Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnviromental Checklist Form TRUCKEE D011NER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT Initial Study: Environmental Checklist Form --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 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 purpose 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 (ug11) for arsenic. The proposed project will also ensure compliance with the more stringent arsenic concentration level of 10 ugtl that must be met by January 1, 2006. 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 ug/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 within Martis Valley located on the USGS. 7.5-minute Mattis Peak quadrangle within the eastern portion of the Town of Truckee, Nevada County, California (Figure 1). 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 pipeline will extend from latitudes 39.3451 N to 39.3621 N and from longitudes 120.1403 W to 120.0903 W within Townships 17N and 18N, Range 17E, and Sections 6, 5, 32, and 33. The total linear distance of the pipeline is approximately 12,600 feet. The project area is dominated by an eastside scrub of antelope bitterbrush and eastside conifer forest of Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), ponderosa pine (Pines ponderosa), with an understory of bitterbrush. One small portion of the alignment crosses the southern edge of a vernally wet meadow near the old Truckee airport. Throughout the meadow, dominant species include water Parish's yampah (Perideridia parishii), Beckwith's violet (Viola beckwithii), water-plantain buttercup (Ranunculus alismaefolius), moss rush (Juncus bryoides), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), meadow penstemon (Penstemon rydbergii), and many other native perennial and annual forbs. A population of the rare Plumas ivesia (Ivesia sericoleuca) occurs in this meadow approximately 150 feet north of the proposed alignment. This population would not incur any direct or indirect impacts from the construction. The primary project access points are off Old Airport Road, and along Glenshire Drive. Project description The TDPUD is proposing to install approximately 12,600 linear feet of 16-inch water pipeline to connect the Glenshire residential community with the TDPUD's Truckee water system. Approximately 6,000 linear feet of pipeline extending from the Featherstone 5988 storage tank eastward to Glenshire Drive will be installed in mainly undeveloped gently rolling terrain, with vegetation consisting largely of Jeffrey and ponderosa pines with a sage understory. A 150-foot wide vernally wet meadow is located within this area of the proposed pipeline route section of the project area. Approximately 0.03 acres of wetland would be temporarily impacted by project construction activities. The remaining approximate 6,600 linear feet of pipeline along Glenshire Drive from southwest 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 4,000 linear feet) or within the road pavement (approximately 2,600 linear feet). The pipeline installation along Glenshire Bridge will be routed through the interior of the bridge and no impacts to the Truckee River will result from the proposed project. The TDPUD will follow standard best management practices and erosion control measures as outlined in the Truckee River Hydrologic Unit Project Guidelines For Erosion Control. The proposed project will require the issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification, a State of California Regional Water Quality Control Waste Discharge permit, and a U.S. Army Corps of 2 Engineers CWA Section 404 permit. Issuance of these permits, and obligatory mitigation measures will ensure the project maintains environmental and cultural regulatory compliance. The installation of the pipeline will not result in adverse effects to the environment. Surrounding land uses and setting: The site is bounded by rural land with residential land use on the eastern most end of the pipeline alignment within the Glenshire subdivision. Public agencies whose approval is required include: Federal Agencies U.S. Army CoWs of Engineers (Corps)—Section 404 Permit The Corps will review and permit the project under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and consult with other federal agencies (e.g. US Fish and Wildlife Service) for the projects potential impacts to federally listed threatened and endangered species and species of concern. State Agencies Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)— Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Waste Discharge Permit The RWQCB will review the proposed project and will issue a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification or Waiver. A Form 200 for a Waste Discharge Permit will be required. 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. 3 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated I. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 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 II AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether Potentially Less Than Less Than impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental Significant Significant Significant No effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Impact With Impact 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. 4 III. AIR QUALITY -- Where applicable,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air Less Than pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following Potentially Significant Less Than determinations. Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 concentrations? e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ people? 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 dust palliative, 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. Specific control measures shall be noted on grading plans. (c-e): There would be no impact to these issues of air quality as a result of the proposed project. 5 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands ❑ ® ❑ ❑ as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident ❑ ❑ ❑ or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native residents or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ ❑ biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local regional,or state habitat conservation plan? Response to questions: (a): A search of California Natural Diversity Database (See Appendix A) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife electronic database reveal a total of eight plant species, one amphibian species, twelve bird species, and twelve mammalian species which could potentially be found within the project site. Surveys for special status species were conducted by qualified biologists on May 17, 2001 The proposed project will not have a significant impact on existing natural habitat and is not expected to significantly impact rare, endangered, threatened, or other special-status species in the area. Mitigation measure will be required to prevent indirect or accidental impact to a population of Plumas ivesia (Ivesia sericoleuca), located outside of the right-of-way and approximately 150 feet from the impact area. Plumas Ivesia is a CNPS 1B species that is not protected under the state or federal endangered species acts. (b), (c):Temporary impact to wetlands would occur.However,permanent wetland functions and values would not be adversely affected. A routine wetland delineation was performed by a qualified wetland delineation specialist on May 17, 2002. The proposed project will temporarily impact 0.03 acres of vernally wet meadow, which also qualifies as a jurisdictional wetland. The trench will be dug, and then backfilled with native soil stockpiled during construction to ensure no interruption of hydrologic functions. Additionally, mitigation measures will be required to remove and replace the meadow sod immediately after construction. Construction will take place when the meadow is dry to reduce or eliminate potential impacts from compaction. No straw or non-native seed will be used to prevent introduction of non-native species, and equipment will be washed of plant parts, mud, and seed prior to entering the site. No excess or sidecast soil will be left on the site to prevent siltation. 6 (e)The TDPUD is a public utility. As a public utility,the TDPUD has the power of eminent domain to acquire easements and legally maintain an easement needed for installation of the pipeline. V. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ED archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑ resource or site or unique geologic feature? d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside ❑ ❑ ❑ of formal cemeteries? Response to questions: (a)-(d): According to the results from the North Central Information Center (NCIC File No. NEV-02-40) records search, the entire area has been previously surveyed for cultural resources (Johnson 1997;Lindstrom 1997). A 1997 report entitled Glenshire Drive Bridge Replacement Project, Nevada County, California (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-555HITranscontinental 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 was contacted regarding this project. The 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. In the event that evidence of prehistoric occupancy is encountered during installation of the pipeline, a registered archeologist would be notified to record the location of such buried remains 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 ensure that impacts to cultural resources are less than significant. 7 VI. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ IE 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): A number of small fault traces have been identified within the Town of Truckee limits. The 1994 Fault Activity Map of California, prepared by the State Division of Mines and Geology, indicates that a small fault is located near the project site west of and parallel with State Highway 89. The map also indicates that this fault has shown no evidence of any activity within at least the past 1.6 million years. 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. The Nevada County Master Environmental Inventory places the project site within Zone III, a zone in which probable earthquake damage would be major. A geotechnical report prepared by Anderson Geotechnical Consultants (1988) 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 (Anderson Geotechnical Consultants, 1988). 8 (d): 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 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. All topsoil and vegetation associated with the pipeline trenching activities through the seasonal wetland meadow will be stockpiled during the installation of the pipeline and replaced once trenching operations are complete resulting in a less than significant impact. (f): See Response(d)above. (g): The shrink-swell potential for soil associations present within the proposed project area is low to moderate. Project design accounts for this potential and will mitigate its impacts. (h):Not applicable to the proposed project. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ through the routine transport, use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handles hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where ❑ ❑ ❑ such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ ED death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 9 Response to questions: (a) —(h): No impact as a result of the proposed project. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ requirements? to 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ID 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? to Place structure within a 100-year flood hazard area,which would ❑ ❑ ❑ El impede or redirect flood flows? i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Response to questions: (a): The District will install the distribution pipe in accordance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Water Quality Certification and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetland mitigation measures and would,therefore,not cause any degradation to water quality within the area. 10 (b):The proposed project will not impact groundwater quality or quantity. (c) — (f): The proposed project will not substantially alter drainage within the area nor will it substantially impact water quality in the area. (g):Not applicable. (h):The distribution will not be placed within the 100-year floodplain and the project would not substantially impede or redirect flood flows. (i)—(j): Not applicable. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a)Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation ❑ ❑ ❑ of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ community conservation plan? Response to questions: (a)—(c):There would be no impact to any land use and planning as a result of the proposed project. X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? Response to questions: (a) —(b)—There would be no impact to any mineral resources as a result of the proposed project. 11 XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ❑ ❑ ❑ ID 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? t)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Response to questions: (a)-(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 daylight hours. This impact would be restricted to the construction period only. (e)—(f):Not applicable. XII. POPULATION-- Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 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? 12 Response to questions: (a) —(c):There would be no impact to the population as a result of the proposed project. XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision Less Than of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new Potentially Significant Less Than or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of Significant With Significant No which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to Impact Mitigation Impact Impact maintain acceptable service rations,response time or other Incorporated 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):There will be no impact to police protection services, schools,parks,or other public facilities as a result of the proposed project. XIV. 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):There will be no substantial impact to recreation as a result of the proposed project. 13 XV.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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c)Result in a change in traffic patterns,including either an increase ❑ ❑ ❑ in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,sharp ❑ ❑ ❑ curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f)Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g)Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? Response to questions: (a) During construction, there will be an increase in vehicle trips to the project site associated with the contractor's activities. This may be considered a potentially significant impact unless mitigated. 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 a less than significant impact. (b)—(g): There will be no impact to these issues related to transportation/traffic as a result of the proposed project. 14 XVI. 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 construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ ED facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑ ❑ ❑ existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, ❑ ❑ ❑ which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g)Comply with federal,state, and local statutes and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑ related to solid waste. Response to questions: (a)—(g):There will be no impact to utilities and service systems as a result of the proposed project. XVII 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 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plan or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 15 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? 16 APPENDIX A California Natural Diversity Database 17 California Department of Fish and Game Nawrat Diversity Data Base TFutl Condensed Report — Multiple Records per Page MARTIS PEAK QUAD RANA MUSCOSA MOUNTAIN YELLOW-LEGGED FROG —List Status-- —;:DDB Element Ranks Other lists '. tement Code: AAASH0114U — federal: Proposed Endangered Global G5 CDFG Status: SC L E State: More State: 92S3 --Habitat Associations — — Genar'at: PROPOSED FEDERAL LISTING REFERS TO POPULATIONS IN THE SAN GABRIEL, SAN JACINTO 8 SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS ONLY. Micro: ALWAYS ENCOUNTERED WITHIN A FEN FEET OF WATER. TADPOLES MAY REQUIRE UP TO 2 YRS TO COMPLETE THEIR AQUATIC DEVELOPMENT- -. occurrence No. 179 Map Index:44759 --Dates Last Seen— Lat/Long: 39°22-03° ( 120°011381� Township: 17N Occ Rank: Unknown Element: 1935-08.01 LIM: Zone-10 N4361589 E756092 Range: ISE Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Site: 1935-08-07 Precision: NON-SPECIFIC Section: 06 Qtr NW Presence: Presumed Extant Symbol Type: POLYGON Meridian: M Trend: Unknown Area: 21,9 ac Etevation: 5540 it Main Source: MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY 2001 (MUS) Quad Summary: MANTIS PEAK (3912031I554D) County Summary: NEVADA SNA Summary: Location: GRAY CREEK, O.4 MILE SSE OF CONFLUENCE WITH TRUCKEE RIVER, 2.6 MILES EAST Of HIRSCHDALE, TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST. —Comments Distribution: LOCATION WAS GIVEN ONLY AS 0.5 MILE ABOVE GRAY MOUTH GRAY CREEK, MAPPED STREAM SECTION FROM 0.5 STREAM TO 0.5 AIR MILES FROM MOUTH. Ecotogicatz Threat: General: MVZ SPECIMEN #18603 COLLECTED BY H. F17CH (#2767), SEX UNKNOWN, WHOLE ANIMAL (ALCOHOL) IN COLLECTION. Owner/Manager: USFS-TUIYABE ME i Data; 05/0S/2002 Commercial Version Page 1 Report: RF2WIDE Information dated 01/0412002 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base Full Condensed Report - Multiple Records per Page MARTIS PEAK QUAD EMPIDOMAX TRAILLII � � WILLOW FLYCATCHER — ---.Llst Status NDDB Element Ranks—Other Lists— Elemont Code: ABPAE33040 Federal: None Global: G5 CDFG Status: State: Endangered State: S1S2 --habitat Associatiory-- General: (NESTING) INHABITS EXTENSIVE THICKETS OF LOW, DENSE WILLOWS ON EDGE OF WET MEADOWS, PONDS, OR BACKWATERS; 2000-8000 ELEV Micro: REQUIRE DENSE WILLOW THICKETS FOR NEST IWGIRCOST ING. LOW, EXPOSED BRANCHES ARE USED FOR SINGING POSTS/HUNTING PERCHES. Occurrence No. 110 Map Index:45304 --Dates Lest Seen— Let/Long: 39-22'001 / 120-03157-1 Township: 18N Dec Rank: Fair Element: 1992-06-25 UTM: Zone-10 N4361380 E752783 Range: 17E Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Site: 1992-06-25 Precision: SPECIFIC Section: 35 Qtr NW Presence: Presumed Extant Symbol Type: POINT Meridian: M Trend: Unknown Radius: 80 meters Elevation: 5440 fit Main Source: WILLIAMS, S. 19,92 (OBS) Quad Summary: MARTIS PEAK (3912031/554D) County Summary: NEVADA SNA Summary: Location: ISLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TRUCKEE RIVER, 0.5 MILE EAST OF HIRSCHDALE —Comments Distribution: Ecological: HAR17AT CONSISTS OF AN ISLAND VEGETATED BY WILLOW SCRUB. Threat: General: ONE SINGING ADULT OBSERVED OH 25 JUN 1992; BREEDING TERRITORY NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMODATE MORE THAN ONE PAIR. Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN i i Date: 05/08/2002 Commercial Version Page 3 Report: RF2WIDE information sated 01/04/2002 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base FULL Condensed Report - Multiple Records per Page MARTIS PEAK QUAD APLODONTIA RUFA CALL FORMICA SIERRA NEVADA MOUNTAIN BEAVER —List Status— —NDDB Etemsnt Ranks ^Sher Lists-- -' Element Code: AMAFA01013 Federal: None Global: G5T3T4 CDFG Status: SC State: None State: S3? —Habitat Associations General: DENSE GROWTH OF SMALL DECIDUOUS TREES $ SHRUBS, WET Solt, $ ABUNDANCE OF FORBB 1N THE SIERRA NEVADA $ EAST SLOPE. Micro: NEEDS DENSE UNDERSTORY FOR FOOD 6 COVER- BURROWS INTO SOFT SOIL- NEEDS ABUNDANT SUPPLY OF WATER. Occurrence No. 14 Map Index;30584 —Dates Last Seen— Lat/Long: 39118127-, / 120°01'2& Township: 17N Coo Rank: Unknown Element: 1985-XX-XX UTM: Tone-10 N4354907 E756581 Ranee: LEE Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Site: 1985-XX-XX Precision: NON-SPECt FIC Section: 30 Qtr XX Presence: Presumed Extant Symbol Type: POLYGON Meridian: M Trend: Unknown Area: 826.8 ac Elevation: 7600 ft Main Source: BEIER, P. 1987 (PIERS) ,:wad Summary: MARTIS PEAK (3912031/554D)', MT. ROSE (3911938/--•-) County Summary: NEVADA, ?, PLACER SNA Summary: Location: JUNIPER CREEK, AND TRIBUTARIES. —Comments .,Distribution: JUNIPER CREEK, FROM SEC 13 (T17N, R17E) TO THE STATE BORDER, AND TRIBUTARIES IN SECTIONS 24 $ 25 (T17H, R17E) Ecological: AND SECTIONS 30 $ 31 (T17N, R18E). '. Threat: General: DETECTIONS IN 1985: FIVE POPULATIONS ALONG JUNIPER CREEK; TWO POPULATIONS ALONG TRIBUTARY IN SEC 30; ONE POPULATION ALONG TRIBUTARY IN SEC 25, AND ONE POPULATION ALONG TRIBUTARY IN SEC 31. Owner/Manager: USFS-TAHOE NF Date: 05/08/2002 Commercial Version Report: RF2WIDF Information dated 01/04/2002 Page 5 California Department of fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base FULL Condensed Report - Multiple Records per Page MANTIS PEAK QUAD IVEiIA SERICOLEUCA IPLUMAS IVESTA — —List Status NDDB Element Ranks Other Lists—� � ELement Code: PDROSOXOKO Federal: None Global: G2 CNPS List: 18 State; None State: S2.2 R-E-D Code: 1-2-3 ---Habitat Associations- — General: GREAT BASIN SCRUB, LOWER MONTANE CONIFEROUS FOREST, MEADOWS, VERNAL POOLS. Micro: VERNALLY MESIC AREAS; USUALLY VOLCANIC SUBSTRATES. 1450-2000M. Occurrence No. 27 Map index:14221 —Dates Last Seen— Let/Long: 39°18110ti / 12006'53" Township: 17N i Dec Rank: Fair Element: 1986.07-21 UTM: Zone-10 N4354140 E748789 Range: 17E Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Site: 1986-07-21 Precision: SPECIFIC Section: 20 Qtr SW Presence: Presumed Extant Symbol Type: POLYGON Meridian: M Trend: Unknown Area: 8.6 ac Elevation: 5840 it tfsin Source: HOPKINS, N. 1986 (OBS) Obad Summary; MANTIS PEAK (3912031/554D) DOMty Summary; PLACER SNA Summery: i Location: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 267, DUE SOUTH OF MARTIS CREEK LAKE, EAST EDGE OF MANTIS VALLEY, SOUTHEAST OF TRUCKEE. —Com,nents- ! Distribution: EAST OF MARTIS CREEK. AND JUST WEST OF DIRT ROAD TO OLD JOERGER RANCH, EXTENDING ALONG THE ROAD TO THE WEST ABOUT 0.25 MILE. MAPPED WITHIN THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 AND THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 20. Ecological ON OPEN DRY FLATS WITH EVIDENCE OF SHEET EROSION. ASSOCIATED WITH ARTEM151A ARBUSCULA, LUPINUS SPP., AND GRASSES. Threat: URBANIZATION OCCURRING IN VICINITY. General: ABOUT 300 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 1986. THIS WAS ONCE PART OF A LARGER, UNFRAGMENTED POPULATION. Owner/Manager: PVT Occurrence No. 30 Map Indexc42845 --Dates Last Seen— Latllong: 39`22104a / 120"05'221- Township: 18N Occ Rank: Fair Element: 1991-06-XX UTM: Zone-10 N4361453 E750746 Range: 17E Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Site: 1991-06-XX Precision: NON-SPECIFIC Section: 33 Otr NE Presence: Presumed Extant Symbol Type: POINT Meridian: M Trend; Unknown Radius: 1/10 mite Elevation: 5900 it Main Source: HALIFORD, A. 1991 (CBS) Quad Summary: MARTIS PEAK (39120311554D) County Summary: NEVADA SNA Summary: Location: GLENSHIRE SUBDIVISION, THE MEADOWS, ABOUT 1.2 AIRMILES NORTHEAST OF UNION MILLS (SITE), EAST OF TRUCKEE. Distribution: stComments-- ' ribution: WHI TENORSE ROAD AND MARE COURT. MAPPED WITHIN THE SE 114 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 33. Ecological: LEVEL, ROCKY, PERENNIAL WET DRAW. ASSOCIATED WITH SALSAMORHIZA HOOKERIi, OANTHONIA UNISPICATA, AND ANTENNARIA j ROSEA. SSW ASPECT. Threat: HOUSING DEVELOPMENT - SITE IS WITHIN A FUTURE MOMESITE AREA. Genera(: LESS THAN 50 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 1991, Owner/Manager: PVT, USFS-TAHOE NF Occurrence No. 31 Map Index:42846 --Dates Last Seen— Lat/Long: 39°21149" / 120°05137" Township: 15N Doc Rank: Fair Etement: 1991-07-10 UTM: Zone-10 N4360967 E750398 Range: 17E Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Site: 1991.07-10 Precision: NON-SPECIFIC Section: 33 Qtr SE Presence: Presumed Extant Symbol Type: POINT Meridian: M Trend: Unknown Radius: 1/10 mile Elevation: 5800 ft ;Main Source: CONDON, R. 1991 LOBS) Quad Summary: MARTIS PEAK (3912031/554D) County Summary: NEVADA ! ,SNA Summary: Location: GLENSHIRE SUBDIVISION, DORCHESTER DRIVE, ABOUT 0.8 AIRMILE NORTHEAST OF UNION MILLS (SITE), EAST OF TRUCKEE. ---Comments Distribution: SOUTHEAST CORNER 0; LOT AT 11242 DORCHESTER. ALSO IN 5 ACNE LOT BACKING TO SAME ADDRESS. 11242 DORCHESTER IS BETWEEN BRIAR CIRCLE AND BERKELEY COURT. MAPPED WITHIN THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 33. Ecological: Threat: HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. General: MORE THAN 80 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 1991, REMNANT OF NATIVE POPULATION BORDERED BY ROAD AND LANSCAP£D GARDEN. CURRENT OWNER WILL RETAIN THIS COLONY; SITE WAS DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION, R. CONDON WILL FENCE COLONY TO PROTECT IT. OMnerlManager: PVT Date: 05/08/2002 Commercial Version Page 7 '' Report: RF2WIDE Information dated 01/04/2002