tcd by pla i tr orancc con.aTruction barrier £encine or ,tapes and fl a,, Penci tz or other barriers will remain in place unv,l all umstructwrl work that intik)Nes hca v equipment near the vernally wet meadow is corn flcic. Raptor and migratory nest surveys will be conducted prior to construction activities. If an active nest is located, construction activities shall be limited in the vicinity of the nest based on recommendations by the surveying biologist and consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. 4(b)-(c): ' - nchwpkF £ flarrent 41rat-teps4 and Prior to -Tlw pipeline will be direc€ionally bored under the vernally wet n eadovv to avoid impacts to wetland functions or values. Impacts to conifer forest habitat will be minimized to the extent possible by working with landowners to avoid large trees. Should any mature pine trees be removed the TDPUD will replace at a 2:1 ratio these trees with a minimum 15 gallon trees of the same species on the project site. The proposed project will require the issuance of a ` " ^` P p P l 9 —^r,�r,�.a,. htY C-11,Te,uhm State of California Regional letter Quality Control Waste Discharge permit. "> *>7 i - �v Engineers�tx�,, c,.,a Ana permit. Issuance of thisese permits, and associated nit ganon measures will ensure the project complies with environmental regulatory standards. Mitittation Monitoring: Truckee Donner Public Utility District 9 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ® ❑ ❑ historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ® ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.59 e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ® ❑ ❑ resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside ❑ ® ❑ ❑ of formal cemeteries? Response to questions: The cultural resources responses are based on a state record search provided by Garcia and Associates cultural resources consultants. and included literature review and consultation with cultural resource sources. (a)-(d): According to the results from the North Central Information Center (NCIC File No. NEV-02-40) records search conducted by Garcia and Associates. the entire area has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. A 1997 report entitled Glenshire Drive Bridge Replacernent Project, Nevada CountyCalifornia , Caf (U.S. Forest Service Report No. 05-17-1170) by Susan Lindstrom includes a total of nine cultural resources. These include: GB-1 (Lincoln/Victory Highway: Old Highway 40); GB-2 (Glenshire Drive Bridge/Caltrans Bridge No. 17C-44); GB-3 (CA-NEV-5551-1/Transcontinental Railroad): GB-4 (Historic charcoal surface oven): GB-5 (Prehistoric site/FS# 05- 17-57-569): GB-6 (Historic refuse scatter): GB-7 (Historic utility line segment): GB-8 (Network of dirt roads): and GB-9 (Historic refuse deposit). The California Native American Heritage Commission checked their sacred lands file and reported that their check failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. While there are no known archeological resources along the proposed pipeline alignment,it would be a significant impact if such resources were present. and were displaced or demolished during construction activities. The TDPUD will have a cultural/historic resource surface inspection conducted by a qualified archeologist prior to any site disturbance. Written documentation of the inspection by the archeologist shall be provided to the TDPUD. Additionally, in the event that evidence of cultural resources is encountered during installation of the pipeline, a registered archeologist would be notified to record the location of such resources and gather available information. .All construction work at the site would be halted during this investigation and plans for alternate locations would be developed to avoid disruption of the archaeological and historical resources. These mitigation measures will reduce this potential impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) - The TDPUD will have a cultu-al/historic resource surface inspection conducted by a qualified archeologist prior to any site disturbance. Written documentation of the inspection by the archeologist shall be provided to the TDPUD. Additionally, in the event that evidence of cultural resources is encountered during installation of the pipeline, a registered archeologist would be notified to record the location of such resources and gather available information. All construction work at the site would be halted during this investigation and plans for alternate locations would be developed to avoid disruption of the archaeological and historical resources. Mitigation Monitorinp-Truckee Donner Public Utility District 10 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ effects including the risk of loss injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known Fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ effects including the risk of loss injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? c) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ effects including the risk of loss injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? d) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that ❑ ❑ ❑ would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? g) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the ❑ ❑ ❑ uniform Building Code (1994). creating substantial risks to life or property? h) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic ❑ ❑ ❑ tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Response to questions: (a)-(c): The project is limited to standard pipeline installation, and there is no aspect of the project that would expose people or property to increased risk during strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or liquefaction. No faults in the area have been designated as Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones, a designation used by the state to identify significant hazard zones along faults.A geotechnical report cited in the DE1R prepared for the Town of Truckee for the Old Greenwood Planned Development, located immediately west of the project site, concluded that the most likely seismic hazard on the project site would be ground shaking. Other hazards, such as lateral spreading, lurch cracking,regional subsidence and liquefaction,are unlikely to occur due to local soil water conditions. (d);(f): Landslides can result from weak soils on steep slopes and from earthquakes. The topography of the project site is gentle rolling terrain or relatively flat ground. The information available concerning potential earthquaking 11 indicates that landslides on gentle slopes represent minimal hazards and therefore installation of the pipeline would not result in a significant impact. (e): During excavation the majority of trenching spoil material will be screened for backfilling. Unwanted material would be hauled away. . N-efMiliv 'Apt mpadov. will he mehpiled dorm,,, he installation of the pipenin, and oeplaeed_Ors"� „pazrtie:R � The project activities do not present significant potential for soil erosion and i ,pacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant. (g): The project includes standard trenching operations,which do not include introduction of population or property onto the project sites,therefore potential soil constraints would be less than significant. (h): No demands for wastewater disposal systems are included in the project,therefore no impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measure(s)-None Required Mitigation Monitoring -None Required 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handles hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airpon or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? B For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are 12 adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Response to questions: (a)-(h): The proposed project does not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, therefore no impacts are anticipated. The project does not include any sites within an airport land use plan. No component of the project activities would impair or interfere with emergency response or evacuation, or expose people or structures to wildland fires. Mitigation Measure(s)-None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required Potentially Less Than Less Than No S. HYDROLOGY AND WATER Q ALITY -- Would the Significant Significant Significant Impact project: Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑ area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑ area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner,which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the ❑ ❑ ❑ capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on ❑ ❑ ❑ a federal Flood hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place structure within a 100-year flood hazard area, which would ❑ ❑ ❑ impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 13 j)Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Response to questions: (a): The TDPUD will install the pipeline in accordance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Waste Discharge - - �e ni '04 process, that will include mitigation measures for the protection of water quality and would, therefore, not cause any degradation to water quality within the area. (b): No dater demands are associated with the proposed project, and the proposed project will not impact groundwater quality or quantity. (c)—(I): The proposed project will not alter drainage within the area. Consequently, the proposed activities would not change absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff, nor will it impact water quality in the area. (g)-(i): No housing or structures are proposed as part of this project.therefore no impact is anticipated. (j):No portion of the project area is subject to the possibility of seiche,tsunami,or mudflow,therefore no impact is anticipated. Mitigation Measure(s)-None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a)Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation ❑ ❑ ❑ of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ community conservation plan? Response to questions: (a)—(b): No changes to existing zoning or land use are proposed with this project. There would be no impact to any land use and planning as a result of the proposed project. (c): The proposed project area is not affected by a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan, and will therefore not impact such plans_ Mitigation Measure(s)-None Required 14 Mitigation Monitoring-None Required 10. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? to Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Response to questions: (a)-(b): No demands for energy or mineral resources are proposed with this project, therefore no impact to mineral resources would occur as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure(s)-None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required 11. NOISE — Would the project result in: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ❑ ❑ ❑ standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome ❑ ❑ ® ❑ vibration noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? l) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project expose people residing or working in the project area to 15 project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Response to questions: (a):(c): There will be no impact to these issues related to noise as a result of the proposed project. (b),(d): During construction activities, noise levels would increase temporarily during pipeline installation and increased truck traffic on area roadways. This noise increase would be of short duration, and would occur during the daylight hours of 7 a.m. - 6 p.m. Monday-Friday, and 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. on Saturday. Pipeline installation plans shall include reference to these restricted hours of construction. This impact would be restricted to the construction period only and is considered less than significant. (e)-(f): The Project site is not within an airport land use plan. Mitigation Measure(s)-None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required 12. POPULATION -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g.. through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Response to questions: (a)-(c):The project activities would not interfere with, m create demands on police or fire protection, schools,parks, or other public facilities. Mitigation Measure(s)-None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required 16 13. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the project result in substantial Potentially Less Than Less Than No adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or Significant Significant Significant Impact physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or Impact With Impact physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which Mitigation could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain Incorporated acceptable service rations, response time or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a)Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b)Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ c)Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ d)Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ e)Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Response to questions: (a)—{e):No aspect of the proposed project would interfere with, or create a demand for,public services. Mitigation Measure(s)-None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required 14. RECREATION -- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and ❑ ❑ ❑ regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Response to questions: (a)—(b): The project will not impact existing or proposed neighborhood parks, regional parks, or recreational facilities. Mitigation Measure(s)-None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required 17 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-- Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase on either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads.or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in traffic patterns, including either an increase ❑ ❑ ❑ in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.. sharp ❑ ❑ ❑ El curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.. farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ I)Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ alternative transportation(e.g..bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? Response to questions: (a): During construction, there will be an increase in vehicle trips to the project site associated with the contractor's activities. Traffic control and lane closure plans will be submitted to the Town of Truckee for approval as part of the encroachment permit process to mitigate this impact to less than significant. (b)-{g): The project would not result in physical changes to roadways, and therefore. would not result in impacts related to transportation. circulation, parking, or transportation policies,plans,or programs. Mitigation Measure(s) 15(a): Traffic control and lane closure plans will be submitted to the Town of Truckee for approval as part of the encroachment permit process. Mitigation Monitoring-Truckee Donner Public Utility District 18 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-- Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the constriction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ n-eatinent facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑ ❑ ❑ existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, ❑ ❑ ❑ which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑ related to solid waste. Response to questions: (a)-(e): The proposed project does not require wastewater treatment. (f)-(g): The proposed project does not require solid waste disposal. Mitigation Measure(s)-None Required Mitigation Monitoring-None Required 19 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ enN ironment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plan or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but ❑ ❑ ❑ cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probably future projects)? Does the project have environment effects which will cause ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? Response to questions: (a): With implementation of recommended mitigation,the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of any wildlife species nor create adverse effects on human beings. The proposed project is comprised of standard construction activities to install a water supply pipeline. This project will not adversely effect any species identified as a candidate for sensitive, or special status species,in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by California Depamnew of Fish and Game or United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (b): The proposed project would not result in any cumulative impacts, or would be so small that it makes only a de mininms contribution which is considered not cumulatively considerable. (c): Refer to discussion in item "a",above. REPORT PREPARATION This Initial Study was prepared under contract with the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by Garcia and Associates. Principal author was Glenn Merron. Prepared by: Date: 20 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Glenshire Pipeline Installation Project MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM August 7, 2002 The following Mitigation Monitoring Program checklist will be adopted by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District for monitoring and documenting compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. Included in the checklist is a listing of the mitigation measure, party responsible for ensuring implementation, timing process, and date of completion. The impact and mitigation numbering represents the corresponding section of the 1S/MND from which the reader may obtain further background information on the scope of the impact and basis for the mitigation. This checklist shall be retained by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District. List of Mitigation Measures and Date of Completion The following mitigation measures have been included in the project to avoid potential significant effects. Air Quality Mitigation Measure (3b): Fugitive dust emissions shall be minimized at all times utilizing control measures including regularly applied water, and graveled and paved haul roads. When transporting material during site preparation or construction, measures shall be used to prevent material from spilling or blowing onto streets and highways. Site cleared vegetation shall be treated by legal means other than open burning, including chipping, shredding, or grinding. Specific control measures shall be noted on grading plans. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Truckee Donner Public Utility District Monitoring Agency: Truckee Donner Public Utility District Timing Process: During construction activity Date of Completion: Biological Resources Mitigation Measure (4a): The pipeline will be directionally bored under a vernally wet meadow to avoid impacts to wetland functions or values. Construction and silt fencing will be installed to prevent heavy equipment or potential sediment movement into the vernally wet meadow. A botanical monitor will be on-site during constriction near the meadow habitat to prevent indirect or accidental impacts to Plumas ivesia. Sensitive biological resources shall be protected by placing orange construction barrier fencing or stakes and flags. Fencing or other barriers will remain in Truckee Donner Public Utility District August 2002 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program place until all construction work that involves heavy equipment near the vernally wet meadow is complete. Raptor and migratory nest surveys will be conducted prior to construction activities. If an active nest is located, construction activities shall be limited in the vicinity of the nest based on recommendations by the surveying biologist and consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Truckee Donner Public Utility District Monitoring Agency: Truckee Donner Public Utility District Timing Process: During construction activity Date of Completion: Biological Resources Mitigation Measure (4b-c): The pipeline will be directionally bored under a vernally wet meadow to avoid impacts to wetland functions or values. Impacts to conifer forest habitat will be minimized to the extent possible by working with landowners to avoid large trees. Should any mature pine trees be removed the TDPUD will replace at a 2:1 ratio these trees with a minimum 15-gallon trees of the same species on the project site. The proposed project will require the issuance of a State of California Regional Water Quality Control Waste Discharge permit. Issuance of this permit, and associated mitigation measures will ensure the project complies with environmental regulatory standards. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Truckee Donner Public Utility District Monitoring Agency: Truckee Donner Public Utility District Timing Process: Prior to construction activity Date of Completion: Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure (5a-d): The TDPUD will have a cultural/historic resource surface inspection conducted by a qualified archeologist prior to any site disturbance. Written documentation of the inspection by the archeologist shall be provided to the TDPUD. Additionally, in the event that evidence of cultural resources is encountered during installation of the pipeline, a registered archeologist would be notified to record the location of such resources and gather available information. All construction work at the site would be halted during this investigation and plans for Truckee Donner Public Utility District August 2002 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prograru alternate locations would be developed to avoid disruption of the archaeological and historical resources. Traffec Mitigation Measure (15a): Traffic control and lane closure plans will be submitted to the Town of Truckee for approval as part of the encroachment permit process. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Truckee Donner Public Utility District Monitoring agency: Truckee Donner Public Utility District Timing Process: Prior to construction activity Date of Completion: Truckee Dormer Public Utility District August 2002 Mitigation A4onitoing and Reporting Program r�a STATE OF CALIFORNIA 411" Governor's Office of Planning and Research a 07 State Clearinghouse 0. Gray Davis Tal Finney GOVERNOR July 12,2002 INTERIM DIRECTOR Peter Holzmeister Truckee Donner Public utility District RECD J U L 1 2002 P.O.Box 309 1 Truckee,CA 96160 Subject: Glenshire Pipeline Installation SCH#: 2002062039 Dear Peter Holzmeister: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on July 11,2002,and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project,please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, Terry Roberts Director,State Clearinghouse I400 TENTH MEET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 9r6-323-3018 www.Opaca.gOv -ows... . " Document Details Report - State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2002062039 Project Title Glenshire Pipeline Installation Lead Agency Truckee Donner Public Utility District Type Neg Negative Declaration Description The proposed project is to provide a water supply to the Glenshire subdivision that will comply with drinking water regulations for arsenic. Approximately 12,600 feet of pipeline will be installed to connect the Glenshire water system to the Truckee Donner Public Utility District. Lead Agency Contact Name Peter Holzmeister Agency Truckee Donner Public Utility District Phone 530-582-3916 Fax email Address P.O. Box 309 City Truckee State CA Zip 96160 Project Location County. Nevada City Truckee Region Cross Streets Glenshire Drive Parcel No, Township 17N Range 17E Section 6 Base Proximity to: Highways Airports Tahoe-Truckee Railways UPRR Waterways Truckee River Schools Land Use Varies Project issues Aesthetic/Visual;Agricultural Land;Air Quality;Archaeologic-Historic; Flood Plain/Flooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic; Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance: Public Services; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading;Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation;Vegetation;Water Quality; Wetland/Riparian;Wildlife Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game, Region 2;Department of Forestry and Fire Agencies Protection; Department of Parks and Recreation: Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 3; Department of Health Services; State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water Program; Regional Water Quality Control Bd- Region 6 (So Lake Tahoe); Native American Heritage Commission: Public Utilities Commission;State Lands Commission;Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Date Received 0611 2/2 0 0 2 Start of Review 06/12/2002 End of Review 07/11/2002 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. . . .. -% a-ZS- a :air M FR< I 7:21/110,496?GM 9 F ---- a @" Governor's Cif1�i e n:'pIannkg and Research Is ) � Itat6� Clnringhou?, UrayDatis Nfinnu LOVa.3N08 July 15,2m ahT=aru mznrTryc Few Flulxmelmor )F1111A&.a Pnbtm UvlmyJJir.lilt P.O.FArx'1pY '7naekrs,t49fii511 �bJwc Ganehimlheelireltatell,tiec Sr`I:c: :C030CiZ039 ➢rar 1•rfea fli,Iameiater: Tfw rnnloerd com.nnnr{.)W,yvm'.'redF;i•cUrtaerm:w Wu @'rrdj recBlVtld by!::G:uefp C7auiuq!mw� aft.the cod oC the 3mm roncw Fkr ud,•,41ch ilosod no ls'1v 11,20M2 ete the.`oswaeding 0,rwc v.,,,neptF rn ynr bttwse they pmvidc,nrn-rn.a„ju.ur mite ISSW mar n,n111d be addrevccd is year hna1 cnyirnmm�r:rul docmneet. 7(x-Calilimda$aey[pnmcnfef Qi:el y A.t dop=requu m I ead Agencies w reepood to:ate cnrr:mcars 1')r,w��nt,we crlcourrigo you n�:nre.,tp.uWc dtac SOd;tlenW comments inp��w tna1 ens%d0amentW doeum,j and w;:unefdeP dlcn!hrrr->,,rpliµst.imd action on fhgprnpn.r f fvcjn, Flea:tl ctlmece thc.timrc Clenpinghoveem(9[o)A45.0613 if}vu trove any gnG9m. r Me[uiud d14 env$pnetenlel MYirw}gncesf, ha'+c➢el rJ.tl,4 tuiejinv rhr nhpve nt dprcy�r,yl•,n�:rvk.,a Oar tcu,Wt 3MM Clmr,.Ihrxue iiwnb,n f2(f02)620.3J)m)un oltituiiu dlls off1C0. Sluvely. 3e -p1hWmer.state('.Ira6;iyhoure rt Fc:o:uroea Agency t-tH F;,ry fi5s'+ 7M': ,t pi u„ "Z t lino rtaSkt sTxGei CO,UOk N=J �A;_0.d!CS?ia�,Gn::M:hld}n nJRt_-irwn T5-+nvknq k62 sib?0-$afP www.uLi.®.gc� aF�e I'3—'::S—I JCr✓' ' :d.s'h9 Ff'iCtt �"'.3 7Vpv fr^F TUe; 1. 95 2 T:2ilGi, 7:21i°t9. 4962 20°s9 Cal ora�a gional Water Quality( Control Board %Ooo E.I&koa Libot.kA Region AlLiktTah,vtH ev�9Sa6lt�TahouCali(�aid�lS9 trapDeos .r'ra�rdig -PIN(20544J9 FAX(5301iiQ21i Galrrrnx to,c�r�h�,Jluaw sgt�.x�v`rrtr� rrti•io,auoz L.f�w— j O�r�_��1 ik1�r I 5 Rrnrr C'lcatinglk'ruse {`i/t— �-��I Jil(- 1 2 .pQ,. ' i�l� 1400 Tenth Street Sncramamto,CA 9591a Attu:Katie Shtdte lcurt, CONT NTSoNLNITIALSTT;-rY)l'10,3YOMN$l:ATTVEDli:CLARATTONFnR GLENS(l1RE YTPFG,iNU LNJ'f:\[.LAT7O*1 TRo fI C 4,T72T7C3iLE,NFv,ALeA t uUNTX (Ff Tfiq 2i)02UG2Q3y) An Initial Cfidy;k tupuaadNegm vn 1 kc aratica(,IS)prepared by Umcia and-A;aociates for the. AbOvc-cited prgiaet was n^.rr.3vcd;.v the l.ahontan nrgSonrl water Quality Control nnaxi (ReyVAAI 13amdj nn bloc.13,2M^.. Slue iczce-pxxweurc Fur�icmej T]oud stvlL.:urnrnr✓rts on Lle 1S. FRO.IECT D>S("RTI.1'iVN The Truckee,Dtmner Nblir,Utilitxa )Wri0t(''DKM)proposes to install apmnximatedy 12,(mo linurr;eet of 7 G-trscix watt'all Ulb¢tkrn PlIVIts tO connmct the Glanahim rosidcajial uummurdty withrhe T1.Yk'UllriomeadcwatnrJistibuiunsrstam. Thcproiecticner+.3: uywn.iin�x-I'D7'rUU to provide to thn tesldeatiat uutr�tuai et'taarer teat wmpiiec•.virh citrrcm Azad pc�rdurh drtAking water supplyrcµul.tiunc. The prnjrre is luoate 1 in the eanm portion of the Towa of Trucker.itt Nouada(:olmty(Sncti07u 1,S,and 6,Tmrmshii>11RN,kange 17A). Tficpipeline a7igtmrw-zt nms from thr Pe¢ther,:amo i9SP,atrmag<.mnk W+aatw:¢d to tlu;iu,i�zxct;f(o4 of lTIW7L111rE TTnvr.and UOtuhestar T)nvc. 127e prrhwsed pipeline ntiRtx:�ent will cross aA appmxinzatc 1SU-foot wide carrion Of v;etl and and cause ten)gola. ittr-laeew in ipproximatt6,U.o3 arse ofwc9nnd. Tho u.npowi wjtwt area is lnenrpd"itluo thm l'ntekce Rt'vcx Hydrologic Uuil- The ReEinnnt Doad hae adopted ntld'nttiplrurerxrt a'Narrr Quality Control Fier(I aUiA pizn)Par the Lahontan R4—om which includes nvmuflea.l not tarrativt valet.quality nhjrstivrs far surike told gmwi wntm TA cn w,e lat%,,Qa,gUnlitp ol;jcei-ive5 ire met,the pegianet k3orml cvaluatan diwbat Rc Dom faoilldeq end land j,elt,Trien a that}taw-thepvtexltial m affmr sarfacc or Ipout]d a'Alm aed xvav iµ:rµ,cvwtc.d;.xc:ha&o.vyuiramcros andhxr wAtional Pat,mw Aascharge Flimtination Systam(! ME-S)px,,,itt to rasrric:the amornt of pxt lluiuuu that can be di.vnhnrged to lane[Or atssf¢e<ivatrr. Couatcucidon ainr while iatte iS a ptnentinl tar cmdri oalthan materinle or otlter was(es m be discTt .• ed to wk[tics of tha Arare am muoug the types of discharges that may 6c re"led. tr`ndi/orniarF",xvvanxs+eMl Pivdatdivrs,4geary ae orwm ch,•Ilnit.Adx�UlVontAU mbl.r..Ey r:aiAruan mi m rp Ws vpn.ur6i,+anw o-adnnao mcv+y co,.w,nv�.,^ nm n rmv m .anole vny day ami r.h,.amnyn�.Mi ,,.y,u.,,. ,.ow,r=cat caw oto n nnpnvww.xam.O.rA.Fov I3-2S-11ri-f3 11 :60.7-,jt FROM f'.d "rarf"T 7 ^1iNc.d9°l7,G2C914 r 3 ?. CN ENTS L" lam Prah i�lull!ICal f-11m the infuMl Onprese&d in the IS whether e. segmentufthepipeal�eprt�jectis 'ocst€�withiaaq�butarytr7theTnl:�k^•e�iv�r, 1'»lessan exemplioa it,granied,for 1lasin P!.M,pl AhibF18 the&6rcrgr of sotld and liquid waste mw.ri ats incturJing,hm nor limlccd vJ,xTAI,MIt,any,sand,end eirS.mi u,gvdq and earthen mammals to Inds withm Lho 100-year fW fr5iin of the lruukec River or any Tribtttary to tile'1'ruekee River The N ehrnid indicate Nvh¢tilcr;hu:WW'Iftnd prUposed to be iatpadtd by the piprline project iq a tributary to the Tru:.kee Rivrr. Polentisl ldhulatios ino1,lAn ctaticv+aed pNssar Czecka. TfTh wetLutd is trihntaryto dte 7",racket.River,an ecempticw Cur the project mny hr,dn+nted Jt 4etWin ronditionc a'r ran'.,+s denr.i'�.i or..pagce#.d-4[hmuEh 4,i•6 oftlac tfaxLl Ylan.(®nalosen). w�cta-The pmpn ut I-iort imIuSw manchinglhrm,,gh an approximate 150-!bat see;iUn of u-etlamd,btrt doe;at't in'ticare whetter an aiteawtive 3zrnmmt wuid he mmd to avold welmdimpacts, the Ruing an ac?uces a nv net iose pnfiry for wedamd p)oreetiutl,including tcm}rirtal and permanent loss of uj;dacid value sad ftmcfivn. 'I hr.),.1.'moat indicate haw c<y4landa inipacr;;w;11 avoidod and minitnili'.d,aa9 far any uelavuidabte imlwcis,whet railiAattvn�ueaa'wes tnti be reyuircd tr comprnwur ant oliu4 temporal andr-rmaa:.Jrt lossca. The I3 clues non explain the hays fes the r:tav^:cs aligttmev,or indicate µ'bcther;mtrther alignmrrr ronld minimi?r.nt'P,11l6tna[c wml l:ittr:tmT veex.,1.,n.'kyki.s fhc IS tea;trot llydiucm wt+'tnrr dl4:l t]all'/C inaralleuc,a,nctlxrtla were cnnsidrt'rd,atch as aawtiannl drghng,bore and ,,kiog,w uthar rmc0wds,tact amld hr,us':d a�-ridtminitsire impa¢:Ps. 7Tx R.epunal Board will tequir cnmpersarory nti&gatiun for a.;rraarporal disturbance sad pasmanrnt wetland oars,typiudly at s rgtc ui'l.5 tot The TS'indicates Coat dis nrhrd netlaad areas will be retorcd M rcar.tabk prr.project etas. Based on rltc pm'imsed disitubartce.an additional D.OI S acres(750 square feri) re.';torea,at a atinimcva,tv aicrlucdsiy of Fart tic proposed iw1wts. rho 7.should be rcund to eddfer„le.WednndtyYmtCCtit+nt],iiernutnls, and,equimdwitigAtioa.ncnsut o mast be sparite.tl Wn aDemciatc the oppom:ni;y'n comnu ut as water quality slams rrdated to the proytunad p+•�i.:W. If you hnvr any qucsi,ira it coltmient=,plrn.sr resntar:t me et{530Y312 0113Z R nrejFl :;nntt �t�aarrt 9utaen+innt Northm Widershuds t3q'aaYJ';UYcnd.irc Plprfla.CE�rA camrr,.t,It, II'ccWioE:flrveirloc 9lpejia¢t ' C+171flVrnfr•"�Itlr,I'ORt =4d PratN!NOM Agency l'ac c:mg.ulydl:-ee 6clw nilim,eiu�,k,..,i`..,.��uJ>+dm vsas m use rvwremae aam�v n„..uumn:mvayee,:.Iror e�,>t ar ante amn ym van+.m+re e.:mvd nna ev.vas erne cna,u.„ns Weexae ar hm:,:Uv.-x.yr•yep.ca.¢n. Rer�elc<Fam �i