Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/RESOURCE AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION SERVICES County of Placer

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

The project listed below was reviewed for environmental impact by the Placer County Environmental Review Committee and was determined to have no significant effect upon the environment. A proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been filed with the County Clerk's office.

PROJECT: Gladding Eternal Preserve (PLN17-00420)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proposes construction of a green burial (natural burial) cemetery on 160.3 acres of land. Approximately 61.3 acres of the site would be used for interments and would accommodate approximately 10,000 to 15,000 graves and approximately 4,000 plots for cremains upon completion. A portion of one or more of the interment areas may be used for pet burials. The balance of the site would be left in its natural condition. Publicly-accessible trails would provide access and connect the interment areas.

PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Gladding Road and Fleming Road, Rural Lincoln, Placer County

APPLICANT: Phillips Land Law, Inc., Kris Steward

The comment period for this document closes on November 27, 2018. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public review at the County’s web site http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/EnvCoordSvcs/NegDec.aspx Community Development Resource Agency public counter, and at the Lincoln Public Library. Property owners within 300 feet of the subject site shall be notified by mail of the upcoming hearing before the Planning Commission. Additional information may be obtained by contacting the Environmental Coordination Services, at (530)745-3132, between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. Comments may be sent to [email protected] or 3091 County Center Drive, Suite 190, Auburn, CA 95603.

Delivered to 300’ Property Owners on October 29, 2018

3091 County Center Drive, Suite 190 / Auburn, California 95603 / (530) 745-3132 / Fax (530) 745-3080 / email: [email protected]

Gladding Eternal Preserve Vicinity Map

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/RESOURCE AGENCY Environmental Coordination Services County of Placer

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

In accordance with Placer County ordinances regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Placer County has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the following project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and on the basis of that study hereby finds: The proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; therefore, it does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and this Negative Declaration has been prepared. Although the proposed project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, there will not be a significant adverse effect in this case because the project has incorporated specific provisions to reduce impacts to a less than significant level and/or the mitigation measures described herein have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has thus been prepared. The environmental documents, which constitute the Initial Study and provide the basis and reasons for this determination are attached and/or referenced herein and are hereby made a part of this document.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Title: Gladding Eternal Preserve Project # PLN17-00420 Description: The project proposes construction of a green burial (natural burial) cemetery on 160.3 acres of land. Approximately 61.3 acres of the site would be used for interments and would accommodate approximately 10,000 to 15,000 graves and approximately 4,000 plots for cremains upon completion. A portion of one or more of the interment areas may be used for pet burials. The balance of the site would be left in its natural condition. Publicly-accessible trails would provide access and connect the interment areas. Location: Southeast Corner of Gladding Road and Fleming Road, Rural Lincoln, Placer County Project Owner: Richard Hutchinson & Sylvia Barnett, Hutchinson-Barnett Trust Project Applicant: Phillips Land Law, Inc., Kris Steward County Contact Person: Shirlee I. Herrington 530-745-3132

PUBLIC NOTICE

The comment period for this document closes on November 27, 2018. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public review at the County’s web site (http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/EnvCoordSvcs/NegDec.aspx), Community Development Resource Agency public counter, and at the Lincoln Public Library. Property owners within 300 feet of the subject site shall be notified by mail of the upcoming hearing before the Planning Commission. Additional information may be obtained by contacting the Environmental Coordination Services, at (530)745-3132 between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm at 3091 County Center Drive, Auburn, CA 95603.

If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, address your written comments to our finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment: (1) identify the environmental effect(s), why they would occur, and why they would be significant, and (2) suggest any mitigation measures which you believe would eliminate or reduce the effect to an acceptable level. Regarding item (1) above, explain the basis for your comments and submit any supporting data or references. Refer to Section 18.32 of the Placer County Code for important information regarding the timely filing of appeals.

020-143-002 020-143-001 PRELIMINARY OVERALL SITE PLAN MLP FAMILY LIMITED DAVID SCOTT PARTNERSHIP DEAN FLEMING ROAD GLADDING ETERNAL PRESERVE PLACER COUNTY

RICHARD C HUTCHINSON & SYLVIA L BARNETT

INTERMENT PROJECT SUMMARY AREA B: 3.8 ACRES OWNER/DEVELOPER/APPLICANT NATURAL PASSAGES 3301 INDUSTRIAL AVE 020-142-014 ROCKLIN, CA HUTCHINSON 95765 ENGINEER SITE TSD ENGINEERING, INC 785 ORCHARD DRIVE FOLSOM, CA 95630 ATTN: CASEY FEICKERT [email protected]

PROPOSED USE GREEN BURIAL CEMETERY 020-141-001 TRIANGLE INTERMENT AREA A: ZONING PROPERTIES 28.1 ACRES F-B-X-AO 20 AC MIN NORTH N.T.S. SCALE 1" = 100'

VICINITY MAP CONTOUR INTERVAL NOT TO SCALE 1' CONTOUR INTERVAL

TOPOGRAPHY AERIAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PARKING SUMMARY CONDUCTED JULY, 2017

STANDARD PARKING STALL (9'x20'): 24 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO 020-142-001 ACCESSIBILE PARKING (9'x20'): 2 AREA OVERFLOW PARKING: 27 PARCEL 1 - 160.26± AC

TOTAL STALLS: 53 NUMBER OF PARCELS (1) ONE

WATER SUPPLY PUBLIC WELL

SEWAGE DISPOSAL PRIVATE SEPTIC SYSTEM

FIRE PROTECTION * PLACER COUNTY FIRE PARK DISTRICT GLADDING ROAD GLADDING INTERMENT AREA C: PLACER COUNTY 18.6 ACRES SCHOOL DISTRICT WESTERN PLACER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

GAS & ELECTRIC 020-142-015 PG&E HUTCHINSON TELEPHONE AT&T *

W E

S scale: 1"=100'

020-142-016 HUTCHINSON

INTERMENT AREA D: INTERMENT AREA E: 4.4 ACRES 5.5 ACRES INTERMENT AREA F: 0.85 ACRES TSD ENGINEERING, INC. expect more.

020-163-010 785 Orchard Drive, Suite 110 Folsom, CA 95630 VINEYARD Phone: (916) 608-0707 Fax: (916) 608-0701

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/RESOURCE AGENCY Environmental Coordination Services County of Placer

INITIAL STUDY & CHECKLIST

This Initial Study has been prepared to identify and assess the anticipated environmental impacts of the following described project application. The document may rely on previous environmental documents (see Section D) and site-specific studies (see Section J) prepared to address in detail the effects or impacts associated with the project.

This document has been prepared to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). CEQA requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before acting on those projects.

The Initial Study is a public document used by the decision-making lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the lead agency finds substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may have a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial, the lead agency is required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), use a previously-prepared EIR and supplement that EIR, or prepare a Subsequent EIR to analyze the project at hand. If the agency finds no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment, a Negative Declaration shall be prepared. If in the course of analysis, the agency recognizes that the project may have a significant impact on the environment, but that by incorporating specific mitigation measures the impact will be reduced to a less than significant effect, a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be prepared. Project Title: Gladding Eternal Preserve Project # PLN17-00420 Entitlement(s): Conditional Use Permit Site Area: 160.3 acres APN: 020-142-001-000 Location: Southeast Corner of Gladding Road and Fleming Road, Rural Lincoln, Placer County

A. BACKGROUND: The project proposes a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow construction of Gladding Eternal Preserve, a green burial cemetery, on 160.3 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Gladding and Fleming roads in rural Lincoln, Placer County (see Figure 1). The site, APN 020-142-001-000, is located within the Placer County General Plan area and is currently undeveloped.

The Land Use Designation of the proposed project site is Agriculture/Timberland 20 Ac. Min. parcel size and is zoned F-B-X-AO 20 AC Min (Farm, minimum Building Site of 20 acres, combining Airport Overflight).

Project Description: The project proposes a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a green burial cemetery, Gladding Eternal Preserve, on an undeveloped 160.3-acre site in Rural Lincoln, Placer County. Approximately 61.3 acres of the site would be used for interments and would accommodate approximately 10,000 to 15,000 graves and approximately 4,000 plots for cremains upon completion. A portion of one or more of the interment areas may be used for pet burials. The balance of the site would be left in its natural condition. Publicly-accessible trails would provide access and connect the interment areas (see Figure 2).

The proposed Gladding Eternal Preserve would be a green burial cemetery. All interments and cremation interments would meet California Health and Safety Code 8113.1 and as set forth by the California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau. The cemetery would be operated consistent with the standards of the Green Burial Council. Natural Passages LLC would operate the cemetery under a Certificate of Authority (cemetery license) from the Initial Study & Checklist continued Cemetery and Funeral Bureau.

Green burial, or natural burial, is a way of caring for the dead with minimal impacts that aids in the conservation of natural resources. The body may be prepared without chemical preservatives or disinfectants such as embalming fluid. Green burial necessitates the use of non-toxic and readily-biodegradable materials for caskets, shrouds, and urns. The grave does not use a burial vault or outer burial container that would prevent the body's contact with soil. No grave markers other than natural markers made from small native rocks would be permitted. They would not be anchored into the ground. Families that bury their loved ones in the cemetery can record the GPS coordinates of the location where they are buried, without using physical markers.

The cemetery manager would schedule all burials so that there are no overlapping events and to ensure that parking is accommodated on the site. Memorial gatherings may be held beneath one of the gazebos and smaller gatherings can be held at the plot. Two to three burials would occur daily on average. Mobility-impaired guests would be transported to gravesites via multiple-passenger golf carts. Employees would utilize quads to traverse the site outfitted with noise muffling devices.

Plot sizes and grave placement areas would vary based on natural conditions such as slope, soil structure, and vegetation densities. Plots in conservation cemeteries are larger than plots in conventional cemeteries due to variations in natural conditions (e.g. slope, vegetation, etc.). The plots are sized to accommodate adjacent natural features such as trees and rocks and to allow for the irregular pattern of natural habitat restoration.

Graves would be dug to fit the body or vessel/container to be interred. Full-size plots would range in size from 100 square feet (10’ x 10’) to 200 square feet (10’ x 20’) and cremation-only interment plots would be approximately 25 square feet (5’ x 5’). A typical adult full-body grave is approximately 3’ x 8’ and an urn grave is approximately 18” square. Plots would be sized to allow the grave to be located in the center of the plot among existing trees and rocks. No trees would be removed. Excavation and site restoration activities would be performed with small, mechanized equipment and/or manual labor to limit site impacts. After the interment, the soil would be replaced over the grave. Plots would be observed for settlement and irregular ground surfaces corrected with placement of additional soil to avoid ponded water. Interment areas are setback a minimum of ten feet from the south and east property lines and burials may be further setback from the edge of the designated interment areas.

Access to the site is proposed from a gated entryway on Fleming Road on the north. A paved parking area for 26 cars including two accessible spaces would be provided along with an overflow parking area for approximately 25 vehicles. Periodically, an interment service would generate more vehicle traffic (30 to 40 vehicles). Large memorial services would be held off-site. The laneways in the parking lot area have been designed to accommodate fire truck turning radii. A 528 square foot office, staffed to monitor parking and serve visitors and customers, would be constructed southwest of the parking area. An approximately 1,000 square foot maintenance garage is proposed on the east side of the parking lot and no outdoor storage is proposed. Both buildings would be neutral earth tones. Refuse would be stored in totes and picked up by a commercial hauler. No lighting is proposed on-site with the exception of motion-activated short-range lights mounted above the doorways on the garage and restrooms. A septic system and drinking water well would be installed. The proposed project is projected to have a daily maximum water demand of 900 gallons (septic, drinking water, and irrigation).

The site is designed with conservation as a priority. The proposed project includes six separate but interconnected burial areas on the property totaling 61.3 acres. All improvements and interment areas avoid all natural resources including the floodplain, cultural resources, wetland resources and trees.

Two gazebos would provide areas for services and memorials. Gazebos would be constructed on concrete piles to provide shelter from weather and semi-formal areas for gathering and the earthen surface beneath the structure would be unimproved and graded slightly to create a relatively flat surface with positive drainage.

Approximately three miles of existing and proposed trails would provide access for pedestrians and operations vehicles to plots within the interment areas. Trails would be approximately ten feet wide with a 15-foot vertical clearance, consist of natural surface, would be accessible from the parking lot, and open to visitors and neighbors. All trail access points would be gated to restrict vehicle access and allow pedestrian passage. Memorial benches, pathways, and other features would be placed along the trail system. Trails would be posted with signs that state “Keep on the Trails.” The trail system has been designed to utilize existing on-site agricultural roads and culverts. There would not be a bridge or boardwalk system constructed through the riparian corridor. During operations, if trails are impassable during the wet season, they would not be used until they are passable.

Initial Study & Checklist 2 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued The project is proposing an identification sign at the Fleming Road entrance. Low profile landscaping is planned at the corner of Gladding and Fleming Roads, on the Fleming Road frontage, at the project entry, in the parking lot, and along the walkway from the parking lot to the office building. A wood, split-rail fence is planned at the corner of Gladding and Fleming Roads and along the Fleming Road frontage and east of the entry driveway. Large groundcover with accents (California wild rose) is planned along the fence line. Chinese pistache and valley oak trees would be planted behind the groundcover to create a stronger tree line along Fleming Road leading to the project entry. Landscaping is also proposed within the parking lot and north of the parking lot for screening. The overflow parking area is proposed south of the main parking to minimize the view of parking from Fleming Road.

On Gladding and Fleming Roads, the proposed project would dedicate one half of the 60-foot right-of-way and a 12.5-foot multi-purpose easement. The proposed project would also improve the intersection of Gladding and Fleming roads to a County Plate 116 standard (45 mph design speed, 12-foot offset, 45-foot radius, and 200-foot taper). Acceleration and deceleration tapers would be constructed at the Fleming Road project entrance. An emergency vehicle access (EVA) pullout is proposed on the east side of Gladding Road, on the south side of the site, south of the tributary. The EVA pullout would allow fire department access to the site south of the tributary. The trail corridors would serve as internal routes for emergency vehicles.

There would be no grading onsite besides 0.9 acre of grading necessary for construction of the driveway and parking areas and to create pads for the office, restrooms, and garage. Grading is not necessary for trail construction. Trail construction would consist of brush clearing and mowing. Trail construction would occur in phases as access to the interment area is needed to accommodate plots. Trails have been aligned to utilize existing on-site agricultural roads and paths and would utilize existing culverts. Precise alignments of trails would be determined in the field (field fit) to limit drainage modifications and to avoid impacts to potential plot areas and trees, especially oaks. Approximately 750 cubic yards of grading on site would occur and no fill would be imported or exported. Grazing and Fuel Load Management. Agricultural operations including grazing and hay production may continue with the cemetery operations. To control vegetation growth and reduce fire fuel load, livestock grazing would be permitted on the site, even in interment areas. There are existing wire fences throughout the site and temporary livestock fencing may be erected for rotational grazing. The central portion of the site (the avoided area adjacent to the tributary) has been used in the past for hay production and cemetery operations would not interfere with future hay production in those areas. Mowing may occur in isolated areas to create and maintain fire breaks and for trail clearing. Other fuel load management measures would include thinning vegetation and clearing a defensible space around the parking lots and proposed buildings.

Phasing. The first phase of the cemetery would consist of construction of the driveway access from Fleming Road, the parking lot and overflow parking area, garage, office, restrooms, and well and septic system. The first phase would also include the post and cable fencing, trails, and gazebo in interment Areas A and B. Future phases would consist of construction of post and cable fencing, trails and gazebo in interment areas C, D, E, and F. The pace of phasing would occur as demanded by burials. It is estimated that the cemetery would take approximately 20 to 25 years to reach capacity.

Project Site (Background/Existing Setting): The 160.3-acre project site is undeveloped and does not contain any structures. The property is approximately square and is bounded on the west by Gladding Road and on the north by Fleming Road. Existing on-site improvements include unpaved paths that cross the site, east-west pole-mounted power lines adjacent to Fleming Road and north-south pole mounted power lines adjacent to Gladding Road. A pole-mounted electric transformer is located in the southwest corner of the site.

The site has flat to gently-sloping topography. Overall, the site slopes to the west with two inward slopes to drainages that converge before exiting the site in the southwest corner. The elevation ranges from approximately 170 feet in the southwest corner to approximately 210 feet toward the center of the site. In the last two decades, the proposed project site has been used as grazing land and the low, flat, central portion of the site has been used for hay production. The southern area of the site was dredged prior to 1941 and the central portion of the site has been an irrigated pasture since 1975.

The site is characterized by rolling foothill terrain and oak savanna, vegetation typical of the surrounding landscape. The dominant vegetation type of the site is annual grasslands. Riparian habitat dominated by valley oak, cottonwoods and grasses occurs along an unnamed intermittent drainage in the southern portion and along the drainage canal north of the irrigated pasture in the center portion of the site. The riparian area is characterized by altered hydrology due to dredging.

Initial Study & Checklist 3 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued Historic (water conveyance, cattle trough, fencing, access road) and prehistoric (bedrock milling stations) resources are located throughout the site. Toward the north edge of the site, there are two water delivery ditches that enter the site from the east and supply Nevada Irrigation District waters to the irrigated pasture. Unnamed drainages converge in the southwest corner of the site prior to exiting in a culvert under Gladding Road and eventually flowing to Raccoon Creek. The property includes 58.4 acres of wetlands including vernal pools, seasonal wetlands (irrigated pasture), seasonal wetland swale, emergent marsh and riparian habitat. Many of the vernal pools and seasonal wetlands were artificially created as a result of historic mining activities.

Figure 1 – Project Location Map

Initial Study & Checklist 4 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued

Figure 2 – Proposed Layout

B. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Gladding Eternal Preserve is proposed for a 160.3-acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Gladding and Fleming roads in rural Lincoln, Placer County. The undeveloped site would be developed as a green burial cemetery and managed so as to preserve the existing natural resources on site. The property is designated Agriculture/Timberland 20 acre minimum parcel size in the Placer County General Plan and is zoned F-B-X-AO 20 acre minimum (Farm, minimum Building Site of 20 acres, combining Airport Overflight). The proposed use requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) within the Farm zoning district.

The area surrounding the proposed project site is characterized by rolling foothill terrain and oak savanna. Surrounding uses include a mix of rural residential parcels, farming, irrigated pasture, and undeveloped rangeland. The Rancho Roble Winery is kitty-corner to the proposed project site on the northeast and the approved but undeveloped Teichert Aggregate facility is kitty-corner to the northwest. Further from the property, land use continues to be pasture lands, hay farms, and rural residential properties. The City of Lincoln is approximately five miles to the south and the townsite of Sheridan approximately five miles to the northwest.

Initial Study & Checklist 5 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued

The proposed project site has vegetation typical of that in the surrounding landscape. Historically the property’s use included dredging for gold and grazing. More recently (the past 15 to 20 years) the site has been used for grazing land and to produce hay in the low flat area in the central portion of the property.

Neighboring parcels have the same zoning and land use designation as the proposed project site. Two parcels are located north of the proposed project site: an undeveloped 119.5-acre parcel that is in the Williamson Act and a 15- acre parcel developed with a single-family residence. An undeveloped159-acre Williamson Act parcel is located to the south and an undeveloped79-acre parcel is located west. Three undeveloped parcels are located east of the site: a 36.2-acre parcel, 6.4-acre parcel, and 13.6-acre parcel

Adjacent Land Use Designation/Zoning/Improvements

Community Plan Existing Conditions and Location Zoning Designation Improvements F-B-X-AO 20 Ac. Min. (Farm, minimum Agriculture/Timerbland 20 Site Building Site of 20 Undeveloped/Rangeland Ac. Min. acres, combining Airport Overflight zone) Agriculture/Timerbland 20 Undeveloped/Rangeland; Large- North F-B-X-AO 20 Ac. Min. Ac. Min. Lot Residential Agriculture/Timerbland 20 South F-B-X-AO 20 Ac. Min. Undeveloped/Rangeland Ac. Min. Agriculture/Timerbland 20 East F-B-X-AO 20 Ac. Min. Undeveloped/Rangeland Ac. Min. Agriculture/Timerbland 20 West F-B-X-AO 20 Ac. Min. Undeveloped/Rangeland Ac. Min.

C. NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES: Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?

Placer County contacted Native American tribes requesting any information regarding sacred lands or other heritage sites that might be impacted by the proposed project. At the time of preparation of this Initial Study, the Shingle Springs Rancheria requested copies of project-related record searches and surveys, and the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria requested copies of archeological reports and a site visit. No other tribes have contacted the County.

On May 8, 2018 and September 14, 2018, representatives for the UAIC toured and walked the site with the applicant and County officials. No new tribal cultural resources were found. Mitigation measures for unanticipated discoveries were recommended.

NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

D. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT:

The County has determined that an Initial Study shall be prepared in order to determine whether the potential exists for unmitigable impacts resulting from the proposed project. Relevant analysis from the County-wide General Plan and Community Plan Certified EIRs, and other project-specific studies and reports that have been generated to date, were used as the database for the Initial Study. The decision to prepare the Initial Study utilizing the analysis

Initial Study & Checklist 6 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued contained in the General Plan and Specific Plan Certified EIRs, and project-specific analysis summarized herein, is sustained by Sections 15168 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 15168 relating to Program EIRs indicates that where subsequent activities involve site-specific operations, the agency would use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity, to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the earlier Program EIR. A Program EIR is intended to provide the basis in an Initial Study for determining whether the later activity may have any significant effects. It will also be incorporated by reference to address regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors that apply to the program as a whole.

The following documents serve as Program-level EIRs from which incorporation by reference will occur:  Placer County General Plan EIR

E. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

The Initial Study checklist recommended by the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines is used to determine potential impacts of the proposed project on the physical environment. The checklist provides a list of questions concerning a comprehensive array of environmental issue areas potentially affected by the proposed project (see CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). Explanations to answers are provided in a discussion for each section of questions as follows: a) A brief explanation is required for all answers including “No Impact” answers.

b) “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where the project’s impacts are insubstantial and do not require any mitigation to reduce impacts.

c) "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The County, as lead agency, must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than- significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced).

d) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

e) All answers must take account of the entire action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063(a)(1)].

f) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. A brief discussion should be attached addressing the following:

 Earlier analyses used – Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.

 Impacts adequately addressed – Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of, and adequately analyzed in, an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards. Also, state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

 Mitigation measures – For effects that are checked as “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

g) References to information sources for potential impacts (i.e. General Plans/Community Plans, zoning ordinances) should be incorporated into the checklist. Reference to a previously-prepared or outside document should include a reference to the pages or chapters where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached and other sources used, or individuals contacted, should be cited in the discussion.

Initial Study & Checklist 7 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued I. AESTHETICS – Would the project:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures

1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (PLN) X

2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, X within a state scenic highway? (PLN) 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality X of the site and its surroundings? (PLN) 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X (PLN)

Aesthetics generally refers to visual resources and the quality of what can be seen, or overall visual perception of the environment, and may include such characteristics as building height and mass, development density and design, building condition (i.e., blight), ambient lighting and illumination, landscaping, and open space. Views refer to visual access and obstruction of prominent visual features, including both specific visual landmarks and panoramic vistas. Lighting issues address the effects of nighttime illumination and daytime glare on adjacent land uses.

Scenic views and vistas are generally available to a greater number of persons than are private views. Private views, in contrast, are those which are only available from vantage points located on private property. Unless specifically protected by an ordinance or other regulation, private views are not protected. Therefore, impairment of private views is not considered to be a CEQA issue.

The surrounding area is predominantly rural residential parcels, farming, irrigated pasture, and undeveloped rangeland. There is one single-family residence north of the proposed project site. By nature, evaluation of visual impacts caused by any project is a subjective process and depends on the preferences and values of the viewer. However, goals and policies adopted by Placer County serve as an indicator of the predominant aesthetic preferences of area residents. In general, these policies emphasize protection of natural features, retention of scenic and historic areas, and maintenance of a viable agricultural segment of the economy.

The proposed project has been designed to minimize natural habitat disturbance, has proposed only two small gazebos and structures, has a limited parking area, and would not allow above-grade markers or tombstones. Therefore, the development of a cemetery on the 160.3-acre parcel would minimally change the existing visual nature or character of the site and its surroundings in a manner generally anticipated by, and consistent with, land use and development considered in the Placer County General Plan (2013).

Discussion Item I-1: A scenic vista is generally considered to be a location from which the public can experience unique and exemplary high-quality views, including panoramic views of great breadth and depth, often from elevated vantage points for the benefit of the general public. While undeveloped or mostly undeveloped areas have a natural aesthetic quality, there are no designated scenic vistas within the rural Lincoln area.

Views to or from the proposed project site are short range and limited to one neighboring resident on Fleming Road and travelers on Fleming and Gladding roads. Views of the proposed project site from surrounding roads and properties include rolling terrain and grasslands, oak savannah, and riparian areas. There is an discontinuous tree line along Fleming Road that partially blocks views of the proposed project site.

The construction of the cemetery, parking lot, service buildings, and trail network would not substantially change the visual quality of the proposed project site and surrounding area. Neither the proposed project site, nor views to or from the proposed project site, have been designated an important scenic resource by Placer County or any other public agency. Therefore, construction of the proposed development would not interfere with or degrade a scenic vista. Therefore, there is no impact. PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 8 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued

Discussion Item I-2: The proposed project site is not located near a state scenic highway (Caltrans 2013) nor does it include any historic buildings. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item I-3: As discussed at the beginning of this section, private views (those available from vantage points on private property) are not protected. The proposed project has been designed to minimize natural habitat disturbance. The proposed project would not require tree removal or impact wetlands and riparian areas. Approximately 99.8 acres of the 160.3-acre size would be left in their natural condition and would be permanently conserved. Proposed structures would be limited to an administrative building, a maintenance barn/garage, and gazebos. Other cemetery features would include an entryway sign and gate, memorial sitting benches, pathways, parking, and signage. No above-grade markers or tombstones are allowed. This minor visual change from surrounding parcels and public roads would be essentially undetectable or barely visible, thus maintaining the vista across the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on visual character of the proposed project site and its surroundings. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item I-4: The proposed project site is currently unlighted and development of the proposed project would introduce some new lighting to the area. There would be motion-activated short-range lights mounted above the doorways on the garage and restrooms. Consistent with County practices, the lighting would be sited and designed to avoid light spillage and glare on adjacent properties. The distance between the proposed lighting and adjacent properties would provide screening from adjacent properties. Lighting on the site would comply with Chapter 15, Article 15 of the Placer County Code, which adopts the 2016 California Energy Code (CEC), CCR Title 24, Part 6. Section 140.7 of the CEC Title 24, Part 6 that addresses requirements for outdoor lighting. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that lighting intensity levels, types of lighting fixtures, standard heights, and other lighting features would avoid excessive lighting, uplighting and spill over lighting or light trespass onto adjacent properties. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on lighting and glare. No mitigation measures are required.

II. AGRICULTURAL & FOREST RESOURCES – Would the project:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures 1. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and X Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (PLN) 2. Conflict with General Plan or other policies regarding land X use buffers for agricultural operations? (PLN) 3. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, a Williamson X Act contract or a Right-to-Farm Policy? (PLN) 4. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section X 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (PLN) 5. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the loss or conversion X of Farmland (including livestock grazing) or forest land to non- agricultural or non-forest use? (PLN)

Discussion Item II-1: Much of the area around the proposed project site is used for livestock production on dry and irrigated fields. The proposed project site has historically been used for livestock grazing. The property has rights to 14 miners inches PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 9 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued from the Nevada Irrigation District (NID) and there are NID facilities on the site. Grazing operations would be permitted on the cemetery. There are some livestock fences on the site and additional temporary fencing would be used to restrict areas for rotational grazing for vegetation management.

According to the California Department of Conservation which administers the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the site contains 128 acres of Farmland of Local Importance and 32 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Important Farmland Map for the proposed project site and immediately surrounding area is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 – Important Farmland Map

Lands of importance to the local agricultural economy are determined by the Board of Supervisors and a local advisory committee. Placer County defines Farmland of Local Importance within the county as farmlands not covered by the categories of Prime, Statewide, or Unique. This designation is further defined as those lands that are zoned for agriculture by County Ordinance and the California Land Conservation Act as well as dry farmed lands, irrigated pasturelands, and other agricultural lands of significant economic importance to the County and include lands that have a potential for irrigation from Placer County water supplies.

Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime Farmland (lands with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term production of agricultural crops) but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Agricultural operations including grazing and hay production would continue with the cemetery operations. Livestock grazing would be permitted on the site, even in interment areas. There are existing wire fences throughout the site and temporary livestock fencing may be erected for rotational grazing. The central portion of the site (the avoided area adjacent to the tributary) has been used in the past for hay production and cemetery operations would not interfere with future hay production in those areas. Mowing may occur in isolated areas to create fire breaks and for trail clearing. PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 10 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued

For purposes of CEQA, the significance of farmland conservation impacts is usually assessed based on the amount of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance directly or indirectly converted by a project. The proposed project would not convert any of these types of farmland to non-agricultural use.

Approximately eight acres of land designated by the FMMP as Farmland of Local Importance would be converted to non-agricultural use including parking areas, maintenance facilities, and an administrative building. These are areas where agricultural operations (including grazing) would be prohibited. The Placer County Agricultural Commissioner determined that this is a nominal impact, similar to what a farmer or rancher would set aside or exclude from active farming if they built a residence and outbuildings on an agricultural parcel. The Commissioner also concluded the proposed project would not impact nearby agricultural operations. Therefore, impacts to farmland either directly or indirectly is less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item II-2: The Placer County General Plan (PCGP) was adopted by the Placer County Board of Supervisors in 1994 and updated in 2013. Policy 1.H.5 requires that development within or adjacent to designated agricultural areas to incorporate design, construction, and maintenance techniques that protect agriculture and minimize conflicts with adjacent agricultural uses. The proposed project is the development of a cemetery on grazing lands and would have no effect on neighboring properties. Cemetery operations and maintenance activities would not impact nearby agricultural uses or operations. The proposed project does not conflict with PCGP policies regarding land use buffers for agricultural operations. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item II-3: The State of California and the counties (including Placer County) participating in the Williamson Land Conservation Act consider the preservation of agricultural land to be important. The Williamson Act is a state law that attempts to foster voluntary conservation of agricultural land by reducing taxes for agricultural lands to help them remain economically viable.

In the past, the proposed project site was covered by a Williamson Act contract; however, a notice of nonrenewal was filed with the County on December 20, 2002, effective January 1, 2003. The contract governing the parcel expired on January 1, 2012. Properties to the north and south are under Williamson Act contacts (blue in Figure 4 below). Other parcels to the east and west are actively grazed. The proposed use is allowed in the existing Farm zoning district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 11 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued

PROJECT SITE

Figure 4 – Williamson Act Lands (in blue)

The proposed project would not involve the construction of new residential units but would introduce new visitors near existing agricultural properties. The productivity of neighboring agricultural properties is not expected to be adversely affected by the proposed project related to water resources, noise levels, air quality, and traffic levels on local roads. The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, a Williamson Act contract, or a right-to-farm policy and there is a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item II-4: The proposed project does not contain any elements that would conflict with existing zoning for forestry land use. The Placer County General Plan does not designate the site for forestry use and soils on site are not capable of supporting timber or forests. The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest lands to non-forest use. There would be no effect on these types of resources as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item II-5: The proposed project proposes to develop approximately 61.3 acres of the site into a cemetery. The remaining 99.8 acres would be preserved as permanent natural open space, approximately 62.2 percent of the proposed project site. None of the proposed interment areas meet the criteria as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.

Livestock grazing would be discontinued on eight acres of Farmland of Local Importance upon development of the cemetery use. The balance of the proposed project site would still allow for grazing and/or hay production. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially alter the present or planned land use of the area in general, consisting of Rural Lincoln and the larger Placer County area. The Agricultural Commissioner has determined that the proposed project would not result in the loss or conversion of farmland (including livestock grazing) or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest use. Therefore, impacts to farmland either directly or indirectly is less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 12 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued

III. AIR QUALITY – Would the project:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? (PLN, Air Quality) 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to X an existing or projected air quality violation? (PLN, Air Quality) 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (PLN, Air Quality) 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? (PLN, Air Quality) 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? (PLN, Air Quality)

Discussion Item III-1, 2, 3: The proposed project is located within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB) portion of Placer County and is under the jurisdiction of the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD). The SVAB is designated nonattainment for the federal and state ozone standards (ROG and NOx), and nonattainment for the state particulate matter standard (PM10). The proposed project is located on a 160.3-acre site and requests approval of conditional use permit to allow for construction and operation of a green burial cemetery including 60.5 acres of interment areas, paved parking lot, office, restrooms, garages, gazebos, and trails.

The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the regional air quality plan, if the project emissions were anticipated within the emission inventory contained in the regional air quality plan, referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP), and would not exceed the PCAPCD CEQA thresholds adopted October 13, 2016, as follows:

PCAPCD CEQA THRESHOLDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS

1) Construction Threshold of 82 pounds per day for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), and particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10); 2) Operational Threshold of 55 pounds per day for ROG, NOx and 82 pounds per day for PM10; and 3) Cumulative Threshold of 55 pounds per day for ROG, NOx and 82 pounds per day for PM10.

The daily maximum emission thresholds represent an emission level below which the proposed project’s contribution to criteria pollutant emissions would be deemed less than significant. The level of operational emissions would be equivalent to a project size of approximately 617 single‐family dwelling units, or a 249,100 square feet commercial building.

During construction of the proposed project, various types of equipment and vehicles would temporarily operate. Construction exhaust emissions would be generated from construction equipment, demolition, vegetation clearing and earth movement activities, construction workers’ commute, and construction material hauling. Limited grading (0.9 acre impact area) is proposed for construction of the driveway, paved parking area and to create pads for the office, restrooms, and garage. Cut and fill material will balance on site. Approximately 750 cubic yards of material would be moved in the impact area. The proposed project related long-term operational emissions would result from vehicle exhaust, utility usage, and water/wastewater conveyance. Project construction and operational activities would generate air pollutant emissions of criteria pollutants, including ROG, NOx, and PM10.

The proposed project would result in an increase in regional and local emissions from construction of the proposed

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 13 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued project, but would be below the PCAPCD’s thresholds. In order to reduce construction related emissions, the proposed project would be conditioned to list the PCAPCD’s Rules and Regulations associated grading/improvement plans. A Dust Control Plan must also be submitted to the PCACPD prior to the start of earth- disturbing activities.

 Rule 202—Visible Emissions. Requires that opacity emissions from any emission source not exceed 20 percent for more than three minutes in any one hour.  Rule 217—Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving Materials. Prohibits the use of the following asphalt materials for road paving: rapid cure cutback asphalt; slow cure cutback asphalt; medium cure cutback asphalt; or emulsified asphalt.  Rule 218—Application of Architectural Coatings. Requires architectural coatings to meet various volatile organic compound (VOC) content limits.  Rule 228—Fugitive Dust. o Visible emissions are not allowed beyond the proposed project boundary line. o Visible emissions may not have opacity of greater than 40 percent at any time. o Track‐out must be minimized from paved public roadways.

With compliance with APCD Rules and Regulations, and with submittal of a Dust Control Plan, impacts related to short-term construction-related emissions would be less than significant.

For the operational phase, the proposed project does not propose to increase density beyond the development anticipated to occur within the SIP. The proposed project related long-term operational emissions would result from vehicle exhaust, utility usage, and water/wastewater conveyance. Traffic resulting from graveside interment service typically generates 15 to 25 vehicles. Daily visitors are expected to generate approximately three to five daily vehicle trips over the course of a day and operations staff would generate approximately three daily vehicle trips. Peak memorial days (e.g. Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Christmas, etc.), could generate approximately 150 to 200 vehicle trips over the course of a day. Emissions resulting from the anticipated traffic and typical utility usage are not expected to exceed the PCAPCD’s Project-level thresholds of significance. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item III-4: Certain air pollutants are classified by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) as toxic air contaminants, or TACs, which are known to increase the risk of cancer and/or other serious health effects. Localized concentrations of Carbon Monoxide (CO) can be a TAC and are typically generated by traffic congestion at intersections. The anticipated traffic resulting from the proposed project would not impact the nearby intersections ability to operate acceptably and would therefore not result in substantial concentration of CO emissions at any intersection.

The construction of the proposed project would result in short-term diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from heavy-duty onsite equipment and off-road diesel equipment. The ARB has identified DPM from diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant, with both chronic and carcinogenic public health risks. The nearest sensitive receptor, a residential dwelling, is located approximately 350 feet north of the proposed project site.

The ARB, PCAPCD, and Placer County recognize the public health risk reductions that can be realized by idling limitations for on-road and off-road equipment. The proposed project would be required to comply with the following idling restriction (five minute limitation) requirements from ARB and Placer County Code during construction activity, including the use of both on-road and off-road equipment:

• California Air Resources Board In-use Off-road Diesel regulation, Section 2449(d)(3): Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the five minute idling restriction. Available via the web: www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf

• Placer County, Code Section 10.14. Available via the web: http://qcode.us/codes/placercounty/

Portable equipment and engines (i.e., back-up generators) 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities and operation require either a registration certificate issued by ARB, based on the California Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) or an Authority to Construct (ATC) permit issued by PCAPCD to operate. The proposed project would be conditioned to obtain all necessary permits from ARB and PCAPCD prior to construction. Due to the short-term nature of the construction, and with compliance with State and Local regulations, potential public health impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 14 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued Sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations given the dispersive properties of DPM and the temporary nature of the mobilized equipment use. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in substantial CO emissions at intersections. Short-term construction and operationally-generated Toxic Air Contaminant emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and therefore would have a less than significant effect. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item III-5: The proposed project would result in additional air pollutant emissions generated by diesel-powered construction equipment, as well as long-term operational emissions from vehicle exhaust that could create odors. However, green burial cemeteries are not typically associated with the creation of objectionable odors. Therefore, potential impacts from odors would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, X policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Game, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries? (PLN) 2. 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, X substantially reduce the number of restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species? (PLN) 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on the environment by X converting oak woodlands? (PLN) 4. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, including oak woodlands, identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by X the California Department of Fish & Game, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries? (PLN) 5. Have a substantial adverse effect on federal or state protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, X coastal, etc.) or as defined by state statute, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (PLN) 6. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native X resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nesting or breeding sites? (PLN) 7. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances that protect X biological resources, including oak woodland resources? (PLN) 8. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or X other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (PLN)

Discussion Item IV-1, 2: A Biological Resources Report for the proposed project site was completed by Wildlands Inc. in October 2017 and updated in July 2018. The 160.3-acre proposed project site is characterized by rolling foothill terrain and oak

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 15 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued savanna, vegetation typical of the surrounding landscape. The dominant vegetation type is annual grasslands. Riparian habitat dominated by valley oak, cottonwoods and grasses occurs along an unnamed intermittent drainage in the southern portion and along the drainage canal north of the irrigated pasture in the center portion of the site. The riparian area is characterized by altered hydrology due to dredging.

The proposed project site has flat to very gently sloping topography, overall the proposed project site slopes to the west, but primarily slopes inward to two drainages that converge before exiting the property on the southwest corner. The elevation ranges from approximately 170 feet above mean sea level (“msl”) in the southwestern corner to approximately 210 feet above msl towards the center of the property. Soils on the site are poorly to well drained. The water table is estimated at approximately 18 feet to 80 feet below the soil surface and fluctuates seasonally.

There are nine habitats found within the proposed project site: annual grassland, vernal pool, vernal swale, artificial vernal pool (tailings), seasonal wetland, seasonal wetland swale, seasonal wetlands (irrigated pasture), artificial seasonal wetland (tailings), emergent marsh, and riparian.

Special Status Plant Species Surveys for special-status plant species were conducted on March 14, July 18-19, and October 16, 2017. No special status species were observed on the proposed project site. Other special-status plant species not observed, but likely to occur on the site are described below.

Ahart’s Dwarf Rush (Juncus leisopermus var. ahartii) is a small inconspicuous annual member of the Rush Family (Juncaceae). This species grows along the upper margins of vernal pools and swales in lowlands and scattered sites in the foothills. Although not observed during surveys, habitat for the Ahart’s Dwarf Rush occurs on the proposed project site.

Boggs Lake Hedge-Hysopp (Gratiola heterosepala) is a State Endangered member of the Fitgwort Family (Scrophulariaceae). This small annual plant grows in vernal pools, marshes, and the margins of fluctuating lakes and stock ponds between 400-5,700 feet in elevation. Although not encountered during surveys, the proposed project site has suitable habitat for this species within the vernal pools and seasonal wetlands.

Dwarf Downingia (Downingia pusilla) is a very small annual member of the Bellflower family (Campanulaceae). The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) gives this species a Category 2 rating meaning that it is rare and endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. This plant only inhabits vernal pools and marsh edges within the Valley and Foothill Annual Grasslands between 1-1,500 feet in elevation. Although not encountered during surveys, the proposed project site has suitable habitat for this species within the vernal pools and seasonal wetlands.

Legenere (Legenere limosa) is an inconspicuous annual member of the Bellflower family (Campanulaceae). The CNPS gives this species a Category 1B rating meaning that it is rare and endangered in California and elsewhere. It grows in shallow water and drying margins of vernal pools as well as along the edges of stock ponds and marshes between 700 and 900 feet of elevation. Although not encountered during surveys, the proposed project site has suitable habitat for this species within the vernal pools and seasonal wetlands.

Pincushion Navarretia (Navarettia myserii spp. Myersii) is a small annual member of the Pholx Family (Polemoniaceae). The CNPS gives this species a Category 1B rating meaning that it is rare and endangered in California and elsewhere. Pincushion navarretia were not observed during 2017 plant surveys, however appropriate vernal pool habitat occurs on the proposed project site.

Sanford’s Arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii) is a perennial member of the Water Plantain Family (Alismataceae). The CNPS gives this species a Category 1B rating meaning that it is rare and endangered in California and elsewhere. This wetland obligate species grows in emergent marshes, slow moving rivers/streams, natural ponds, stock ponds, and vernal pools between 200 and 2,000 feet in elevation. Potential habitat for this species occurs on the proposed project site, however it has not yet been detected during plant surveys.

Slender Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia tennis) is a Federally Threatened and State Endangered member of the Grass Family (Poaceae). This small, sticky, annual grass grows in large/deep vernal pools between 200 and 5,700 feet in elevation. Slender orcutt grass was not observed during 2017 plant survey, however PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 16 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued appropriate vernal pool habitat occurs on the proposed project site.

Special-Status Wildlife Species Surveys for special-status wildlife species were conducted on March 14, July 18-19, and October 16, 2017. No special-status wildlife species were found during these surveys. Special-status wildlife species not observed, but with potential to occur on the proposed project site, are described in detail below.

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Brachinecta lynchi) is a Federally Threatened invertebrate that inhabits vernal pools throughout California. These small crustaceans hatch as vernal pools fill with winter rains, reach maturity within 18 days, and are reproducing within 39 days. The vernal pool fairy shrimp die with the onset of warm weather. The cysts remain dormant over the summer and hatch as the pools refill in the winter. Vernal pool fairy shrimp were not yet detected on the proposed project site. Vernal pools on the site provide suitable habitat for this species.

Conservancy Fairy Shrimp (Brachinecta conservatio) is a Federally Endangered invertebrate that inhabits vernal pools at 15 disjunct localities in California. These small crustaceans hatch as vernal pools fill with winter rains, reach maturity within 36 days, and are reproducing within 46 days. The conservancy fairy shrimp die with the onset of warm weather. The cysts remain dormant over the summer and hatch as the pools refill in the winter. The vernal pools on the proposed project site provide suitable habitat for this species. However, this species has not been detected on the proposed project site or adjacent lands.

Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) is a Federally Endangered invertebrate that occupies large and/or deep vernal pools. These crustaceans hatch shortly after the winter rains fill the pools, mature within 38 days, and reproduce within 54 days. Vernal pool tadpole shrimp move along the bottoms of pools feeding on both dead and live plant and animal material. Shortly after reproduction the individuals die as the pools dry up. The eggs (cysts) remain dormant until the winter rains fill the pools again. Remnants of these organisms are often visible washed up on the downwind shores of occupied vernal pools. The vernal pools on the proposed project site provide suitable habitat for this species. However, this species has not been detected on the proposed project site or adjacent lands.

California Fairy Shrimp (Linderiella occidentalis) is a State Species of Concern in California. This invertebrate inhabits vernal pools statewide. These small crustaceans hatch as vernal pools fill with winter rains, reach maturity within 31 days, and are reproducing within 45 days. The California fairy shrimp die with the onset of warm weather. The cysts remain dormant over the summer and hatch as the pools refill in the winter. The vernal pools on the proposed project site provide suitable habitat for this species. However, this species has not been detected on the proposed project site or adjacent lands.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) is a federally threatened invertebrate that solely depends on elderberry shrubs (Sambucus spp.) throughout its entire life cycle. These medium-sized beetles are restricted to the Central Valley below elevations of 3,000 feet. Adult VELB are characterized by somewhat elongate, cylindrical bodies with long antennae. The beetles live for a few days to a few weeks between mid-March and mid-May with most records from late April to mid- May. The Central Valley elderberry shrub is associated with riparian forests that occur along rivers and streams, but can also be found in upland areas. Riparian habitat is located on the proposed project site; however, no elderberry shrubs have been identified onsite.

Western Spadefoot Toad (Spea hammondii) is a State Species of Special Concern. The medium sized toad is Fully Protected in the state of California. Western spadefoot toads grow up to 2.5 inches in length and are greenish/gray with red/orange tipped tubercles. They occur in Valley and Foothill Annual Grasslands of California and Baja California. This species is often associated with vernal pool complexes or other seasonal wetlands. The vernal pools and seasonal wetlands on the proposed project site provide suitable habitat for this species. However, this species has not been detected on the proposed project site or adjacent lands.

Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunucularia) is State Species of Concern that inhabits the Central Valley and adjacent foothills of California. This relatively small owl nests in burrows. Commonly these burrows were originally created by ground squirrels, although natural rock crevices, culverts, and spaces in stone walls have also been used. Often nests occur in clusters forming small colonies of owls. Western burrowing owls were not observed during the 2017 wildlife surveys, but the proposed project site provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat. PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 17 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued

Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is a California State Threatened Species that has only been observed nesting in extreme northeastern California, the Central Valley, and a few isolated locations in Owens Valley. This species breeds in California from March through September before migrating to wintering-grounds in Mexico and South America. Historically, this species nested throughout California, but has since become restricted due to conversion of native grasslands and woodlands and agricultural pesticide use. The Swainson’s hawk prefers to nest in mature trees within riparian corridors near open foraging habitats. Annual grasslands and prairies are traditional foraging ground, but hay, grain, and row crops may also be used. Nesting and foraging habitat occur on the proposed project site but the species was not detected.

Tricolored blackbird is a highly colonial species that is largely endemic to California and is listed as a California species of special concern. This bird closely resembles the more ubiquitous red-winged blackbird, but can be distinguished by the white border around the bright red patch on the wings. This bird breeds in dense colonies throughout the Central Valley and some coastal regions of California. The tricolored blackbird frequents marshy habitats in summer and open grassland habitats at other times of the year. Although no tricolored blackbirds have been identified in the proposed project site, suitable habitat is present.

Impacts Implementation of the proposed project would result in ground disturbance on approximately 61.3 acres of the 160.3 acre proposed project site. Interment areas have been designed to avoid impacts to wetlands, cultural resources, and other biological resources. In this analysis, construction refers to the construction of the developed portion of the cemetery site including the access drive, paved and overflow parking areas, office, restrooms and garage/barn. Construction does not refer to ongoing operations of the cemetery (e.g. interments).

Special Status Plant Species. Based on the results of the biological assessment, seven special status plant species occur, or have the potential to occur, on the proposed project site. Though there is suitable habitat on the proposed project site such as valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools, and freshwater marsh, these species were not found during properly-timed special status plant surveys. Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV-1 would ensure that potential impacts on special status plant species resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Special Status Animal Species. Based on the results of the biological assessment, 16 special status animal species occur, or have the potential to occur, on the proposed project site. Of these, nine species would be absent or unlikely to occur on the proposed project site due to a lack of suitable habitat for these species. These species include Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, Delta smelt, Central Valley steelhead, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley winter-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley fall/late fall-run Chinook salmon, California red- legged frog, Giant garter snake, Bald eagle, and Western yellow-billed cuckoo. Though endangered or threatened Fish were not present on the proposed project site, Mitigation Measure IV.1 has been recommended to reduce impacts on aquatic habitats and the native fish community on the proposed project site.

The remaining seven special status animal species potentially occur as regular foragers, transients, or have the potential to occur on site due to suitable habitat but were not detected during site visits. There is suitable habitat for burrowing owl, a bird species listed as a Bird of Conservation Concern by the USFWS, and a Species of Special Concern by the CDFW Implementation of Mitigation Measures MMIV.1 through MMIV.4 would ensure that potential impacts on special status plant and animal species would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measures Item IV-1, 2: MM IV.1 Any activities associated with upgrading or maintenance (i.e. disking to widen or create a fuel break or soil stabilization) of the trails system within the riparian area shall be conducted during months when sensitive fish species are less likely to be present or less susceptible to disturbance (i.e., April 15 - October 15 or as directed by PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 18 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued California Department of Fish and Wildlife).

MM IV.2 Prior to the start of construction, final grading plans/drawings shall be developed that show the limits of the designated work area, approved access routes, and existing sensitive habitats (i.e., wetlands, vernal pools, marsh, etc) to be avoided. These areas shall be clearly identified in the field using flags, signs, or fencing (with highly visible markers). Signs or flagging shall be posted every 100 feet and fencing shall consist of 4-foot-high orange construction barrier fencing around isolated areas or areas of higher sensitivity (e.g. vernal pools, swales, individual trees to be preserved). After initial installation, flags, signs, and fencing shall be maintained throughout the construction work period and properly removed when construction is complete.

MM IV.3 A qualified biologist shall complete four surveys for burrowing owl. One survey shall be conducted between February 15 and 15 April 15, and 2) a minimum of three survey visits, at least three weeks apart, between April 15 and July 15, with at least one visit after June 15.

Surveys will be conducted on the project site and within 150 meters of areas that will be directly or indirectly impacted by the project, where feasible. Surveys shall not be conducted during inclement weather, when burrowing owls are typically less active and visible. If burrowing owls or evidence of burrowing owls (e.g., whitewash or pellets) are not observed during surveys, no additional mitigation is necessary. If the birds are present, then there is potential for impacts to occur and the project applicant to take a bird protected under Fish and Game Code.

If active burrows are observed, an impact assessment should be prepared and submitted to CDFW in accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If project activities could result in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, the proposed project applicant shall delay commencement of construction activities until a qualified biologist determines that the burrowing owls have fledged and the burrow is no longer occupied. If delay of construction activities is infeasible, the proposed project applicant shall consult with CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan such that the habitat acreage, number of burrows, and burrowing owls impacted are replaced. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the 2012 Staff Report.

Construction shall not commence until CDFW has approved the mitigation plan. Mitigation for the permanent loss of burrowing owl foraging habitat (defined as all areas of suitable habitat within 250 feet of an active burrow) shall be accomplished at a 1:1 ratio. The mitigation provided shall be consistent with recommendations in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, and may be accomplished within qualifying Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat mitigation area if burrowing owls have been documented using the Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat mitigation area, or if the proposed project biologist, the County, and CDFW collectively determine that the area is suitable.

During the non-breeding season (late September through the end of January), the proposed project applicant may choose to have a qualified biologist conduct a survey for burrows or debris that represent suitable nesting habitat for burrowing owls within areas of proposed ground disturbance, exclude any burrowing owls observed, and collapse any burrows or remove the debris in accordance with the methodology outlined in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

MM IV.4 If construction activities take place during the typical bird breeding/nesting season (typically February 15 through September 1), pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist on the proposed project site and within a 500-foot radius of proposed construction areas, where access is available, no more than three (3) days prior to the initiation of construction. If there is a break in construction activity of more than two (2) weeks or if there is a change in the level of disturbance on the site, then subsequent surveys shall be conducted. A report summarizing the survey shall be provided to the Development Review Committee and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife within 30 days of the completed survey and is valid for one construction season. If no nests are found, no further mitigation is required.

If active nests are identified in these areas, the County shall coordinate with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to develop measures to avoid disturbance of active nests prior to the initiation of any construction activities, or construction could be delayed until the young have fledged. Appropriate avoidance measures may include establishment of an appropriate buffer zone and monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist until the young have fledged the nest and are independent of the site. PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 19 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued

If a buffer zone is implemented, the size of the buffer zone shall be determined by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW and shall be appropriate for the species of bird and nest location. Should construction activities cause a nesting bird to vocalize, make defensive flights at intruders, get up from a brooding position, or fly off the nest, or otherwise exhibit agitation, then the exclusionary buffer shall be increased such that activities are far enough from the nest to stop this agitated behavior. The exclusionary buffer would remain in place until the chicks have fledged or as otherwise determined by a qualified biologist.

Construction activities may only resume after a follow-up survey has been conducted and a report prepared by a qualified avian biologist indicating that the nest (or nests) are no longer active, and that no new nests have been identified. A follow-up survey shall be conducted two months following the initial survey, if the initial survey occurs between February 15 and July 1. Additional follow-up surveys may be required by the Development Review Committee, based on the recommendations in the raptor study and/or as recommended by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife.

If all project construction occurs between September 2 and February 14, a survey is not required and no further studies are necessary.

Discussion Item IV-3, 4: The riparian habitat occurs along the intermittent drainage towards the southern end of the proposed project site and along the drainage canal north of the irrigated pasture. The riparian habitat comprises 19.506-acres and is dominated by valley oak, rabbitsfoot grass, Fremont cottonwood, Himalayan blackberry, curly dock, black willow, and arroyo willow. The proposed project does not involve tree removal in the woodland or riparian area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of oak woodland or convert oak woodland to non-woodland uses.

The proposed project would not involve disturbance within the riparian area besides the construction of trails. Grazing operations could impact the intermittent drainage area however. Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.5 would reduce this impact to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure IV.6 requires the installation of protective fencing to prevent damage during construction to trees to be preserved. The implementation of these measures would reduce impacts to riparian areas, oak woodlands, and native oaks to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Item IV-3, 4: MM IV.5 Grazing practices should be managed to avoid degradation of the intermittent drainage on site. Use of troughs, salt licks and internal fencing to establish prescribed grazing regimes would reduce mechanical erosion of the stream banks and grazing of riparian vegetation. Retention of the riparian canopy would reduce sedimentation, increase canopy cover thereby reducing water temperatures, encourage nesting of Swainson’s hawk and other raptors, improve upland habitat for western pond turtle, and provide additional nesting opportunities for song birds.

MM IV.6 The Improvement plans shall include a note and show placement of Temporary Construction Fencing around isolated trees to be saved: The applicant shall install a four foot tall, brightly colored (typically orange), synthetic mesh material fence (or an equivalent approved by the Development Review Committee) at the following locations prior to any construction equipment being moved on-site or any construction activities taking place: at the limits of construction, outside the critical root zone of all trees six (6) inches DBH (diameter at breast height), or 10 inches DBH aggregate for multi-trunk trees, within 50 feet of any grading, road improvements, underground utilities, or other development activity.

Discussion Item IV-5: Waters of the United States Wildlands also prepared a wetlands delineation for the proposed project site in October 2017 and updated it in July 2018. The entire proposed project site was visually surveyed to evaluate the extent and types of potential wetlands and other waters present and to determine appropriate locations for sample data points. Potential wetlands were initially identified by assessing whether hydrophytic vegetation was prevalent or would be expected to be prevalent under normal conditions.

Wetland features comprise 58.417 acres of the proposed project site. The wetland features include vernal pools, PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 20 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued vernal swales, artificial vernal pools (tailings), seasonal wetlands, seasonal wetland swales, seasonal wetland (irrigated pasture), artificial seasonal wetlands (tailings), emergent marsh, and riparian may during times of extreme inundation exhibit overland or subsurface flow to the vernal swales, seasonal wetland swales, emergent marsh, and riparian habitat within the proposed project site. These features convey water through a local tributary system of swales and drainage ways west and southwest of the proposed project site. This tributary system flows to the Dotty Ravine then west into Raccoon Creek then south into the East Side Canal then west into the Cross Canal then west into the Sacramento River (a navigable waterway). Each habitat and wetland feature is described below and shown in Figure 5.

Annual Grassland. Annual grassland is the dominant vegetation type within the proposed project site (101.001-acres) and is typical of the grasslands in Placer County. This area is dominated by wild oat (Avena fatua), rip gut (Bromus diandrus), soft chess brome (Bromus hordeaceus), yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), chicory (Cichorium intybus), saltgrass (Distichlis spicate), medusae head (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), tarplant (Hemizonia sp.), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), and milk thistle (Silybum marianum).

Vernal Pools. Vernal pools are depressions that seasonally pond water and are associated with hardpan or clay pan soils. Vernal pools are sparse throughout the study site covering an area of 0.414 acres. The vernal pools are dominated by common spike-rush (Eleocharis macrostachya), coyote thistle (Eryngium sp.), mama grass (Glyceria declinate), toad rush (Juncus bufonius), small stipitate popcornflower (Plagiobothrys stipitatus var. mic), vernal pool buttercup (Ranunculus bonarienis).

Vernal Swale. Inundation in vernal swales is more periodic than in vernal pools, though plant communities are very similar. The vernal swales comprise 0.414 acres and are dominated by coyote thistle, Italian ryegrass, toad rush, lythrum (Lythrum hyssopifolia), small stipitate popcornflower.

Artificial Vernal Pool (Tailings). Artificial vernal pool (tailings) are depressions that were artificially constructed as a result of mining and mining exploration. Artificial vernal pools (tailings) comprise 0.229 acres and are dominated by spike rush, coyote thistle, rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), small stipitate popcornflower, and vernal pool buttercup.

Season Wetland. The seasonal wetlands have concave to moderately concave topography. Seasonal wetlands comprise 0.132 acres of the proposed project site and dominated by Italian ryegrass, lythrum, small stipitate popcornflower, and curly dock (Rumex crispus).

Seasonal Wetland Swale. The seasonal wetland swales are slight depressions that convey water between seasonal wetlands. The seasonal wetland swales comprise 0.118 acres and are dominated by salt grass, toad rush, Italian ryegrass, and curly dock.

Seasonal Wetland (Irrigated Pasture). Seasonal wetland (irrigated pasture) are areas that receive irrigation throughout the year for livestock grazing. Seasonal wetland (irrigated pasture) totals 31.930 acres and are dominated by salt grass, Italian ryegrass, Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), pennyroyal (Mentha pulegium), water smartweed (Polygonum amphibium), rabbitsfoot grass, and curly dock.

Artificial Seasonal Wetland (Tailings). Artificial seasonal wetlands (tailings) are depressions that were artificially constructed as a result of mining and mining exploration. Artificial seasonal wetlands (tailings) comprise 5.071 acres and are dominated by salt grass, spike rush, pennyroyal, rabbitsfoot grass, curly dock, and cocklebur (Xanthium spinosum).

Emergent Marsh. The emergent marsh habitat is a shallow-water wetland that formed where a portion of the irrigation canals were dammed up and water was allowed to pond. Emergent marsh comprises 0.603 acres and are dominated by Juncus sp., pennyroyal, water smartweed, tule (Schoenoplectus acutus), and cattail (Typha latifolia).

Riparian. The riparian habitat occurs along the intermittent drainage towards the southern end of the proposed project site and along the drainage canal north of the irrigated pasture. The riparian habitat comprises 19.506 acres and is dominated by valley oak (Quercus lobata), rabbitsfoot grass, Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) (FACW), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), curly dock, black willow (Salix gooddingii), and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis).

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 21 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued

Figure 5 –Wetland Delineation/Constraints Map

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 22 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued The Wetland Delineation determined that the vernal pools, vernal swales, artificial vernal pool (tailings), seasonal wetlands, seasonal wetland swales, seasonal wetland (irrigated pasture), artificial seasonal wetland (tailings). emergent marsh, and riparian located within the proposed project site meet the mandatory technical criteria and field indicators for wetlands outlined in the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (Environmental Laboratory 2008), and the Guidance on Delineations in Drought Conditions (USACOE 2014). Based upon these areas meeting the mandatory technical criteria and field indicators for wetlands outlined in the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual and 2008 Supplement these areas would likely be considered jurisdictional wetlands by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. However, the Corps determines the jurisdictional status of wetlands on a case-by-case basis and may or may not take jurisdiction on some or all of these wetland features.

All of the wetland resources would be avoided. The use of culverted crossings and roads and paths across the site provide sufficient access to allow operation and avoid wetland resource impacts. Existing culverts would allow pedestrian and cart crossing of the low areas of the site. A 50-foot setback was used to buffer interment areas from existing wetland resources. All burials would occur within defined interment areas. In addition, post and cable fencing is proposed around interment areas to separate interment areas from resources. Grading associated with constructed facilities (access drive, paved and overflow parking areas, office, restrooms and garage/barn) is minimal and would disturb less than one acre of soil.

The following mitigation measures have been recommended to avoid and minimize impacts to wetland resources to a less than significant level. In these measures, construction refers to the construction of the developed portion of the cemetery site including the access drive, paved and overflow parking areas, office, restrooms and garage/barn. Construction does not refer to ongoing operations of the cemetery (e.g. interments).

Mitigation Measures Item IV-5: MM IV.7 Water quality BMPs shall be designed according to the Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbooks for Construction, for New Development and Redevelopment (CSQA 2003). Storm drainage from on- and off-site impervious surfaces shall be collected and routed through specially designed catch basins, vegetated swales, vaults, infiltration basins, water quality basins, or filters for entrapment of sediment, debris and oils/greases, and other identified pollutants, as approved by the County. BMPs shall be designed at a minimum in accordance with the Guidance Document for Volume and Flow-Based Sizing of Permanent Post-Construction Best Management Practices for Stormwater Quality Protection (Placer Regional Stormwater Coordination Group 2005).

No water quality facility construction shall be permitted within any identified wetlands area, floodplain, or right of- way, except as authorized by appropriate regulatory authorities. All BMPs shall be maintained as required to ensure effectiveness.

MM IV.8 Projects with ground disturbance exceeding 1 acre that are subject to construction storm water quality permit requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program shall obtain such permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and shall obtain evidence of a state-issued Waste Discharge Identification number or filing of a Notice of Intent and fees prior to start of construction.

This proposed project is located within the area covered by the County’s municipal stormwater quality permit, pursuant to the NPDES Phase II program. Project-related storm water discharges are subject to all applicable requirements of said permit. BMPs shall be designed to mitigate (minimize, infiltrate, filter, or treat) storm water runoff in accordance with “Attachment 4” of Placer County’s NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit (State Water Resources Control Board NPDES General Permit No. CAS000004).

Construction (temporary) BMPs for the proposed project include, but are not limited to: • Use temporary mulching, seeding, or other suitable stabilization measures to protect uncovered soils; • Store materials and equipment to ensure that spills or leaks cannot enter the storm drain system or surface water; • Use water for dust control; • Construct sediment control basins; • Regular sweeping of entry and exit areas to minimize off-site sediment transport; • Install traps, filters, or other devices at drop inlets to prevent contaminants from entering storm drains; and

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 23 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued • Use barriers, such as straw bales, perimeter silt fences, or placement of hay bales, to minimize the amount of uncontrolled runoff that could enter drains or surface water.

MM IV.9 Post-development (permanent) BMPs for the proposed project include, but are not limited to: • The proposed project would have an effective system of erosion and sedimentation control, consisting of vegetative and structural measures and management practices, to reduce the damage of erosion and costly clean-up procedures. • Following trail construction, wattles/fiber rolls and/or gravel-filled bags would remain in place until permanent stabilization measures have proven successful. • Plan development to fit the particular topography, soils, waterways, and natural vegetation of the site, to avoid the creation of erosion problems on the site. • Reduce erosion hazards and runoff volumes and velocity by limiting the length and steepness of slopes. Slopes subject to erosion should not be steeper than 2:1 horizontal to vertical. • Break up long steep slopes by benching, terracing, or diversion structures. • Use existing vegetation to control erosion to (a) shield the soil surface from rain, (b) increase infiltration, (c) reduce velocity of runoff and (d) hold soil in place and act as a filter. • Time the proposed project so that grading and construction occur during the normal dry season to the extent feasible.

MM IV.10 The Applicant shall prepare and submit Grading and Drainage Plans (Plans) and specifications (per the requirements of Section II of the Land Development Manual that are in effect at the time of submittal) for review and approval of work associated with structural design, grading/drainage associated with the facility development zone (e.g. restrooms, office, parking lot area, barn). The Plans shall show all conditions affecting those facilities as well as pertinent topographical features. All existing and proposed utilities and easements, on-site and adjacent to those facilities, which may be affected by proposed construction, shall be shown on the plans. The Applicant shall pay plan check and inspection fees as applicable.

All proposed grading, drainage improvements and vegetation removal associated with the access road, parking area, and facilities (e.g. restrooms, office, barn), shall be shown on the Plans and all work shall conform to provisions of the County Grading Ordinance (Section 15.48, formerly Chapter 29, Placer County Code) and the Placer County Flood Control District's Stormwater Management Manual. No grading, clearing, or tree disturbance shall occur until the Plans are approved and any required temporary construction fencing has been installed and inspected by a member of the Design Review Committee. All cut/fill slopes included in the Plans shall be at 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) maximum unless a soils report supports a steeper slope and Design Review Committee concurs with said recommendation.

In addition, a drainage report in conformance with the requirements of Section 5 of the Land Development Manual and the Placer County Storm Water Management Manual that are in effect at the time of submittal shall be prepared and submitted with the Plans. The report shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and shall, at a minimum, include: written text addressing existing conditions, the effects of the improvements, all appropriate calculations, a watershed map, increases in downstream flows, proposed on- and off-site improvements and drainage easements to accommodate flows from this proposed project. The report shall identify water quality protection features and methods to be used both during construction and for long-term post-construction water quality protection. Best Management Practice (BMP) measures shall be provided to reduce erosion, water quality degradation, and prevent the discharge of pollutants to stormwater to the maximum extent practicable.

MM IV.11 Prior to commencing burial operations in an interment area, map and record limits of interment areas (A, B, C, etc.) as shown on site plan so that burials occur within plots located inside of interment areas and do not impact resources.

Discussion Item IV-6: The proposed project is not anticipated to interfere or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites or habitat corridors. In the immediate vicinity, the proposed project site is situated between large tracts of preserved and private lands used for irrigated agriculture and/or livestock grazing. At completion, the open design of the proposed project site and the preservation of the riparian area would support continued use by regional wildlife as a movement corridor. Since interments at the site are expected to occur over 20 to 25 years, much of the proposed

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 24 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued project site would remain in its current condition for years prior to any disturbance. As a green cemetery, even after interments, nearly all of the proposed project site would retain its current condition. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item IV-7: The proposed project would not conflict with any County policy or ordinance protecting natural resources. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item IV-8: No Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan has been approved for Placer County. The draft Placer County Conservation Program (PCCP) was released in 2011, which proposes a streamlined strategy and permitting process for a range of covered activities in western Placer County for the next 50 years. The proposed project site is located within the boundaries of the draft PCCP. The mitigation and conservation protocols that are applied through the PCCP are an equal to or greater functional equivalent mitigation standard for biological resources that are represented in this MND. In the event the PCCP should be adopted prior to submittal of improvement plans for the proposed project, then the protocols adopted with the PCCP would replace mitigation measures for the same effects as characterized within this MND. Therefore, there is no impact.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures 1. Substantially cause adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines, Section X 15064.5? (PLN) 2. Substantially cause adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, X Section 15064.5? (PLN) 3. Have the potential to cause a physical change, which would X affect unique ethnic cultural values? (PLN) 4. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential X impact area? (PLN) 5. Disturb any human remains, including these interred outside X of dedicated cemeteries? (PLN)

A Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for the proposed project site by ECORP Consulting, Inc. in 2017. The presence of cultural resources on the proposed project site was determined through a records search, literature review, and pedestrian survey. The methods and results are described below.

Record Search. To determine the presence of cultural and historical resources in the proposed project area, staff from ECORP Consulting conducted a record search at the North Central Information Center (NCIC) on March 22, 2017. The purpose of the records search was to identify previous cultural resources studies in and within 0.5 mile of the proposed project site, and identify previously-recorded resources on the proposed project site or near enough that they might be impacted by the proposed project.

In addition to the official records and maps for archaeological sites and surveys in Placer County, the following historic references were also reviewed: Historic Property Data File for Placer County (OHP 2012); The National Register Information System website (NPS 2017); Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Landmarks website (OHP 2017); California Historical Landmarks (OHP 1996); California Points of Historical Interest (OHP 1992); Directory of Properties in the Historical Resources Inventory (OHP 1999); Caltrans Local Bridge Survey (Caltrans 2015); Caltrans State Bridge Survey (Caltrans 2015); and Historic Spots in California (Kyle 2002). Other references were also examined including historic maps and aerials.

The results of the records search indicated that the proposed project site has not been previously surveyed for

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 25 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued cultural resources. One previous cultural resources investigation has been conducted within 0.5 mile of the proposed project site (Teichert Aggregate site) covering approximately 15 percent of the total area surrounding the property within the record search radius. This study revealed the presence of prehistoric sites, including lithic scatters and habitation sites, and historical sites, including sites associated with historic-era mining activities. The previous study was conducted between 1994 and 1995 and encompassed 1,848 acres of land. The records search also determined that one previously recorded prehistoric cultural resource is located within 0.5 mile of the proposed project site. The site is a prehistoric habitation site with intact midden deposit and bedrock mortars.

In addition to the records search, ECORP contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission on March 21, 2017, to request a search of the Sacred Lands File for the area. No Sacred Lands have been recorded by California Native American tribes within the proposed project site or immediate environs.

Field Survey. A field survey of the site by ECORP was conducted on March 23 and 27, 2017. A total of four person- days were expended in the field. At that time, the ground surface was examined for indications of surface or subsurface cultural resources. The general morphological characteristics of the ground surface were inspected for indications of subsurface deposits that may be manifested on the surface, such as circular depressions or ditches.

No subsurface investigations or artifact collections were undertaken during the pedestrian survey. All cultural resources encountered during the survey were noted. The resources were photographed, mapped using a handheld Global Positioning System receiver, and sketched as necessary to document their presence. Any cultural resource that contained at least three artifacts in a ten-square-meter area or that consisted of one or more features was considered a site. Any indications of cultural presence on the proposed project site that failed to meet the definition of a site were noted as isolates.

As a result of the field survey, nine cultural resources were identified (but not formally recorded) on the proposed project site: three prehistoric sites, five historic-period sites, and one historic-period isolate. The three prehistoric sites have been presumed eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and the proposed project has been designed to avoid them. The single historic-period isolate has been evaluated as not eligible for the NRHP or CRHR. The five historic-period sites have been presumed eligible for the NRHP and CRHR but would not be significantly impacted by the proposed project.

Discussion Item V-1: Historic Resources. Five historic-era sites and one historic-era isolate were identified on the proposed project site during the pedestrian inventory survey. Historic-era resources included agricultural, power/utility transmission, and dredge mining-related resources. The historic sites were not formally evaluated under Federal eligibility criteria, and while not likely to be found significant, this cannot be determined based on survey-level data alone. Therefore these five historic-period sites are being presumed eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Places. The proposed project has been designed to accomplish the following: • HP-001: this site, composed of two canals and a reservoir, would be avoided in its entirety. • HP-004: this historic-era transmission segment would be left in place along the western project. • HP-005: the majority of the tailings are present within the biological preserve and are excluded from the interment area, and the minor intrusions into the edges of the mapped site boundary would not have a significant impact on the resource; the site would still retain the character- defining features of mine tailings and the use of those marginal areas for green interments would not change the setting or feeling of the resource. • HP-008: this historic-era barbed wire fence would be left in place and maintained throughout and around the proposed project, with only one minor break to accommodate passage of a fenced walking path; any permanent fencing along the property boundary would be parallel to the resource and would not replace it. • HP-009: this historic-era road segment passes through an interment area, but would not be used for interment and driving along the road would be prohibited; this road segment would be marked as a no-burial area and left in place. • HP-002-I, an historic-age isolated trough, does not require further study. It does not meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR as an individual resource. The isolate does not contribute to any known or suspected historic districts and is neither considered to be a Historic Property for the purpose of Section 106 NHPA nor a Historical Resource under CEQA. Isolate HP-001 may be impacted by the proposed project without further management considerations or mitigation.

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 26 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued

Prehistoric Resources. Prehistoric sites HP-003, HP-006, and HP-007 are all bedrock mortars. There is no archival information on record to support the association of these sites with important events or persons in prehistory. ECORP determined that the sites do possess the potential to provide information about the history of the Native American community that is not available elsewhere, and therefore, these sites were presumed eligible under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4. Accordingly, the proposed project proponent has redesigned the proposed project to accommodate avoidance of all three resources, including designating the sites as non- interment areas, and utilizing fencing along walking paths to deter visitors from access.

Historically significant structures and sites as well as the potential for the discovery of unknown archaeological or paleontological resources as a result of development activities are discussed in the Placer County General Plan. Policies and mitigation measures have been included in the General Plan to encourage the preservation of historically significant known and unknown areas. There always remains the potential for ground-disturbing activities to expose previously unrecorded cultural resources. Both CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA require the Lead Agency to address any unanticipated cultural resource discoveries during Project construction. Therefore, implementation of cultural resource construction mitigation below would ensure that this impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measure Item V-1: MM V.1 The three known Native American cultural resources, referred to as HP-003, HP-006, and HP-007, shall be excluded from the interment areas in perpetuity. Prior to facility opening, these sites will be protected as agreed to during consultation with the UAIC. No signage indicating the presence of a cultural resource shall be installed; however, a sign shall be installed at the property entrance to advise the public that unauthorized trespassing and excavation is prohibited pursuant to California Public Resources Code 5097.5 and 5097.99. Sign language shall be approved by the DRC. . The majority of mining site HP-005 shall be excluded from interment areas in perpetuity.

MM V.2 The Applicant shall ensure that a Worker Education Program is developed and delivered to train equipment operators (for construction phase) and cemetery personnel (for operations) about cultural resources. The program shall be designed to inform workers about: federal and state regulations pertaining to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources; the subsurface indicators of resources that shall require a work stoppage; procedures for notifying the Placer County Planning Services Division of any occurrences; and enforcement of penalties and repercussions for non-compliance with the program.

Worker education training shall be provided as a DVD with a training binder, prepared by a qualified professional archaeologist and reviewed by Placer County Planning Services Division. The United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) shall be afforded the option of attending the initial training in person or providing a video segment or clip for incorporation into the training video that appeals to the contractor’s need to be respectful of tribal cultural resources and tribal participation in implementing unanticipated discovery protocols. The training shall be provided once to the Construction Contractor’s superintendent and once to the Cemetery Director or his/her successor, both of whom shall then be responsible for ensuring that all future equipment operators and cemetery personnel view the video and review training materials prior to their first excavation on the property. All Cemetery Directors shall be required to sign a form that acknowledges receipt of the training and commits the Cemetery Director to ensuring that all future personnel receive the training. A copy of the form shall be provided to the Placer County Planning Services Division as proof of compliance.

MM V.3 In the event that cultural materials, or materials that are potentially cultural (as described in the Worker Awareness Training), are observed during grave excavation or any other ground disturbing activity, the equipment operator shall immediately cease excavation and notify the Placer County Planning Services Division within 24 hours of the observation. While the County responds to the discovery in the manner described below, the operator shall take reasonable measures to ensure safety and no further disturbances and shall move at least 100 feet away prior to resuming excavation, as long as no additional materials are encountered in the new excavation. Excavation within a 100-foot radius of the find shall not occur until clearance is received from the County.

The County shall ensure that a qualified professional archaeologist, approved by the County, inspects the discovery and makes the following decisions:

A. Upon arrival at the discovery and before making an identification, the archaeologist shall take a PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 27 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued photograph and collect a GPS location and email it directly to the County and UAIC. If the archaeologist determines that the find is not a cultural resource and UAIC has not expressed interest in reburying the materials within 72 hours of receiving notice of the find, then no additional action is necessary, and excavation may resume at that location without further restrictions. In this case, the actions below do not apply.

B. If the archaeologist determines that the find does represent a cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation that does not include human remains subject to state law, he or she shall first notify the Placer County Planning Services Division and then record and evaluate the resource to determine whether or not it constitutes a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the resource is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, then the archaeologist shall recommend appropriate treatment measures. The County shall review the findings and recommendations, consult as appropriate, make a determination of eligibility and effect, and direct the implementation of appropriate treatment measures.

If the archaeologist determines that the find is not a Historical Resource under CEQA, work may not resume within the no-work radius until the County, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.

For any discoveries that are determined to be cultural resources and require recording, evaluations, or treatment, copies of any subsequent studies, cultural resources study or report, detailing the nature of cultural resources, actions taken, and disposition of any significant tribal cultural resources shall be the financial responsibility of the project applicant and submitted by a qualified professional archaeologist to the North Central Information Center (NCIC) at California State University, Sacramento and to the Native American Heritage Commission for inclusion in its Sacred Lands File.

Depending on the nature of the discovery, any or all of the following additional procedures shall be required and coupled with the response procedures above, when applicable:

i. Native American Archaeological Resources: If the find described above represents a Native American or potentially Native American resource, or a Tribal Cultural Resource as defined by Section 21074(a) of the Public Resources Code, that does not include human remains subject to state law, or a non-cultural item of importance to UAIC, then the County shall consult with UAIC on a finding of significance and effect, and on appropriate treatment measures. Treatment measures may include tribal monitoring, reburial, or documentation. Preservation in place is the preferred treatment, if feasible. Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the County, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA; 2) is not a Tribal Cultural Resource under CEQA; or 3) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.

ii. Human Remains Subject to State Law: If it is determined that human remains are found, or remains that are potentially human, then the treatment shall conform to the required procedures in state law under California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. Human remains are defined by state law (PRC Section 5097.98) as: “(d)(1) Human remains of a Native American may be an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. (2) Any items associated with the human remains that are placed or buried with the Native American human remains are to be treated in the same manner as the remains, but do not by themselves constitute human remains.”

If the Coroner determines that the find is not subject to state law (such as, it is composed of non-culturally modified animal bone), then the NAHC will not be notified and no MLD will be designated. The County shall consult with the archaeologist and UAIC to determine whether or not the find is still a Historical Resource, as described in Section B, above.

MM V.4 If Native American cultural materials including burials are unearthed during construction activities or grave excavation, the preferred reburial location is within the buffers established around sites HP-003, HP-006, and HP- 007, unless mutually agreed upon otherwise by the Cemetery Director, County, and UAIC (or MLD, if different). PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 28 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued Reburial of Native American cultural materials may not occur until the County acts in accordance with MM CR-3(b) and may not occur until UAIC or the MLD (if other than UAIC) is provided a reasonable opportunity (up to 30 days) to prepare the materials for reburial at their discretion. Should temporary storage of Native American materials pending reburial be requested, the Cemetery Director shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to accommodate temporary and secure storage on the property for up to 30 days. Alternately, the tribe or its designee may take possession of the materials to prepare them for reburial, as long as a chain of custody form with an inventory of objects is on file with the Cemetery Director and tribe. Reburial shall be documented by the applicant’s professional archaeologist on updated or new DPR records, filed with the California Historical Resources Information System. Reburial of human remains shall be handled and further documented in accordance with state law.

Discussion Item V-2: The soils types present in the majority of the proposed project site and immediate vicinity (largely course, sandy loam and weathered bedrock) are gravelly, well-draining, and loamy, and come from parent materials of residuum weathered from granite. Underlying geomorphology is composed of Plio-Pleistocene loosely consolidated deposits, Mesozoic granitic rocks, and Mesozoic volcanic rocks, dating to the older Pleistocene era (approximately 1.9 million to 22,000 years Cal BP). These soils have very low potential to contain buried archaeological deposits. However, areas of deposited alluvium adjacent to Raccoon Creek just north of the proposed project site may date to Late Holocene (4,000 to 150 years Cal BP). Soils dating to this era have a high potential to contain buried archaeological deposits.

Therefore, due to the presence of alluvium deposited by Doty Ravine North Canal and potentially deposited by RaccoonCreek, coupled with the likelihood of prehistoric archaeological sites being located along perennial waterways, there exists a moderate potential for buried prehistoric archaeological sites near drainages in the proposed project site.

Though the areas near the drainages would largely remain undisturbed, there is the possibility that buried archaeological deposits could be present and accidental discovery could occur, a potentially significant impact. Therefore, implementation of cultural resource construction mitigation measures would ensure that this impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Item V-2: MM V.1, MM V.2 and MM V.3

Discussion Item V-3, 4: The proposed project does not have the potential to cause a physical change that would affect unique ethnic or cultural values and there are no known existing or historic religious or sacred uses of the proposed project site. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item V-5: No human remains are known to be buried at the proposed project site nor were there any indications of human remains found during the field survey. However, there is always the possibility that subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project, such as trenching and grading, could potentially uncover, damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. Accordingly, this is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure that this impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Item V-5: MM V.1, MM V.2 and MM V

VI. GEOLOGY & SOILS – Would the project:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures 1. Expose people or structures to unstable earth conditions or X changes in geologic substructures? (ESD)

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 29 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued

2. Result in significant disruptions, displacements, compaction X or overcrowding of the soil? (ESD) 3. Result in substantial change in topography or ground surface X relief features? (ESD) 4. Result in the destruction, covering or modification of any X unique geologic or physical features? (ESD) 5. Result in any significant increase in wind or water erosion of X soils, either on or off the site? (ESD) 6. Result in changes in deposition or erosion or changes in siltation which may modify the channel of a river, stream, or X lake? (ESD) 7. Result in exposure of people or property to geologic and geomorphological (i.e. Avalanches) hazards such as X earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? (PLN, ESD) 8. Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and X potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? (ESD) 9. Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Chapter 18 of the California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or X property? (ESD)

Discussion Item VI-1, 4: According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey of Placer County and the United States Department of Agriculture ~ Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, the proposed project is located on soils classified as Andregg Coarse sandy loam, redding and corning gravelly loam soils, xerofluvents, and rubble land. These are generally well-drained soils. The hazard of erosion is slight to moderate. The soil survey does not identify any unique geologic or physical features. No known unique geologic or physical features exist on the site that would be destroyed or modified. Improvements associated with the construction and operation of a green burial cemetery would not result is the exposure of people or structures to unstable earth conditions or change any geologic substructure. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item VI-2: To construct the improvements proposed, potentially significant disruption of soils on-site would occur, including excavation/compaction for the access improvements, parking lot, structures, trails, and various utilities. Excavation for the graves would create temporary soil disruption, as the soil would be replaced over the grave after internment. Plot sizes and grave placement areas would vary based on natural conditions such as slope, soil structure, and vegetation densities. Plots in conservation cemeteries are larger than plots in conventional cemeteries due to variations in natural conditions (e.g. slope, vegetation, etc.). The plots are sized to accommodate adjacent natural features such as trees and rocks and to allow for the irregular pattern of natural habitat restoration. Excavation and site restoration activities would be performed with small, mechanized equipment and/or manual labor to limit site impacts. After internment, soil is replaced and plots would be observed for settlement and irregular ground surfaces corrected with placement of additional soil to avoid ponded water.

Separate from the burial sites, approximately 0.9 acre of the 160.3 acre site may be disturbed by grading activities. The proposed project site is located on two soil classifications. The soil units Andregg coarse sandy loam and Redding and Corning gravelly loam are mapped as well drained and moderately erodible while the soil units xerofluvents and rubble land are mapped as slight to moderately erodible with varied drainage. The topography of the site is generally rolling and gently sloped hills. The maximum height of proposed cuts/fills is approximately two feet and retaining walls are not proposed. All resulting finished grades are proposed to be no steeper than 2:1.

The proposed project’s impacts associated with unstable earth conditions, soil disruptions, displacements, compaction of the soil, and overcrowding of the soil would be mitigated to a less than significant level by implementing the following mitigation measures:

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 30 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued Mitigation Measures Item VI-2: MM VI.1 The applicant shall prepare and submit improvement plans, specifications and cost estimates (per the requirements of Section II of the Land Development Manual [LDM] that are in effect at the time of submittal) to the Engineering and Surveying Division (ESD) for review and approval. The plans shall show all physical improvements as required by the conditions for the proposed project as well as pertinent topographical features both on and off site. All existing and proposed utilities and easements, on site and adjacent to the proposed project, which may be affected by planned construction, shall be shown on the plans. All landscaping and irrigation facilities within the public right- of-way (or public easements), or landscaping within sight distance areas at intersections, shall be included in the Improvement plans. The applicant shall pay plan check and inspection fees and Placer County Fire Department improvement plan review and inspection fees with the 1st Improvement Plan submittal. (NOTE: Prior to plan approval, all applicable recording and reproduction costs shall be paid). The cost of the above-noted landscape and irrigation facilities shall be included in the estimates used to determine these fees. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain all required agency signatures on the plans and to secure department approvals. If the Design/Site Review process and/or Development Review Committee (DRC) review is required as a condition of approval for the proposed project, said review process shall be completed prior to submittal of Improvement plans. Record drawings shall be prepared and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer at the applicant's expense and shall be submitted to the ESD in both hard copy and electronic versions in a format to be approved by the ESD prior to acceptance by the County of site improvements.

Conceptual landscape plans submitted prior to project approval may require modification during the Improvement Plan process to resolve issues of drainage and traffic safety.

MM VI.2 The improvement plans shall show all proposed grading, drainage improvements, vegetation and tree removal and all work shall conform to provisions of the County Grading Ordinance (Ref. Article 15.48, Placer County Code) and Stormwater Quality Ordinance (Ref. Article 8.28, Placer County Code) that are in effect at the time of submittal. No grading, clearing, or tree disturbance shall occur until the Improvement plans are approved and all temporary construction fencing has been installed and inspected by a member of the Development Review Committee (DRC). All cut/fill slopes shall be at a maximum of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) unless a soils report supports a steeper slope and the Engineering and Surveying Division (ESD) concurs with said recommendation.

The applicant shall revegetate all disturbed areas. Revegetation, undertaken from April 1 to October 1, shall include regular watering to ensure adequate growth. A winterization plan shall be provided with project Improvement plans. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure proper installation and maintenance of erosion control/winterization before, during, and after project construction. Soil stockpiling or borrow areas, shall have proper erosion control measures applied for the duration of the construction as specified in the Improvement plans. Provide for erosion control where roadside drainage is off of the pavement, to the satisfaction of the Engineering and Surveying Division (ESD).

The applicant shall submit to the ESD a letter of credit or cash deposit in the amount of 110 percent of an approved engineer's estimate for winterization and permanent erosion control work prior to Improvement Plan approval to guarantee protection against erosion and improper grading practices. One year after the County's acceptance of improvements as complete, if there are no erosion or runoff issues to be corrected, unused portions of said deposit shall be refunded to the proposed project applicant or authorized agent.

If, at any time during construction, a field review by County personnel indicates a significant deviation from the proposed grading shown on the Improvement plans, specifically with regard to slope heights, slope ratios, erosion control, winterization, tree disturbance, and/or pad elevations and configurations, the plans shall be reviewed by the DRC/ESD for a determination of substantial conformance to the proposed project approvals prior to any further work proceeding. Failure of the DRC/ESD to make a determination of substantial conformance may serve as grounds for the revocation/modification of the proposed project approval by the appropriate hearing body.

Discussion Item VI-3: This green burial cemetery proposed project is not proposing a substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features on the 160 acre site. The topography of the site is generally rolling and gently sloped with the majority of the site draining towards the southwest corner of the property. Elevations range from approximately 210 to 170 feet above sea level. The proposed project would construct a paved parking lot, office, restrooms, garage, and gazebo structure, along with associated utilities. The parcel would also have minor grading for 3.2 miles of unpaved trails. There is not a substantial change in site topography as a result of this proposed project. No mitigation measures are required. PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 31 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued

Discussion Item VI-5, 6: The project proposal would ultimately result in the construction of a green burial cemetery including approximately 15,000 graves, 4,000 plots for cremains, trails, two gazebos, small office, restrooms, garage, parking lot, roadway improvements and associated utilities.

The disruption of soils on this undeveloped property increases the risk of erosion and creates a potential for contamination of stormwater runoff with disturbed soils or other pollutants introduced through typical grading practices. The construction phase would create significant potential for erosion as disturbed soil may come in contact with wind or precipitation that could transport sediment to the air and/or adjacent waterways. Discharge of concentrated runoff in the post-development condition could also contribute to the erosion potential in the long- term. Erosion potential and water quality impacts are always present and occur when protective vegetative cover is removed and soils are disturbed. This disruption of soils on the site has the potential to result in significant increases in erosion of soils both on- and off-site. The proposed project’s impacts associated with deposition or soil erosion or changes in siltation would be mitigated to a less than significant level by implementing the following mitigation measures:

Mitigation Measures Item VI-5, 6: MM VI.1, & MM VI.2 See Items VI-2 for the text of these mitigation measures as well as the following.

MM VI.3 Staging Areas: The Improvement plans shall identify the stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas with locations as far as practical from existing dwellings and protected resources in the area.

MM VI.4 The Improvement plans shall provide details of the location and specifications of all proposed trails for the review and approval of the Development Review Committee.

Trail construction shall include details on trail surface material(s), drainage appurtenances, and compaction as necessary for erosion control. Tread width shall be a minimum of ten feet and shall be out sloped at approximately three percent. The trail tread shall be graded and compacted and not exceed 12 percent longitudinal slope. Water must be diverted from the trail's surface before it builds up to erosive force. To divert water, use outslopes, grade reversals, grade dips, and/or lead ditches, in conjunction with inslopes or culverts. Maintenance of all trails shall be by the property owner.

MM VI.5 The Improvement plans shall show that water quality treatment facilities/Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be designed according to the guidance of the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbooks for Construction, for New Development/Redevelopment, and for Industrial and Commercial (or other similar source as approved by the Engineering and Surveying Division (ESD)).

Storm drainage from on- and off-site impervious surfaces (including roads) shall be collected and routed through specially designed catch basins, vegetated swales, vaults, infiltration basins, water quality basins, filters, etc. for entrapment of sediment, debris and oils/greases or other identified pollutants, as approved by ESD. BMPs shall be designed in accordance with the West Placer Storm Water Quality Design Manual for Sizing of Permanent Post- Construction Best Management Practices for Stormwater Quality Protection. No water quality facility construction shall be permitted within any identified wetlands area, floodplain, or right-of-way, except as authorized by project approvals.

All permanent BMPs shall be maintained as required to ensure effectiveness. The applicant shall provide for the establishment of vegetation, where specified, by means of proper irrigation. Proof of on-going maintenance, such as contractual evidence, shall be provided to ESD upon request. Maintenance of these facilities shall be provided by the project owners/permittees and certification of completed maintenance reported annually to the County Department of Public Works and Facilities (DPWF) Stormwater Coordinator, unless, and until, a county service area is created and said facilities are accepted by the County for maintenance. Contractual evidence of a monthly parking lot sweeping and vacuuming, and catch basin cleaning program shall be provided to the ESD upon request. Failure to do so would be grounds for discretionary permit revocation. Prior to Improvement Plan approval, easements shall be created and offered for dedication to the County for maintenance and access to these facilities in anticipation of possible County maintenance.

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 32 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued

MM VI.6 Project-related stormwater discharges are subject to Placer County’s Stormwater Quality Ordinance (Placer County Code, Article 8.28). This proposed project shall reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable and prevent non-stormwater discharges from leaving the site, both during and after construction.

Discussion Item VI-7, 8: The California Department of Mines and Geology classifies the proposed project site as a low severity earthquake zone. The site does not lie within an Alquist-Priolo special study zone for seismic impacts and is located in a relatively quiet seismic area when compared to other more active areas of California. The proposed project site is considered to have low seismic risk with respect to faulting, ground shaking, and seismically related ground failure. Because structures would be constructed according to the current edition of the California Building Code, which contains seismic standards, the likelihood of severe damage due to ground shaking should be minimal. There is no known landsliding or slope instability related to the relatively flat project site. No avalanches, mud slides or other geologic or geomorphological hazards have been observed at or near this project site. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item VI-9: Based on the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, this proposed project is located primarily on soils classified as Andregg Coarse sandy loam, Redding and Corning gravelly loam soils, Xerofluvents, and Rubble Land. The soil survey identifies the some of the major limitations for construction on Redding and Corning gravelly loam soils as the shrink-swell potential of the soil and the limited ability to support a load. The proposed project’s impacts associated with expansive soils creating substantial risks to life or property would be mitigated to a less than significant level by implementing the following mitigation measures:

Mitigation Measures Item VI-9: MM VI.1 & MM VI.2 See Items VI-2 for the text of these mitigation measures, as well as the following:

MM VI.7 Improvement Plan submittals shall include a final geotechnical engineering report produced by a California Registered Civil Engineer or Geotechnical ESD review and approval. The report shall address and make recommendations on the following: A) Road, pavement, and parking area design B) Structural foundations, including retaining wall design (if applicable) C) Grading practices D) Erosion/winterization E) Special problems discovered on-site, (i.e., groundwater, expansive/unstable soils, etc.) F) Slope stability

Once approved by ESD, two copies of the final report shall be provided to ESD and one copy to the Building Services Division for its use. It is the responsibility of the developer to provide for engineering inspection and certification that earthwork has been performed in conformity with recommendations contained in the report.

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures 1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant and/or cumulative impact X on the environment? (PLN, Air Quality) 2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse X gases? (PLN, Air Quality)

Discussion Item VII-1, 2: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of primary concern from land use projects include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Construction related activities resulting in exhaust emissions may come from fuel combustion for heavy-duty diesel and gasoline-powered equipment, portable auxiliary equipment, material PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 33 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued delivery trucks, and worker commuter trips. Operational GHG emissions would result from motor vehicle trips generated by the residents and visitors, as well as on-site fuel combustion for landscape maintenance equipment. The proposed project would result in construction of the driveway, paved parking area, pads for the office, restrooms, and garage.

The California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32) signed into law in September 2006, requires statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB32 established regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve this goal and provides guidance to help attain quantifiable reductions in emissions efficiently, without limiting population and economic growth. In September of 2016, Senate Bill (SB) 32 was signed by the Governor, to establish a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

On October 13, 2016, the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) adopted CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions as shown below. The Bright-line Threshold of 10,000 metric tons (MT) CO2e/year threshold for construction and operational phases, and the De Minimis level of 1,100 MT CO2e/year for operational, were used to determine significance. GHG emissions from projects that exceed 10,000 MT CO2e/year would be deemed to have a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. For a land use project, this level of emissions is equivalent to a project size of approximately 646 single‐family dwelling units, or a 323,955 square feet commercial building.

The De Minimis Level for the operational phases of 1,100 MT CO2e/year represents an emissions level which can be considered as less than cumulatively considerable and be excluded from the further GHG impact analysis. This level of emissions is equivalent to a project size of approximately 71 single‐family units, or a 35,635 square feet commercial building.

PCAPCD CEQA THRESHOLDS FOR GHG EMISSIONS

1) Bright‐line Threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for the construction and operational phases of land use projects as well as the stationary source projects 2) Efficiency Matrix for the operational phase of land use development projects when emissions exceed the De Minimis Level, and 3) De Minimis Level for the operational phases of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year.

The GHG emissions resulting from the proposed project are not expected to exceed the PCAPCD Bright-line threshold, or De Minimis level and therefore would not substantially hinder the State’s ability to attain the goals identified in SB 32. Thus, the construction and operation of the proposed project would not generate substantial greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, which may be considered to have a significant impact on the environment, nor conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and is therefore considered to have a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are required.

VIII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine handling, transport, use, or disposal of X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials? (EHS) 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions X involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (EHS) 3. Emit hazardous emissions, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (PLN, Air X Quality) 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 34 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (EHS) 5. 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 X safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (PLN) 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing in the X project area? (PLN) 7. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are X adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (PLN)

8. Create any health hazard or potential health hazard? (EHS) X

9. Expose people to existing sources of potential health X hazards? (EHS)

Discussion Item VIII-1, 2: The use of hazardous substances during normal construction and residential activities is expected to be limited in nature, and would be subject to standard handling and storage requirements. Accordingly, impacts related to the release of hazardous substances are considered less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item VIII-3: The proposed project includes grading operations which would result in short-term diesel exhaust emissions from on-site heavy-duty equipment and would generate diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from the use of off- road diesel equipment required for site grading. However, because of the dispersive properties of DPM, and the distance from any sensitive receptors to the proposed project site, the impacts on those receptors would be less than significant. Further, operation of the proposed project does not propose a use that involves activities that would emit hazardous substances or waste that would affect a substantial number of people and is therefore considered to have a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item VIII-4: The proposed project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item VIII-5, 6: The proposed project site has an Airport Overflight combining district zoning. The parcel is outside of the Lincoln Regional Airport’s airport influence area however. The Lincoln airport is 3.93 miles to the southwest of the proposed project site. The proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people visiting or working at the proposed project site. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item VIII-7: CALFIRE provides fire prevention, fire suppression, and life safety services to this area of unincorporated Placer County. The proposed project site is located in an area that is classified as “high” risk for wildland fires. Direct fire vehicle access to the site would be available via Fleming Road and the trail corridors would serve as internal routes for emergency vehicles. In addition, a fire department-approved emergency secondary access is proposed as part of the proposed project off of Gladding Road.

Wildland fires affect grass, forest, and brushlands, as well as any structures on these lands. Such fires can result from either human made or natural causes. The area’s topography, type, and amount of fuel, climate, and the availability of water for firefighting are the primary factors influencing the degree of fire risk. Under dry, windy conditions, such fires can spread rapidly unless immediately addressed by fire services. New development within these areas would expose people and property to high risk of wildland fires.

Most wildland fires are caused by human activities involving motor vehicles, equipment, arson, and burning of

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 35 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued debris. The proposed project does not involve construction of new residences but would add workers and visitors to the site. The proposed project site is currently grazed. The need for vegetation clearance and weed management would continue during the operation of the proposed project. The following mitigation measures would reduce the current and future risk from fire due to cemetery operations and public use to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures Item VIII-7: MM VIII.1 To reduce the current and future risk from fire, the following measures shall be implemented: A. Prior to cemetery opening, signage shall be provided at trail heads and along the trails relating to fire prevention. B. Trails shall be properly maintained and patrolled, and curfews and other rules shall be enforced along the trails to limit unwanted activity after hours. C. Ongoing fuel management (e.g. grazing and/or mechanical) shall be applied where appropriate to manage fuels and provide defensible space. At a minimum, a minimum 20-foot wide disk line adjacent to Gladding and Fleming roads shall be installed annually as recommended in the Placer County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2012).

Discussion Item VIII-8: The proposed project would not create a health hazard and involves the construction and operation of a State- licensed green cemetery. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item VIII-9: Wallace & Kuhl, prepared a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, dated June 1, 2017, and it has been reviewed by Environmental Health. The Phase I did not reveal any potential health hazards associated with the site. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

IX. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY – Would the project:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures 1. Violate any federal, state or county potable water quality X standards? (EHS) 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lessening of local groundwater X supplies (i.e. 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)? (EHS) 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area? (ESD)

4. Increase the rate or amount of surface runoff? (ESD) X

5. Create or contribute runoff water which would include X substantial additional sources of polluted water? (ESD)

6. Otherwise substantially degrade surface water quality?(ESD) X

7. Otherwise substantially degrade ground water quality? (EHS) X

8. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood Insurance Rate X Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (ESD) 9. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area improvements X which would impede or redirect flood flows? (ESD)

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 36 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued 10. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the X failure of a levee or dam? (ESD)

11. Alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (EHS) X

12. Impact the watershed of important surface water resources, including but not limited to Lake Tahoe, Folsom Lake, Hell Hole Reservoir, Rock Creek Reservoir, Sugar Pine Reservoir, X French Meadows Reservoir, Combie Lake, and Rollins Lake? (EHS, ESD)

Discussion Item IX-1: The proposed project would utilize one onsite water well and one onsite sewage disposal system. The location of the water well is beyond the required 100-feet from the onsite sewage disposal system area. The water well is drilled in excess of 100-feet below ground surface and is protected from contaminants at the ground surface by sanitary seals and annular seals. This well is considered a public well and has been constructed to meet drinking water standards and has sufficient capacity. The Minimum Usable Sewage Disposal Area (MUSDA) has been defined through soils testing. With the setback distances required by County Ordinances and California State Law and the septic systems and water wells must be placed in locations approved by PCEHS, the likelihood of this proposed project to violate any potable water quality standards is considered to be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item IX-2: The proposed project currently has one public well which meets the county standard for providing adequate water supply for the proposal. The well has undergone a 72 hour sustained yield test and still produced an adequate amount of water meeting county development standards. A cemetery is a low use as compared to an industrial use or an agricultural use thus the potential to deplete the groundwater supply is considered to be less than significant in this proposed project. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item IX-3, 4: The site is currently an undeveloped site with more than 75% grass covering with some trees and consists of no impervious surfaces. Once the proposed improvements have been completed, approximately 7,515 sf. of new impervious surfaces are introduced (driveway and buildings) which comprises roughly 0.11% of the total site area (±160.26 AC). The soil in this area falls under both Type B and D hydrologic soil groups.

Based on existing topography, storm water would drain south of Fleming Road and the existing drainage patterns would be maintained. The site currently sheds from north to south with run-off sheet-flowing onto natural open space and low-lying areas with ample grass cover. The site would shed storm water and discharge ultimately into Doty Creek. The roof drains would be detached and drain to dispersal trenches. No underground drainage system is proposed for this site.

The existing site is currently undeveloped. A new paved access road, driveways, buildings, and associated utilities are proposed. According to the Preliminary Drainage and Stormwater Quality Report prepared by TSD Engineering (dated April 10, 2018) the proposed development of the site would result in an additional 7,515 square feet of impervious area where none previously existed. The parking lot design includes pervious paving and the overflow parking area would be pervious gravel. While internal drainage patterns may be altered, the overall site drainage patterns would remain consistent with existing patterns, flowing south from Fleming Road and following existing onsite drainage patterns, leaving the site near the southwest corner of the property. Flows ultimately discharge into Doty Creek.

The proposed project has the potential to increase the peak stormwater runoff amount and volume, however, the proposed project includes LID strategies to infiltrate, evapotranspire or biotreat stormwater runoff, which provides protection to downstream receiving waters from adverse impacts.

A final drainage report would be prepared and submitted with the site improvement plans for County review and approval. The proposed project’s impacts associated with altering the existing drainage patterns of the site as well as increases in surface runoff can be mitigated to a less than significant level by implementing the following mitigation measures:

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 37 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued Mitigation Measures Item IX-3, 4: MM VI.1, & MM VI.2 See Items VI-2 for the text of these mitigation measures as well as the following.

MM IX.1 As part of the improvement plan submittal process, the preliminary Drainage Report provided during environmental review shall be submitted in final format. The final Drainage Report may require more detail than that provided in the preliminary report, and would be reviewed in concert with the improvement plans to confirm conformity between the two. The report shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and shall, at a minimum, include: A written text addressing existing conditions, the effects of the proposed improvements, all appropriate calculations, watershed maps, changes in flows and patterns, and proposed on- and off-site improvements and drainage easements to accommodate flows from this proposed project. The report shall identify water quality protection features and methods to be used during construction, as well as long-term post-construction water quality measures. The final Drainage Report shall be prepared in conformance with the requirements of Section 5 of the Land Development Manual and the Placer County Storm Water Management Manual that are in effect at the time of improvement plan submittal.

Discussion Item IX-5, 6: The proposed project would construct approximately 7,515 of impervious surfaces for the paved access, driveways, and residential structures. A Preliminary Drainage and Stormwater Quality Report prepared by TSD Engineering (dated April 10, 2018) which shows how the proposed project would protect water quality. Site design measures, source control measure and Low Impact Development (LID) were identified, including pervious pavement and tree preservation.

The water quality of all natural waterways is important to maintain for public health and safety and the health of the ecosystem. Potential water quality impacts are present both during project construction and after project development. Construction activities would disturb soils and cause potential introduction of sediment into stormwater during rain events. Through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for minimizing contact with potential stormwater pollutants at the source and erosion control methods, this potentially significant impact would be reduced to less than significant levels. In the post-development condition, the proposed project could potentially introduce contaminants such as oil and grease, sediment, nutrients, metals, organics, pesticides, and trash from activities such as driveway runoff, outdoor storage, landscape fertilizing and maintenance, and refuse collection. During construction, the access and parking improvements would potentially cause erosion, sediment, and water quality impacts to the watershed. Erosion potential and water quality impacts are always present and occur when protective vegetative cover is removed and soils are disturbed. This disruption of soils on the site has the potential to result in significant increases in erosion of soils both on- and off-site. The proposed project’s impacts associated with water quality can be mitigated to a less than significant level by implementing the following mitigation measures:

Mitigation Measures Item IX-5, 6: MM VI.1, MM VI.2, MM VI.4, MM VI.5, MM VI.6 & MM IX.1 See Items VI-2, VI-5,6, and IX-3,4 for the text of these mitigation measures.

Discussion Item IX-7: The proposed project could result in urban stormwater runoff. Standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be used and as such, the potential for this proposed project to violate any water quality standards is considered to be less than significant.

Discussion Items IX-8: The proposed project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as defined and mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Housing is not proposed as a part of this cemetery project. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item IX-9: The proposed project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as defined and mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The proposed project does not propose improvements within the local 100-year floodplain. Minor improvements may be made to the existing trails that already cross the floodplain. The proposed project’s impacts associated with impeding or redirecting flood flows are less than significant. No mitigations are required.

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 38 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued Discussion Item IX-10: The proposed project site is not located within any levee or dam failure inundation area. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item IX-11: This proposed project is not likely to change the direction or rate of flow of groundwater. In this case, the project proponent has constructed one water well for the entire site. The well which has been drilled meets the PCEHS standard for serving transient non-community facility. This proposed project would result in land use designations which would ultimately allow for a 160-acre parcel to develop a cemetery. Given the size of the parcel, the likelihood of altering the rate or direction of flow is considered to be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item IX-12: The proposed project drainage from the site ultimately flows to Doty Creek. The proposed improvements of this green cemetery would not create runoff water that would substantially increase pollutants or degrade long term surface water quality beyond the existing conditions of any watershed of important water resources. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

X. LAND USE & PLANNING – Would the project:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures

1. Physically divide an established community? (PLN) X

2. Conflict with General Plan/Community Plan/Specific Plan designations or zoning, or Plan policies adopted for the X purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (EHS, ESD, PLN) 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan or other County policies, X plans, or regulations adopted for purposes of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects? (PLN) 4. Result in the development of incompatible uses and/or the X creation of land use conflicts? (PLN) 5. Affect agricultural and timber resources or operations (i.e. impacts to soils or farmlands and timber harvest plans, or X impacts from incompatible land uses)? (PLN) 6. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? X (PLN) 7. Result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned X land use of an area? (PLN) 8. Cause economic or social changes that would result in significant adverse physical changes to the environment such X as urban decay or deterioration? (PLN)

Potential land use impacts include the relationship and compatibility of the proposed project to surrounding land uses. The proposed project’s consistency with the County’s goals, policies and ordinances are of primary concern. The proposed project is subject to the land use regulations and planning policies set forth in the Placer County General Plan. Originally adopted in August 1994 and updated in May 2013, the General Plan sets out goals and policies for development throughout the County. The land use polices are described in the General Plan and are implemented through the Placer County Zoning Ordinance that defines permitted land uses and development requirements.

The Land Use Designation of the 160.3-acre project site is Agriculture/Timberland 20 Ac. Min. parcel size and is PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 39 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued zoned F-B-X-AO 20 AC Min (Farm, minimum Building Site of 20 acres, combining Airport Overflight). The area surrounding the proposed project site is characterized by rolling foothill terrain and oak savanna. Surrounding uses include a mix of rural residential parcels, farming, irrigated pasture, and undeveloped rangeland. The Rancho Roble Winery is kitty-corner to the proposed project site on the northeast and the approved but undeveloped Teichert Aggregate facility is kitty-corner to the northwest.

According to Section 17.10.010 of the Zoning Ordinance, a land use permit may be granted for the establishment of a cemetery in the Farm zoning district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed project would be required to comply with the development standards of the zoning district and the County’s off-street parking standards.

Discussion Item X-1: Development of the proposed cemetery, which would include substantial open space, would not physically divide an existing community. The proposed project would be constructed within an area of undeveloped land that is currently used for cattle ranching. There are no travel corridors within or through the proposed project site. In addition, no established communities are within or in the vicinity of the proposed project site and project implementation would not physically divide an established community. The proposed project would leave approximately 99 acres of the site in its presently open and undeveloped condition. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item X-2, 4: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the Placer County General Plan or the Placer County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project site and surrounding areas are zoned Farm (F). The Farm zoning district is intended to provide areas for the conduct of commercial agricultural operations that can also accommodate necessary services to support agricultural uses, together with residential land uses at low population densities. The proposed cemetery is an allowed use within the Farm district with a Conditional Use Permit. Interment areas are setback a minimum of ten feet from the south and east property lines and burials may be further setback from the edge of the designated interment areas.

The proposed project site is within the Airport Overflight (-AO) combining district. The purpose of the combining district is to regulate land uses in the vicinity of public airports and below areas where aircraft perform approach and departure maneuvers, recognizing that certain land uses and site development characteristics may conflict with the safe and efficient operation of airports and aircraft. The Lincoln airport is 3.93 miles to the southwest of the proposed project site and is outside of its airport influence area. Development of the proposed project would not introduce new residences that could be impacted by airport operations nor would it add standing water that could attract birds that could interfere with aircraft.

The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proposed project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There would be no impacts related to conflicts with existing land use plans, policies or regulations and project implementation would not result in an incompatible use or create land use conflict with surrounding properties. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item X-3: Placer County does not currently have an active Habitat Conservation Plan; however, the County is currently preparing the Placer County Conservation Plan (PCCP), which is nearing completion. This project will be required to participate in the PCCP for incidental take coverage and mitigation for effects to waters of the U.S. if the PCCP’s permits are issued and local implementing ordinances adopted prior to the project receiving its entitlements. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item X-5: In the past, the project site was covered by a Williamson Act contract; however, a notice of nonrenewal was filed with the County on December 20, 2002 effective January 1, 2003. The contract governing the parcel expired on January 1, 2012. Properties to the north and south are under Williamson Act contacts and parcels to the east and west are actively grazed. The project would not result in cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract and would not impact agricultural operations that exist nearby. In addition, the project would not affect timber resources or operations. There is a less than significant impact on agricultural and timberland operations and resources. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Discussion Item X-6: The proposed project would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. Therefore, PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 40 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued there is no impact.

Discussion Item X-7, 8: The proposed project would not cause economic or social changes that would result in significant adverse physical changes to the environment, including urban decay or deterioration. The proposed project does not result in additional residential housing units. In addition, the proposed project would not develop retail commercial space, and therefore, would not result in the development of retail uses that would result in increased vacancy rates or abandonment of commercial spaces in the proposed project vicinity, resulting in urban decay. Therefore, there is no impact.

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project result in:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures 1. The loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X (PLN) 2. The loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or X other land use plan? (PLN)

Discussion Item XI-1, 2: The presence of mineral resources within Placer County has led to a long history of gold extraction. No known mineral resources that would be of value are known to occur on the proposed project site. The proposed project would not 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.

The California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG) is responsible under the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) for the classification and designation of areas which contain (or may contain) significant mineral resources. The purpose of the identification of these areas is to provide a context for land use decisions by local governments in which mineral resource availability is one of the pertinent factors being balanced along with other considerations.

The County's aggregate resources are classified as one of several different mineral resource zone categories (MRZ-1, MRZ-2, MRZ-3, MRZ-3(a), and MRZ-4). These classifications are generally based upon the relative knowledge concerning the resource's presence and the quality of the material. Of the five classifications listed in the table, 90 percent of the proposed project site is classified as MRZ-4. MRZ-4 are areas where geologic information does not rule out either the presence or absence of mineral resources. Most areas classified as MRZ-4 have thick overlying soil layers with few rock exposures or are inaccessible. It must be emphasized that MRZ-4 classification does not imply that there is little likelihood for the presence of mineral resources, but rather there is a lack of knowledge regarding mineral occurrence. A small area along Fleming Road is classified as MRZ-3a, areas containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. This is due to this area’s proximity of Raccoon Creek to the north. Though there is a possibility of mineral resources on the proposed project site, implementation of the proposed project would not have an impact on these mineral resources or interfere with the extraction of any known mineral resources. Therefore, there is no impact.

XII. NOISE – Would the project result in:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan, X Community Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (PLN) PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 41 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued 2. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X (PLN) 3. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project? (PLN) 4. 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 X people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (PLN) 5. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to X excessive noise levels? (PLN)

The assessment of potential impacts primarily focuses on the noise associated with increased vehicular traffic and operational and ceremonial noise associated with the cemetery. The cemetery uses would not generally be impacted by any existing noise sources. The proposed project vicinity is a rural residential and agricultural area with no industries or other stationary sources of noise. Noise sources are primarily associated with traffic along Gladding and Fleming roads and agricultural operations.

Since the proposed project is not expected to be a substantial long-term generator of noise and is generally not noise sensitive, a noise survey was not conducted. A cemetery is, by its nature, a quiet place. Therefore, with the occasional or temporary noise increase associated with a cemetery or construction, noise levels would be low. No General Plan policies, ordinances, or standards would be exceeded with the construction and operation of the proposed project.

Discussion Item XII-1: The single-family residences on the north side of Fleming Road are the closest noise-sensitive land uses to the proposed project site. The closest interment area to the single-family residence at 400 Fleming Road is approximately 470 feet away.

Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase noise in the vicinity of the proposed project area. Noise increases would result from on-site grading and construction activities. Typical noise levels for grading and construction equipment could range from 50 to 85 dBA fifty feet from the source. Temporary construction noise associated with the grading activities would be similar to existing noise associated with ongoing agricultural activities in adjacent areas.

All construction-related activities would be required to comply with the noise standards contained in the Placer County General Plan for projects adjacent to/within residential neighborhoods which limits such activities to certain times of the day and week to reduce noise impacts on adjacent properties. No construction would occur during the night. After construction is complete, noise levels would drop to existing levels. Noise generated from the proposed project is not expected to be significant and would be short-term in nature. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item XII-2: A cemetery is a use not generally associated with significant traffic or on-going noise sources. The proposed project would include temporary and short-term noise from construction activities only and would not introduce any permanent sources of noise. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item XII-3: The proposed project may result in a moderate temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the proposed project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed project. Construction activities would include site clearing, a minimum amount of grading, entryway and parking lot paving, trail and fence installation, and building construction and finishing work. There are residences along Fleming Road that would experience construction noise. This temporary noise increase due to limited short term construction activities would be less than significant. The Zoning Ordinance limits construction hours so that early evening and early mornings, as well as all day Sunday, would be free of construction noise.

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 42 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued During the digging of graves, there would be an intermittent, short-term increase in noise levels that could affect residences near the proposed project site. These noise level increases would represent a short-term impact. Mobility-impaired guests would be transported to gravesites via quiet multiple-passenger golf carts. There would be no salutary gunfire or amplified music allowed during interments. Employees would utilize quads to traverse the site outfitted with noise muffling devices.

Under the County’s Noise Element, noise levels from cemetery operations would be limited to a noise level of 70 dBA Ldn at receiving noise-sensitive land uses such as residences, the same level permitted for agricultural uses. Typical noise levels for grading and construction equipment could range from 50 to 85 dBA fifty feet from the source. Noise levels drop off at a rate of approximately 6 dBA for each doubling of distance. Noise levels are reduced further by noise barriers (such as terrain and vegetation shielding) and ground absorption.

To ensure that vehicles used to access the interment areas do not become a noise nuisance to neighbors, electric golf carts will be required to be utilized to transport mobility-impaired guests, and employee quads utilize noise muffling devices. There would also be a Condition of Approval that prohibits amplified music and salutary gunfire. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item XII-4, 5: The proposed project site is not located in an area for which an Airport Land Use Plan has been prepared. The proposed project site is 3.93 miles northeast of the Lincoln Regional Airport but is outside of the Lincoln Regional Airport Influence Area. Furthermore, the proposed project would not add any noise-sensitive receivers. Therefore, there is no impact.

XIII. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures 1. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? (PLN)

A Paleontological Resource Assessment Report was prepared for the proposed project site by Sub Terra Consulting in February 2018. The report presented the results of a literature review, records search, and field survey. A pedestrian survey was conducted on January 27, 2018, to assist with the preparation of the report and develop a resource impact mitigation program. Three geological areas were found on the proposed project site:

Recent Tailings and Fluvial Sediments. The southern border of the proposed project site was found to be dominated by ridges and mounds of anthropogenically reworked river gravels. Clasts range from gravel to cobble size and are dominantly granite, metamorphic, and quartzite clasts. These tailings are likely from the mining camp of Copenhagen that was established along the Blackhawk ravine as it was known then. These sediments are considered too young to host fossil resources.

Pre-Cretaceous Metamorphic and Igenous Rocks. The majority of the proposed project site is underlain by granite with potential zones of crystalline metamorphic rocks. Exposures are limited to a few, weathered rounded knobs in the southeast and the eastern areas. Several significant outcrops are found just east and just north of the property. Throughout the proposed project site, the soil above the granite was thin, with high retention of water. Loose, rounded cobbles of primarily quartzite, granite, and metamorphic rock are found in the soil. By their nature, igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks do not host fossil resources.

Pleistocene Riverbank Formation. The Riverbank Formation is found along the westernmost boundary of the proposed project site underlying a low hill that rises above the rest of the landscape. In this area, the Riverbank is recognized as a loose conglomerate of principally white quartzite gravel with rarer metamorphic and very rare sandstone casts set in a red-weathering soil. The only outcrops are found along the roadway, principally as a terrace on the west side of the road. Sample pits were dug on the land surface and the clasts matched those observed unearthed in cow footprints. The northern border of the Riverbank Formation is slightly coarser, with some cobbles, but remains primarily gravels. The entire

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 43 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued area of the Riverbank Formation was traversed in tracks separated by approximately three meters. Where the grass was thin or cow tracks exposed the sediments, the gravels were analyzed for potential fossil fragments. No fossils were recognized on the proposed project site.

Figure 6 –Site Geological Map

Discussion Item XIII-1: As a result of the literature analysis and an earlier museum records search, the Riverbank Formation was deemed to have "high paleontological sensitivity." The low level of reporting is likely due to the lack of repository and literature records. Many collections deposited at the University of California Museum of Paleontology are listed as "Rancholabrean" for age but do not contain a formational status. It is likely that these fossils are from the Riverbank Formation.

The proposed project site has very limited deposits of the Riverbank Formation. The thickness was estimated at less than two meters based on exposures along Gladding Road and thins toward the east into the proposed project site. The high degree of weathering, proximity to the underlying granite and thinness of the deposit suggest a very low likelihood of encountering significant fossils.

It is the professional opinion of Sub Terra that the proposed Gladding Eternal Preserve project would not impact high sensitivity paleontological resources. The only unit in the area with potential for fossils is the Riverbank Formation. Based on the roadcut observation as well as the regional geology, it can be assumed the Riverbank is thin ( <2 meters thick) in the proposed project area. The current proposed project site plans note the development of a portion of the interment area (area A) along the western border (southwest of the western gazebo). Most of the interment area overlapping the Riverbank Formation, as determined in the field, is taken up with paths. It is the PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 44 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued opinion of Sub Terra that no mitigation program needs to be enacted.

Implementation of the following mitigation measure for unanticipated discoveries would ensure that no significant impacts to unknown paleontological resources would occur until such resources had been evaluated and any necessary mitigation had been performed. If subsurface or buried materials are found during construction or grave excavation, the contractor or cemetery employee would cease all construction and contact Placer County immediately and engage the services of a qualified archeologist to assess the potential paleontological resource and make recommendations for mitigation. With implementation of the proposed mitigation, no potentially significant impact would exist and no additional mitigation would be necessary.

Mitigation Measure Item XIII-1: MM XIII.1 If major paleontological resources are discovered, grading or digging within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained and report such findings to the project owner, the Placer County Division of Museums, and Placer County Planning Services Division.

The paleontologist shall determine appropriate protocols which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage of all fossils. Excavated finds shall be offered to a State-designated repository such as Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, the California Academy of Sciences, or any other State-designated repository. Otherwise, the finds shall be offered to the Placer County Division of Museums for purposes of public education and interpretive displays.

These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources shall be subject to approval by the Division of Museums. The paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report to the Division of Museums and Planning Services Division, which shall include the period of any inspections, an analysis of the fossils found, and repository of the fossils.

XIV. POPULATION & HOUSING – Would the project:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures 1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (i.e. by proposing new homes and businesses) or X indirectly (i.e. through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (PLN) 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? (PLN)

Discussion Item XIV-1: The estimated three project-related jobs would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth. The proposed project would not include construction of new homes or businesses or extending roadways or other infrastructure that would directly or indirectly induce population growth. Consequently, implementing the proposed project would not affect current and/or planned population growth patterns within Placer County or surrounding communities. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item XIV-2: Because the proposed project site does not support existing housing and no additional housing would be constructed, project implementation would not displace existing homes that would necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, there is no impact.

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 45 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental services and/or facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services?

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures

1. Fire protection? (ESD, PLN) X

2. Sheriff protection? (ESD, PLN) X

3. Schools? (ESD, PLN) X

4. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (ESD, PLN) X

5. Other governmental services? (ESD, PLN) X

Discussion Item XV-1: The servicing fire district has reviewed the proposed project. The proposed project does not generate the need for new, significant, fire protection facilities as a part of this project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item XV-2: This green burial cemetery project does not generate the need for new sheriff protection facilities as a part of this project. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item XV-3: The proposed project does not generate the need for the construction of a new school facility as a part of this project. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item XV-4: The project proposes to construct a new encroachment onto Fleming Road, a County maintained roadway, to improve it to a County Plate 116 Minor standard. The encroachment of Fleming Road onto Gladding Road would also be improved to a Plate 116 standard, at the southeast corner of the intersection. The proposed project would not generate any more impacts on the maintenance of public roads than was anticipated with the development of the Zoning of the parcel. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item XV-5: The proposed project is not expected to significantly impact any other governmental services. Therefore, there is no impact.

XVI. RECREATION – Would the project result in:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures 1. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (PLN)

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 46 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued 2. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might X have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (PLN)

Discussion Item XVI-1, 2: No existing park facilities would be impacted and there are no proposed activities (e.g. new residences or a new source of population) that would increase the demand for additional park/recreational facilities. The proposed project does propose the construction of recreational facilities in the form of three miles of privately-owned, publicly- accessible trails. These trails have been designed to be minimally intrusive to the existing habitat on site. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on recreational areas, parks, and trails. No mitigation measures are required.

XVII. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC – Would the project result in:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures 1. An increase in traffic which may be substantial in relation to the existing and/or planned future year traffic load and capacity of the roadway system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in X either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (ESD) 2. Exceeding, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County General Plan X and/or Community Plan for roads affected by project traffic? (ESD) 3. Increased impacts to vehicle safety due to roadway design features (i.e. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (ESD) 4. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X (ESD)

5. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (ESD, PLN) X

6. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (ESD) X

7. Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (i.e. bus turnouts, bicycle lanes, bicycle racks, public transit, pedestrian facilities, etc.) or X otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (ESD) 8. Change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial X safety risks? (PLN)

Discussion Item XVII-1, 2: This project proposal would ultimately result in the creation of a green burial cemetery including approximately 15,000 graves, 4,000 plots for cremains, trails, two gazebos, small office, restrooms, garage, parking lot, roadway improvements and associated utilities. Based on traffic patterns of traditional cemeteries and similar conservation cemeteries, peak visitor periods do not coincide with morning or evening peak commute hours. Based on the project description, it is expected that the proposed project would generate approximately four additional PM peak hour trips daily, with one visitor and three employees.

The cumulative effect of an increase in traffic has the potential to create significant impacts to the area’s transportation system. However, the proposed project traffic added to the cumulative traffic volumes also does not result in a large enough incremental increase (greater than five percent) to make a finding of significance. Furthermore, for potential cumulative traffic impacts, the Placer County General Plan includes a fully funded Capital PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 47 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued Improvement Program, which with payment of traffic mitigation fees for the ultimate construction of the CIP improvements would help reduce the cumulative traffic impacts to less than significant levels. With the payment of traffic mitigation fees for the ultimate construction of the Capital Improvement Program improvements, the project’s traffic impacts are less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts associated with traffic related impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level by implementing the following mitigation measure:

Mitigation Measures Item XVII-1,2: MM XVII.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, this proposed project shall be subject to the payment of traffic impact fees that are in effect in this area (Placer East), pursuant to applicable Ordinances and Resolutions. The applicant is notified that the following traffic mitigation fee(s) would be required and shall be paid to Placer County Department of Public Works and Facilities (DPWF):

(A) Countywide Traffic Limitation Zone: Article 15.28.010, Placer County Code

The current estimate fee is $11,678.47 (based on project description; three employees and one visitor in the PM peak hours). The fees were calculated using the information supplied. If the use or the square footage changes, then the fees would change. The actual fees paid would be those in effect at the time the payment occurs.

Discussion Item XVII-3: The proposed project proposes to construct a new encroachment onto Fleming Road, a County maintained roadway to improve it to a County Plate 116 Major standard. The design speed of Fleming Road is 45 miles per hour (12’ offset, 45’ radius, 200’ taper). Additionally, the proposed project would improve the encroachment of Fleming Road onto Gladding Road to a Plate 116 standard for the south east corner of the intersection (deceleration taper). The proposed project’s impacts to vehicle safety due to design features would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item XVII-4: The servicing fire district has reviewed the proposed project and has not identified any impacts to emergency access. A Will-Serve letter dated December 7, 2017, was provided by the Placer County Fire Department. The proposed project does not significantly impact the access to any nearby use. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item XVII-5: The cemetery would employ approximately three people including a cemetery manager and maintenance/operations staff. Two to three burials would occur daily on average. Based on traffic patterns of traditional cemeteries and similar conservation cemeteries, a graveside interment service typically generates approximately 14 vehicles. On limited occasions, graveside interment services could generate approximately 30-40 vehicles. Daily visitors are expected to generate approximately three to five daily vehicle trips. The cemetery manager would schedule all burials so that there are no unscheduled events and to ensure that parking is accommodated on the site.

A paved parking area for 26 cars including two accessible spaces would be provided along with an overflow parking area for approximately 25 vehicles. Adequate parking is available on the proposed project site for cemetery employees, memorial service attendees, and daily visitors. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item XVII-6: The proposed project would be constructing site improvements that meet County standard plates and do not create any hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. This includes the private access encroachment onto Fleming Road as well as the deceleration taper at the corner of Fleming and Gladding Road. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item XVII-7: The proposed project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (i.e. bus turnouts, bicycle lanes, bicycle racks, public transit, pedestrian facilities, etc.) or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The proposed design does not preclude the installation of bus turnouts or bicycle racks. Therefore, there is no impact.

Discussion Item XVII-8: The proposed project would not affect air traffic patterns; therefore, there is no impact. PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 48 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures 1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical X resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or 2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set X forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Discussion Item XVIII-1: A Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for the proposed project site by ECORP Consulting, Inc. in 2017. The presence of cultural resources on the proposed project site was determined through a records search, literature review, and pedestrian survey. Three prehistoric sites, all bedrock mortars, were found on the site. The proposed project has designed the proposed project to accommodate avoidance of all three resources, including designating the sites as non-interment areas, fencing the boundaries with permanent exclusionary fencing, and utilizing fencing along walking paths to deter visitors from access to these areas.

There is always the possibility that previously unknown historic resources exist below the ground surface. Therefore, implementation of standard cultural resource construction mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures V.1 through V.3) ensure that this impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Item XVIII-1: MM V.1, MM V.2, and MM V.3

Discussion Item XVIII-2: Effective July 1, 2015, AB 52 amended CEQA to mandate consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA process to determine whether or not the proposed project may have a significant impact on a Tribal Cultural Resource, and that this consideration be made separately from cultural and paleontological resources.

Recognizing that California tribes are experts in their tribal cultural resources and heritage, AB 52 requires that CEQA lead agencies carry out consultation with tribes at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify Tribal Cultural Resources. Furthermore, because a significant effect on a Tribal Cultural Resource is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is required to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures.

On December 21, 2017, Placer County contacted six Native American tribes requesting any information regarding sacred lands or other heritage sites that might be impacted by the proposed project. At the time of preparation of this Initial Study, the Shingle Springs Rancheria requested copies of project-related record searches and surveys, and the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria requested copies of archeological reports and a site visit.

On May 8, 2018, and September 14, 2018, representatives for the UAIC toured and walked the site with the applicant and County officials. Mitigation measures for unanticipated discoveries were recommended.

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 49 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued No other tribes have contacted the County.

County construction standards and Mitigation Measures V.2 and V.3 require that if subsurface or buried materials are found during construction, the contractor would cease all construction and contact Placer County immediately and engage the services of a qualified archeologist to assess the potential resource and make recommendations for mitigation. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure that this impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Item XVIII-2: MM V.2 and MM V.3

XIX. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issue Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Measures 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? (ESD) 2. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater delivery, collection or treatment facilities or X expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (EHS, ESD) 3. Require or result in the construction of new on-site sewage X systems? (EHS) 4. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (ESD) 5. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or X expanded entitlements needed? (EHS) 6. Require sewer service that may not be available by the X area’s waste water treatment provider? (EHS, ESD) 7. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs in X compliance with all applicable laws? (EHS)

Discussion Item XIX 1, 2, 6: There is no public sewer in the area, nor would the proposed project construct public sewer. Wastewater would be accommodated by the construction of a septic system as part of the building permit process for the newly created parcel. Domestic water would be provided by an onsite well. There would not be significant impacts due to the construction of the septic system or the well. For these reasons, impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item XIX-3: The proposed project would result in the construction of one new on-site sewage disposal system. Soils testing has been conducted by a qualified consultant and reports submitted showing the type of septic system required for the proposed project that would adequately treat the sewage effluent generated by the proposed project. A single sewage disposal system would be located on a total parcel area of 160-acres in size and thus the impacts from this septic system is considered to be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item XIX 4: The proposed project proposes low impact development strategies to disconnect and infiltrate runoff from the buildings and parking areas. Storm drainage from other impervious surfaces, such as circulation areas would be collected and conveyed to existing sheet flow conditions for treatment and infiltration prior to discharging from the site. These improvements would be constructed with the proposed project improvements and grading impacts have PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 50 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued been analyzed in Section VI-Geology and Soils. Impacts related to construction of new stormwater drainage facilities are less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item XIX-5: The proposed project currently has one existing water well drilled under permit through Placer County Environmental Health. The yield on the existing well is high enough that no storage tank is required. The location of the proposed project is in an area of high yielding wells. There is sufficient water available to serve this proposed project as the existing well meets the minimum standards set for the by PCEHS for water supply to serve the proposal. Thus, the concern about whether this parcel has sufficient water available for this proposed project is considered to be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Discussion Item XIX-7: The proposed project lies in an area of the County that is served by the local franchised refuse hauler (Recology) and is served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity. The concern whether this proposed project is served by a landfill with sufficient capacity is considered to be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

F. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:

Environmental Issue Yes No

1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially impact biological resources, or eliminate important examples of the X major periods of California history or prehistory?

2. 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 X projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

3. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial X adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

G. OTHER RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES whose approval is required:

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) California Department of Forestry National Marine Fisheries Service California Department of Health Services Tahoe Regional Planning Agency California Department of Toxic Substances U.S. Army Corps of Engineers California Department of Transportation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Integrated Waste Management Board California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau California Regional Water Quality Control Board

H. DETERMINATION – The Environmental Review Committee finds that:

Although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described herein have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 51 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued I. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (Persons/Departments consulted):

Planning Services Division, Chris Schmidt, Chairperson Planning Services Division-Air Quality, Angel Green Engineering and Surveying Division, Sarah Gillmore Department of Public Works and Facilities-Transportation, Rebeca Solomon DPWF-Environmental Engineering Division, Huey Nham DPWF-Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Brad Brewer DPWF-Facility Services-Parks Division, Ted Rel HHS-Environmental Health Services, Joey Scarbrough Placer County Fire Planning/CDF, Mike DiMaggio/Ryan Woessner

Signature Date October 29, 2018 Leigh Chavez, Environmental Coordinator

J. SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES: The following public documents were utilized and site-specific studies prepared to evaluate in detail the effects or impacts associated with the project. This information is available for public review, Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm, at the Placer County Community Development Resource Agency, Environmental Coordination Services, 3091 County Center Drive, Auburn, CA 95603.

Air Pollution Control District Rules & Regulations Community Plan Environmental Review Ordinance General Plan County Grading Ordinance Documents Land Development Manual Land Division Ordinance Stormwater Management Manual Tree Ordinance

Trustee Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control Documents Biological Study Cultural Resources Pedestrian Survey Cultural Resources Records Search Lighting & Photometric Plan

Planning Paleontological Survey Services Tree Survey & Arborist Report Division Visual Impact Analysis Wetland Delineation Site-Specific Acoustical Analysis Studies Phasing Plan Preliminary Grading Plan Engineering & Surveying Preliminary Geotechnical Report Division, Preliminary Drainage Report Flood Control Stormwater & Surface Water Quality BMP Plan District Traffic Study Sewer Pipeline Capacity Analysis

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 52 of 53 Initial Study & Checklist continued Placer County Commercial/Industrial Waste Survey (where public sewer is available) Sewer Master Plan Utility Plan Tentative Map Groundwater Contamination Report Hydro-Geological Study Environmental Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Health Services Soils Screening Preliminary Endangerment Assessment

CALINE4 Carbon Monoxide Analysis Construction Emission & Dust Control Plan Planning Services Geotechnical Report (for naturally occurring asbestos) Division, Air Health Risk Assessment Quality CalEEMod Model Output

Emergency Response and/or Evacuation Plan Fire Traffic & Circulation Plan Department

PLN=Planning Services Division, ESD=Engineering & Surveying Division, EHS=Environmental Health Services 53 of 53