FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

SECTION 3 Environmental Analysis

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Chapter 3 describes the affected environment and environmental consequences of the Proposed Project (Proposed Action under NEPA) and No Project (No Action under NEPA) alternative. Impacts are addressed at a level of detail that is commensurate with the magnitude of the potential impact. The evaluation criteria are provided in the CEQA Checklist (see Appendix A), and the TRPA IEC (see Appendix B) for CEQA and TRPA, respectively.

3.1.1 Resources Analyzed in Detail The resource areas listed below would potentially be affected by the Proposed Project and are discussed in detail in Sections 3.2 through 3.14.

3.2 Aesthetics 3.3 Air Quality 3.4 Biological Resources 3.5 Cultural Resources 3.6 Geology and Soils 3.7 Greenhouse Gases 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.10 Noise 3.11 Recreation 3.12 Traffic and Circulation 3.13 Utilities and Service Systems 3.14 CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance

Each resource section includes a description of existing conditions and a combined analysis of environmental consequences for NEPA/CEQA. Determinations for NEPA/CEQA are combined for the No Action/No Project Alternative and separated at the end of each resource section for the Proposed Project Alternative.

3.1.2 Resources Not Analyzed in Detail Based on the project description (Chapter 2) and the affected environment, the following environmental resources would not be affected by the Proposed Project and are not further analyzed in Chapter 3.

 Agriculture and Forest Resources - There are currently no agricultural uses within the Project Area. The CTC manages its lands for environmental protection (CTC 2005c) and the LTBMU manages its parcel under the Urban Lot Management Area (parcel was purchased under the Santini-Burton Act), and neither agency intends to initiate or permit agricultural use on these properties. The Proposed Project would not result in loss of forest land, convert forest land to non-forest use, or convert Farmland to non- agricultural use.

ENTRIX, INC. 49 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

 Environmental Justice –The nearest populated communities to the Project Area have lower percentages of minorities and persons living below the poverty threshold than the counties as a whole. However, the Proposed Project would be located in rural areas, removed from the nearest populated areas. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have a disproportionate effect on minority or lower income communities.  Indian Trust Assets – No Indian Trust Assets are located in or near the Project Area (CSLT 2008).  Land Use and Planning - Land use decisions in the Project Area are guided by three plans: the LTBMU Forest Plan (USFS 1988), the TRPA Regional Plan (with specific Plan Area Statements [PAS]) (TRPA 1987), and the Lake Tahoe Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) (Brand and French, 2007). The Proposed Project is consistent with these plans and would not conflict with the existing land use policies. In addition, the Proposed Project would help achieve restoration goals discussed in PAS planning considerations and special policies.  Minerals and Energy – No mineral deposits are present in the Project Area; therefore, no impacts would occur. The Proposed Project would require energy during construction and operations but would not use energy in a wasteful manner.  Population and Housing – The Project Area does not include any residential areas. The Tahoe Paradise neighborhood is located to the east and south; however, the Proposed Project would not adversely impact housing in this neighborhood. The Proposed Project does not propose to construct any homes or businesses; therefore it would not alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population planned for the Region. The Proposed Project would not result in displacement or loss of housing.

 Public Services - The Proposed Project does not intend to build public service facilities, nor would it create a demand for services that would result in construction of new or altered public services or facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impacts to public services.

3.1.3 Projects Considered for Cumulative Impacts In addition to evaluating the direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Project, each section also addresses cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts are defined as direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Project when combined with the effects of other current and future actions, regardless of the proponent. Cumulative effects result from incremental impacts of a project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions. Projects in the UTR watershed and Lake Tahoe South Shore area that were considered for cumulative impacts are listed in Table 3.1-1. Cumulative effects analysis and determinations are combined in this document for both NEPA and CEQA.

Several projects are of particular relevance to the Proposed Project, due to location in the Project Area or direct effects in the UTR channel. Several reasonably foreseeable stream restoration projects in the watershed that would repair, restore, and/or reconstruct portions the UTR channel include (1) the planned Golf Course Reach Restoration Project immediately upstream, (2) the UTR Middle Reach Restoration Project (Reaches 3 and 4) (aka “Airport Reach Project”) immediately downstream (recently constructed but not connected), (3) the planned UTR Middle Reaches 1 and 2 Stream Restoration Project further downstream, (4) the planned Upper Truckee River and Marsh Restoration Project (UTR Marsh Project) at the confluence of the river and Lake Tahoe. These projects would involve increasing overbank flow, reducing the UTR channel capacity, increasing stream sinuosity to mimic natural fluvial processes, and restoring biological habitat. Further upstream, the LTBMU has planned the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (LCT) Expansion Project. One possible alignment for a future extension of the Greenway Bike Trail could be located east of the restored channel.

50 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.1-1 List of Projects in the Upper Truckee River Watershed and the South Shore Area Considered for Cumulative Analysis.

Name Description and Status

River and Stream Restoration Projects Upper Truckee River Restoration and Description: This CA Department of Parks and Recreation project would occur in the Upper Truckee watershed at the Golf Course Reconfiguration Project Washoe Meadows State Park and Lake Valley State Recreation Area, which are located on the west side of U.S. 50 just south of Sawmill Road in Meyers. Project alternatives include combinations of floodplain and channel restoration, and golf course reconfiguration or modification. Status: An EIR/EIS is currently being prepared for the project. Construction could begin in 2012, and would last for 2 years (with most channel work occurring during one season). Upper Truckee Middle Reaches 3 and 4 Description: This project being implemented by CSLT and USACE with funding from the CTC and Bureau of Reclamation is Restoration Project located along the Upper Truckee River from roughly 0.5 mile northeast of the northern runway limit of the Lake Tahoe Airport (“Airport Reach Project”) to approximately the midpoint of the runway. A new channel was constructed and revegetated in 2008, and in 2010 the river’s flow will be diverted into the new channel, and the abandoned channel will be backfilled and revegetated. Status: New channel construction was initiated in 2008. The project is expected to be completed in 2011, with most in- channel work having occurred in the first season (2008). Upper Truckee River Middle Reaches 1 Description: This project proposed by the CTC and the Tahoe Resource Conservation District (TRCD) would be located and 2 Stream Restoration Project from U.S. 50 upstream to the vicinity of the South Lake Tahoe Airport, and just downstream of the Upper Truckee Middle Reaches 3 and 4 Restoration Project. It would restore this reach by recontouring and revegetating channel banks and filling a gully channel. Status: Environmental review has begun for the project and a Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), and EA/FONSI are anticipated. Construction could begin in 2011 and would last for 2 years, and in-channel work is anticipated to last for approximately 1 construction season. Upper Truckee River and Marsh Description: This project proposed by the CTC would be located along the most downstream reach of the UTR from U.S. 50 Restoration Project to where the river connects to Lake Tahoe. It would restore this reach by creating an inset floodplain, narrowing and aggrading the channel, or by creating a new channel, depending on the project alternative implemented. The project also includes recreation and access improvements. Status: Schematic plans and preparation of an EIR/EIS/EIS are in progress. Construction could begin within the next five years and would last for 3 years, and in-channel work could last for approximately 2.5 construction seasons. High Meadows Forest Plan Designation; Description: This project by the USFS is located in 1,790 acres in the upper Cold Creek watershed, which is part of the Ecosystem Restoration; and Access Trout Creek watershed. It includes creation of new channels and associated floodplain on the Mainstem, East Fork, and Travel Management Project North Fork of Cold Creek; removal and fill of diversion ditches; removal of lodgepole pines; rerouting and decommissioning of roads and trails, and redesign of stream crossings by roads and trails to reduce effects on aquatic ecosystems. Status: The project NEPA decision was signed in 2009. Construction activities began in 2010 and could continue through 2012. Angora Creek Restoration Project Description: This project proposed by the USFS would restore approximately 3,000 ft of Angora Creek and the associated floodplain just upstream of the Lake Tahoe Blvd crossing. Status: The project is undergoing environmental review as part of the Angora Fire Long-term Restoration Project. Construction activities could begin in 2012, and continue through 2013. Grass Lake Creek Bridge Project Description: This project proposed by the USFS would replace an existing log and ford trail crossing over Grass Lake Creek with a channel spanning bridge, and would restore the channel to its natural width by removing existing fill. Status: The project is undergoing environmental review as part of the LTBMU programmatic road and trail maintenance activities. This action is expected to be implemented in 2011.

Erosion Control and Water Quality Projects Sierra Tract Erosion Control Project Description: This project proposed by the CSLT with funding from the CTC and USFS is located in the Sierra Tract Subdivision in the Trout Creek watershed in the City of South Lake Tahoe. It entails construction of a stormwater conveyance and treatment system, and stabilization of roadsides with vegetation. This project has been structured into 5 phases. Status: Construction of Phase 1 began in 2007 and this phase is still being implemented. Phase 2 has already been constructed. Phase 3 is being planned and designed and may be constructed in 2010. Planning and design of Phases 4 and 5 have not yet begun, but construction is expected in 2010 and 2011, respectively. Al Tahoe Erosion Control Project Description: This project by the CSLT with funding from the USFS would be implemented in 320 acres of the Al Tahoe neighborhood in the Trout Creek watershed in the City of South Lake Tahoe, adjacent to the project site for the UTR and marsh restoration project. Using a variety of measures, the project would treat runoff from 41–77% of the project area, depending on the project alternative implemented. Treatment measures differ among project alternatives and may include discouraging parking, local revegetation, placement of riprap, curb and gutter, protection of road shoulders with permeable pavement, and other measures. Status: A Draft IS/ND was prepared and went public in December of 2010. Construction could begin in 2011, and continue until 2014 or 2015.

ENTRIX, INC. 51 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.1-1 List of Projects in the Upper Truckee River Watershed and the South Shore Area Considered for Cumulative Analysis (continued).

Name Description and Status El Dorado U.S. 50 Segment 2–Lake Description: This project by Caltrans would be located in the watershed of the UTR on U.S. 50 from the Lake Tahoe Airport Tahoe Airport to U.S. 50-SR 89 Junction to the junction of U.S. 50 and SR 89 in the City of South Lake Tahoe. It would provide containment, or treatment, or both of Water Quality Improvement Project stormwater runoff from this segment of U.S. 50. Status: An IS/ND has been prepared and construction could begin in 2010, and continue until 2012 El Dorado SR 89, Segment 1–Luther Description: This project by Caltrans would be located on SR 89 from Luther Pass to the intersection with U.S. 50 in Pass to Meyers Water Quality Meyers. It would provide containment, or treatment, or both of stormwater runoff from this segment of SR 89. Improvement Project Status: An IS/ND has been prepared and construction could begin in 2010, and could continue until 2014. Montgomery Estates Phases 1, 2, and 3 Description: This project proposed by El Dorado County with funding from the CTC and USFS would be located in the Water Quality Project watershed of Trout Creek in the City of South Lake Tahoe. It would implement various slope stabilization, infiltration, sediment trapping, and channel or road source treatment BMPs to reduce the amount of sediment discharging into Cold or Trout Creeks. Status: Project alternatives are being formulated and evaluated. Construction of Phase 1 could begin in 2010. At least two more years of construction will be required for Phases 2 and 3, but these phases are on hold and thus their construction may not immediately follow Phase 1. Cold Creek Fisheries Project Description: This project by El Dorado County and the CTC would be located at and upstream from the intersection of Pioneer Trail with Cold Creek, which is in the watershed of Trout Creek. Within this area, the project would remove or improve all man-made fish barriers, and evaluate and if necessary remove debris jams and beaver dams. Status: Project alternatives are being formulated and evaluated. Construction could begin in 2010 and is anticipated to be completed in 1 season. Angora 3A and 3B Water Quality Project Description: The project by the EDOT with funding from the CTC, El Dorado County, TRPA, Bureau of Reclamation, and USFS would be located in an approximately 45-acre area along Angora Creek. The project would implement measures to reduce the quantity of fine sediment reaching Angora Creek and to reduce the peak flow of stormwater reaching Angora Creek during large storm events. Status: The project has gone out to bid. Construction could begin in 2010 and is anticipated to be completed in 1 season. Apalachee 3B – Water Quality Project Description: This project by the EDOT with funding from the CTC, El Dorado County, TRPA, and USFS would be located in El Dorado County in the Tahoe Paradise Addition Units 4 and 5 off of Pioneer Trail in the UTR and Trout Creek watersheds. It would increase retention and infiltration of runoff from impervious surfaces during large storm events. It also would stabilize eroding cut slopes and roadside drainage ditches, and treat runoff before it discharges into Trout Creek and the Upper Truckee River. Status: The project has gone out to bid. Construction could begin in 2010 and is anticipated to be completed in 1 season. Angora Fisheries and SEZ Description: This project by the EDOT with funding from the CTC, El Dorado County, and Reclamation would be located in Enhancement Project the watershed of the UTR at the Angora Creek crossing of Lake Tahoe Boulevard. It would replace corrugated metal pipe (CMP) culverts with an open bottom conspan bridge to improve fish passage. As part of these modifications, fill would be removed in the SEZ. Status: The project has been undergoing environmental review. Construction could begin in 2010 and is anticipated to be completed in 1 season. Christmas Valley Phase 2 Water Quality Description: This project by the EDOT with funding from the CTC, El Dorado County, TRPA, and USFS would be located in and Recreation Access the watershed of the UTR along State Route 89 from the intersection with U.S. 50 to Portal Drive. It would provide a bike trail, and reduce both peak discharge of stormwater during large storm events and the quantity of fine and coarse sediment entering the Upper Truckee River from the project area. Status: Design and environmental review have begun for the project. Construction could begin in 2010 and could be completed in 2010 or continue through 2011. Sawmill 2 Bike Path and Erosion Control Description: This project by would be located in the watershed of the UTR along Sawmill Road from Lake Tahoe Boulevard Project to U.S. 50. It would provide a bike trail through the project area, and it would install appropriate BMPs to reduce erosion and nutrient loading, and to increase treatment of stormwater runoff from existing impervious surfaces in the project area. Status: Project planning has begun and construction could begin in 2010 or 2011, and is anticipated to continue for 1–2 years. Bridge Tract Road Re-alignment Project Description: This project proposed by the USFS would decommission and move an 800 ft segment of the existing Bridge Tract Road that exhibits active erosion and is causing sediment delivery to the UTR away from the river alignment. Status: The project is undergoing environmental review as part of the LTBMU programmatic road and trail maintenance activities. This action is expected to be implemented in 2010.

52 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.1-1 List of Projects in the Upper Truckee River Watershed and the South Shore Area Considered for Cumulative Analysis (continued).

Name Description and Status

Other Projects Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Upper Description: The purpose is to assist range expansion of LCT from Meiss Meadow source in the headwaters of the Upper Truckee River Expansion Project Truckee River. The USFS would reclaim10 miles of stream and 85 acres of small lake habitat by removing introduced brook trout that compete with LCT. Status: The LCT UTR Expansion Project was initiated in 2008 and will continue through 2014. Greenway Bike Trail Project Description: This project by the CTC would be located between the intersection of Pioneer Trail and U.S. 50 in Meyers, California and Van Sickle State Park at Stateline, Nevada. A portion of this project site is in the watershed of the UTR and a portion is in the Trout Creek Watershed. Several alternative routes and two design alternatives have been developed. Status: A draft EIR/EIS/EIS is anticipated to be released in 2010. Construction could begin in 2012 and could extend over several years. South Shore Fuel Reduction and Description: This project by USFS LTBMU would reduce fuel hazards and restore ecosystem health through vegetation Healthy Forest Restoration Project treatments on approximately 10,000 acres in the South Shore of Lake Tahoe, including treatments in the UTR watershed. The proposed project would include vegetation management treatments on approximately 2,500 acres each year for 4 years. Status: A Final EIS is anticipated to be completed in 2011. Implementation is expected to begin in 2011 or 2012 and continue for at least 4 years. Angora Long-term Restoration Project Description: This project by USFS would reduce fuel hazards and restore ecosystem health through vegetation treatments on approximately 1,400 acres in the Angora wildfire burn area, including treatments in the UTR watershed. The proposed project would also include vegetation planting and road and trail decommissioning, construction and re-alignment work. Status: An EA for this project was finalized in the fall of 2010. Implementation is expected to begin began in 2011 and is expected to continue for 2 years. Lake Tahoe Airport Runway Restoration Description: This project by CSLT would be located at the South Lake Tahoe Airport adjacent to the UTR. Along the Project existing runway, it would remove a 25-foot wide by 1,300-foot long area of impervious surface and replace a portion of this area with pervious concrete, and from the remainder of this area, it would remove fill from within the SEZ of the UTR and revegetate the area. Status: Environmental review and permitting have begun for this project. Construction could begin in 2010 and could be completed in 1 season or extend into 2011. Sawmill 1B Bike Trail Project – Air Description: In 2009, El Dorado County completed construction of a Class 1 bike trail along US 50 from Santa Fe Rd. to Quality and Recreation Access Sawmill Trail, including a new bicycle bridge across the UTR. The County is now planning a Class 1 trail extension along Sawmill Trail between US 50 and Lake Tahoe Blvd. Status: An IS/MND was completed and approved by the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors in 2005. Funding constraints have delayed the project. Riparian Hardwoods Restoration and Description: This project by State Parks is being implemented in selected areas of State Park properties including Washoe Enhancement Meadows and Lake Valley State Recreation Areas. It involves the removal of lodgepole pines along the maintenance road adjacent to the UTR upstream of the golf course in Meyers. Status: A MND declaration exists for the project. Construction could begin in 2010 and continue into 2011. Multi-Agency Fuel Reduction Plan Description: This plan is a multi-agency strategy for coordinating implementation of fuel reduction treatments in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The strategy identifies a substantial portion of the UTR and Trout Creek watersheds as priority areas for treatment. Status: Fuel reduction treatments are on-going and the plan identifies priority areas for treatment during the next 5 and 10 years (i.e., 2008–2012 and 2013–2018, respectively). Sunset Stables Aspen Restoration Description: This project by the CTC involves removal of encroaching conifers in aspen stands on CTC property at Sunset Stables on the UTR. Project supported by EIP Wildlife. Status: Initial treatment done in 2002. Remaining stands to be treated by CTC’s Forest Health and Fuel Management Program. Lake Tahoe Boulevard Enhancement Description: This project by the EDOT with funding from the CTC, El Dorado County, and TRPA would be located in the Project watershed of the UTR in a corridor along Lake Tahoe Boulevard from Tahoe Mountain Road to the City of South Lake Tahoe. One alternative would reduce Lake Tahoe Boulevard from 4 to 2 lanes, and it would construct a 2-mile long bike trail along the road, restore 4 acres of stream environment zone, and implement erosion control measures. Status: In 2008 agency representatives presented alternative concepts to the public and received diverse input. No unified project description emerged from this process and current public agency financial constraints limit progress. No current anticipated construction schedule exists.

ENTRIX, INC. 53 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.1-1 List of Projects in the Upper Truckee River Watershed and the South Shore Area Considered for Cumulative Analysis (continued).

Name Description and Status Angora/Twin Peaks Project Description: This project proposed by the USFS involves decommissioning unnecessary roads and trails, converting roads to trails where appropriate, replacing culverts that are acting as fish passage and sediment conveyance barriers, and installing gates on administrative use roads to prevent public vehicle access. Status: This project is currently undergoing environmental review. Implementation is expected to begin in 2011. Heavenly Mountain Resort Master Plan Description: This plan by Vail Resorts, Inc. guides improvement, expansion, and management of facilities and uses at Heavenly Mountain Resort, including areas within the Cold Creek watershed (which is within the Trout Creek watershed). Phase I projects include: replacing ski lifts and regrading ski trails; constructing a 1,000-seat restaurant, a bridge for skiers, and 152 acres of new ski trails; and other facilities. Status: The final EIR/EIS/EIS for the amended version of this plan was approved by TRPA in 2007 and construction of Phase I projects have begun and will continue for the next 2 to 4 years (through 2009–2011). Other phases will undergo the NEPA process and will likely be constructed over the next 2 to 10 years (2010-2020). Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Description: This project by the USFS analyzed for chemical treatment of noxious weeds within the Lake Tahoe Basin Project Management Unit on NFS lands. Status: The final EA for the project has been completed, and the decision was signed in October 2010. Meyers Landfill Remediation Project Description: This phase of the remediation project by the USFS LTBMU and El Dorado County involves installing a land fill cap and delineating the contaminant plume through groundwater monitoring and sampling. Status: Implementation of this phase of the project is expected to occur in 2010. Additional Urban Development Description: This urban development would consist of numerous small residential, commercial, industrial, and infrastructure projects in the project vicinity and elsewhere in the watershed of the UTR and south shore of Lake Tahoe. These projects might include some construction activities in perennial or intermittent waterways (e.g., at road and utility crossings). Status: Additional urban development is on-going, and anticipated to be on-going throughout implementation of the Project.

54 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.2 AESTHETICS Both natural and man-made landscape features contribute to visual resources and the perceived aesthetic value of a view. The value is determined by contrasts, forms, and textures exhibited by geology, hydrology, vegetation, wildlife, and man-made features. Individuals respond differently to changes in the physical environment, depending on prior experiences, expectations, proximity and duration of views. Therefore, visual effects analyses tend to be highly subjective in nature. The TRPA and the CSLT have jurisdiction over visual resources within the non-federal portions of the Project Area. The USFS-LTBMU has jurisdiction over visual resources on NFS lands within the Project Area.

The LTBMU Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USFS 1988) identifies VQOs for NFS lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The VQOs describe the desired appearance of these lands with respect to the degree their appearance varies from the landscape’s “naturally appearing” visual character. The VQO for the NFS lands within the Project Area is Retention. Under this VQO, management activities should not be visually evident when viewing the landscape; management activities should mimic the visual character of the surrounding landscape. This section describes the existing aesthetic features of the Project Area, and analyzes impacts from the No Action alternative and the Proposed Project. Design features and construction controls are identified to reduce potential impacts on visual resources to a less-than-significant level.

3.2.1 Existing Conditions The Project Area is a mix of both natural and man-made features. The Lake Tahoe Airport, Elks Club parking lot, the STPUD utility and access structures (Figures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2), and the former Sunset Stables area, are the three four main man-made features that can be seen within the Project Area. Otherwise, a naturally appearing SEZ and forested landscape is dominant. Most of the Project Area lies below the surrounding forested slopes in the meadow adjacent to the UTR. The meadow has little topographic relief. Much of the existing meadow appears undisturbed; however the area’s visual character is compromised by the incised stream channel (Figure 3.2-3), adjacent airport and the sewer lines that cross the area. The Sunset Stables building site is currently used to store mulch materials. The former Elks Club site has a parking lot and a graded gravel pad. The area cannot be seen from most of Highway U.S. 50 to the west and the Tahoe Paradise neighborhood to the east. The Project Area can be seen from Highway U.S. 50 as it enters the Lake Tahoe Basin near the top of Echo Summit from the west, but from a considerable distance (approximately five miles) (Figure 3.2-1). The Project Area is not developed and has no lighting or structures.

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project Alternative The No Action/No Project Alternative is the future condition without the Project. Under this alternative, no work would be performed in the Project Area, other than regular, on-going management activities. The visual character or quality of the area would not change under the No Action/No Project Alternative. Under existing federal, state and local regulations, the airport would not be allowed to encroach further east into the floodplain with or without the Project. Because no construction work would be completed as part of the No Action/No Project Alternative, there would be no effects on scenic vistas. Because no permanent structures would be created, this alternative would not affect views of Lake Tahoe or other scenic vistas.

The No Action/No Project Alternative would be consistent with the TRPA Scenic Quality Improvement Program (SQIP) and USFS VQO of Retention because no construction would occur at the site and no degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings would occur. Therefore, the No Action/No Project Alternative would have no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts on aesthetics.

ENTRIX, INC. 55 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

This page intentionally left blank

56 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Figure 3.2-1 View from the uplands near the north end of the Project Area showing the Upper Truckee River in spring flood and the airport along the western side of the meadow.

Figure 3.2-2 View north along the STPUD sewer main backup export line and gravity collector from the meadow southeast of the airport

Figure 3.2-3 View of the exposed and eroding banks along the incised channel from the north end of Reach 5. The airport is in the background.

ENTRIX, INC. 57 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

This page intentionally left blank

58 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Figure 3.2-4 View of the Project Area from near the top of Echo Pass at dusk. View is toward the NE, Project Area is east and south of the airport which is delineated by the airport runway lights just to right of Twin Peaks.

ENTRIX, INC. 59 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

This page intentionally left blank

60 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project

3.2.3.1 Construction Visibility The Proposed Project would install temporary roads and staging areas, construct new streambed and banks, modify two short segments of two utility pipelines, and plant native vegetation. Views of construction activities would vary, depending on the viewing location. Because most of the active construction site is along the UTR in the meadow, obscured by foreground vegetation or below the elevation of surrounding lands, most of the construction would be visible only from recreational trails or the UTR. Pipelines would be buried and would not be visible once the disturbed pipeline corridors and construction areas are resurfaced and revegetated.

The project site is not visible from Pioneer Trail, Lake Tahoe, public recreation areas or TRPA designated bicycle trails because it is obscured by foreground vegetation and/or topography. With no above-ground structures, the Proposed Project would not affect views of Lake Tahoe or other scenic vistas from a public road or area.

The potential short-term visual impacts during construction could include temporary building structures (i.e. contractor’s office trailer and temporary storage container) and equipment, exposed soil, soil stockpiles (Figure 3.2-5), construction staging areas, temporary roads and construction fencing, including erosion control fencing. The loss of vegetation during construction would also be temporary until new vegetation is reestablished (Figure 3.2-6). The length of construction time would be up to 4 months (July to October) per year for a maximum of eight 10 years for Reaches 5 and 6. Construction impacts would be temporary, and would have limited visibility due to foreground vegetation and topography. Consequently, temporary impacts resulting from construction visibility would be less than significant. Spoil piles could remain at staging areas for up to three years between excavation of the new channel and backfilling the old channel for each project reach.

ENTRIX, INC. 61 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

This page intentionally left blank

.

62 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Figure 3.2-5 Newly excavated channel (Cold Creek, High Meadows) showing excavator on protective mats and ground disturbance during channel construction.

Figure 3.2-6 Typical excavation operation (Cold Creek, High Meadows) showing sod placement for stacked sod bank stabilization treatment on outer bank of pool.

ENTRIX, INC. 63 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

This page intentionally left blank

64 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.2.3.2 Scenic Vistas The Project Area is visible from a distance of five miles from designated scenic vistas on the section of Highway U.S. 50 descending from Echo Summit. The character of these background views would not be altered at this viewing distance; therefore, no substantial adverse impacts to scenic vistas would occur.

3.2.3.3 Damage to Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway In 1963, the State legislature established the California Scenic Highway Program through Senate Bill 1467. This Senate Bill added Section 260 et seq. to the Streets and Highway Code. The five legislatively required standards for scenic highways under Section 261 of the Streets and Highways Code are:

 Regulation of land use and density of development (i.e., density classifications and types of allowable land uses),  Detailed land and site planning (i.e., permit or design review authority and regulations for the review of proposed developments),  Prohibitions of off-site outdoor advertising and control of on-site outdoor advertising,  Careful attention to and control of earthmoving and landscaping (i.e., grading, ordinances, grading permit requirements, design review authority, landscaping and vegetation requirements), and  The design and appearance of structures and equipment (i.e., placement of utility structures, microwave receptors, etc.).

Highway U.S. 50 is designated a scenic highway under the California Scenic Highway Program (California Department of Transportation) and views of the Project Area from Highway U.S. 50 would be temporarily altered. The staging area at the former Sunset Stables building site would be visible. Stockpiles could remain at the Sunset Stables staging areas for up to 5 10 years for construction of each project reach. The Sunset Stables staging area is currently used for storing mulch and other materials. Construction, and the associated views of machinery, temporary roadways, and grading/stockpiling areas would be temporary, and the staging area and construction roads would be decommissioned and restored following construction (GHWQ-12). Construction of the new channel would be visible from parts of Highway U.S. 50, but on the far side of the airport. The speed limit on Highway U.S. 50 is 50 miles per hour, and the Proposed Project would be visible for approximately 2,000 linear feet. Therefore, the typical view of the construction site would last about 30 seconds, which would not significantly impact views from a designated scenic highway. Views of the site after construction would be enhanced over existing conditions as the current degraded stream, meadow, and wetland habitats would be restored and enhanced. These actions would result in the return of the site to a natural stream and wet meadow environment that was historically present at this location. It would also provide the public opportunities to view this restored area and its improved aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat.

Additionally, the Proposed Project does not propose features that would violate local ordinances or the elements set forth by the Caltrans as described above, are inconsistent with TRPA’s thresholds and goals for scenic resources or violate the USFS’s VQOs. Consequently, the consistency of the Proposed Project with these local, state, and federal regulations and requirements would reduce any potential adverse impacts by ensuring the project protects and maintains scenic and natural resources. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not damage scenic resources with a state scenic highway and the impact would be less than significant.

3.2.3.4 Degrade Existing Visual Character of the Project Site and Land Forms As the purpose of the Proposed Project is to restore natural habitats, construction of project components would not result in long-term changes that would be discernable from the surrounding natural landscape. A new river channel and stream banks would be excavated and native riparian vegetation would be planted. These project components would be visible as they would be built on the ground surface, but they have been designed to mimic or match the surrounding landscape character and comply with USFS VQOs. Further, one

ENTRIX, INC. 65 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

of the Proposed Project’s objectives is to restore the SEZ and natural floodplain of the UTR. In this way, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the TRPA SQIP. One SQIP goal for scenic resources is to maintain and restore the scenic qualities of the natural landscape. As the Proposed Project would enhance conditions by restoring the meadow complex, views of the site after project construction would be enhanced over existing conditions as the current degraded stream, meadow, and wetland habitats would be replaced with views of a natural stream and wet meadow environment that was historically present at this location.

3.2.3.5 Light or Glare Affecting Views The Proposed Project would not install any permanent light sources, and any light or glare associated with the Proposed Project would be from temporary construction activities. However, no construction activities would occur during evening or night hours (NOI-1); therefore no exterior lighting would be needed. Interior lighting would be required at the contractor’s office trailer at the Sunset Stables staging area. This lighting would be minimal, directed to specific areas of the site, and would not affect views or be directed onto adjacent properties. Consequently, the Proposed Project’s light and glare impacts would be localized, temporary, and less than significant.

3.2.4 Effects Determination

3.2.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act Determination The Proposed Project would have limited visibility during construction and after Project completion, and after recovery (4-7 10 years) the landscape would appear to be “natural” when viewed in the setting of the surrounding landscape. This would be consistent with the Forest Plan VQO of Retention as the site will appear as a natural alpine stream and meadow complex once restoration is complete. Effects during construction would not appear natural, but would be limited in their duration (4-8 construction seasons). There is limited site visibility of the Project Area from Highway U.S. 50, and the views are obstructed because of the airport, so the typical view of the construction site would last about 30 seconds. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not permanently adversely affect scenic resources, exceed USFS Retention requirements or permanently adversely affect views from a state scenic highway. The project site is not visible from Pioneer Trail, Lake Tahoe, public recreation areas or TRPA designated bicycle trails because it is obscured by foreground vegetation and/or topography, and therefore channel construction activities and SEZ revegetation would not result in adverse effects to site aesthetics. Because the Proposed Project is only briefly visible from Echo Summit, it would have a negligible aesthetic impact on any distant vistas. Restoration activities would create a sinuous river corridor and a seasonally flooding meadow. Although there would be some short-term visual disruption (2-5 years following construction) associated with the construction of some project components (i.e. temporary disturbed ground until revegetation establishes), revegetation is expected to be complete within approximately 4-7 years, so there would be no long-term effect on visual resources due to construction.

66 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.2.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act Determination

Less than Aesthetics Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock X outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its X surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or X nighttime views in the area?

a) No Impact. The Project Area is not visible from any designated scenic vistas. Therefore, no aesthetic impacts on any scenic vistas would result from the Project. b) Less than Significant Impact. There are no rock outcroppings that will be disturbed, and no historic buildings in the Project Area. Tree removal would occur where trees are in the new channel alignment or access roads, but removal would be minimized and would not be visible from Highway U.S. 50. Construction would be visible from a short segment of Highway U.S. 50 on the east side of the airport during the summer construction season; however, because no permanent structures are involved, the Proposed Project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway and the impact would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact. During summer construction months, there would be temporary impacts from the presence of construction equipment at staging areas visible from Highway U.S. 50, and for recreation users within or near the Project Area. Tree removal would occur where trees are in the new channel alignment or access roads, but removal would be minimized and the overall impact would be consistent with the visual character of the Project Area. The new channel would improve the visual character and quality of the site by restoring its natural characteristics; therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially degrade the site and the impact would be less than significant. d) No Impact. No outside lighting would be required; thus there would be no new source of substantial light or glare and therefore no light or glare impacts on views.

3.2.5 Cumulative Effects and Determination The aesthetic and visual quality of the UTR corridor area has been affected by past projects, including residential subdivisions, South Lake Tahoe Airport, commercial developments and utility construction. Therefore, this cumulative analysis for aesthetics considers the projects in the UTR corridor and Lake Tahoe South Shore area, listed in Table 3.1-1.

Although the proposed project would have temporary visual effects from vegetation clearing and construction activities (for 4-8 construction seasons), these effects would be removed at the close of construction and the project would result in the creation of an alpine stream that is consistent with the visual resources of the area. Although many of the projects in Table 3.1-1 would not be visible from the same locations and would be located at substantial distances from the Proposed Project, several of the projects would be near the Proposed Project and may be under construction at the same time and are considered here for cumulative effects. The Lake Tahoe Airport Runway Restoration Project plans to remove a 25-foot wide by 1,300-foot long area of impervious surface and replace a portion of this area with pervious concrete in 2010-2011. One possible alignment for a future extension of the Greenway Bike Trail could be located east of the restored channel. This trail would be visible from the study area if this alignment is constructed. In addition, the Upper Truckee Middle Reaches 3 and 4 Restoration Project, El Dorado U.S. 50 Segment 2–Lake Tahoe Airport to U.S. 50-

ENTRIX, INC. 67 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

SR 89 Junction Water Quality Improvement Project, Apalachee 3B – Water Quality Project, Sawmill 2 Bike Path and Erosion Control Project, South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project, and Sunset Stables Aspen Restoration would also involve temporary construction or tree removal activities that would result in temporary visual effects from vegetation clearing and construction activities, and for the most part have at least limited visibility from Highway U.S. 50 during implementation. Although most operations associated with these projects would occur in areas that are generally outside of direct views from Highway U.S. 50, scenic vistas, and area residences, some work would be visible to the public but would either be screened by foreground vegetation and topography, or would be temporary and only occur during the summer months when construction operations are allowed. The projects would also implement design features and construction controls with similar goals to those of Proposed Project (i.e., protect visual resources through the avoidance and minimization of activities and operations that could affect these resources). Therefore, when considered together, projects along the UTR corridor and Lake Tahoe South Shore area would not result in significant adverse cumulative impacts on aesthetic resources, including views from Highway U.S. 50 and visual character. Consequently, with implementation of project design features and construction controls described in Section 2.0, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact to visual and scenic resources.

68 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.3 AIR QUALITY This section describes the existing air quality conditions and analyzes impacts from the Proposed Project. The study area for the analysis of project-related impacts on air quality is approximately a one-quarter mile radius around the Project Area and access routes for fill material transport, stockpiling, and material import. Design features and BMPs are identified to reduce potential impacts on air quality to levels less than significant.

The study area described above for the assessment of air quality effects was chosen because an approximate one-quarter mile radius around the site would include sensitive receptors potentially affected by fugitive dust. Due to the reaction time for the formation of ozone (O3), the emission of O3 precursor pollutants, reactive organic gases (ROG, also referred to as volatile organic compounds or VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) have the potential to affect an area larger than the Project Area.

3.3.1 Existing Conditions Air quality standards and regulations focus on criteria pollutants because they are known to be deleterious to human health, and because there is extensive documentation available on the health-effects criteria for these pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern are O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5. From this relationship, acceptable concentration levels are also established. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or Federal Standards, California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), and TRPA standards for these pollutants are listed in Table 3.3-1 and represent the levels of air quality deemed necessary to protect the public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety, along with the current attainment status for these pollutants. The existing air quality conditions are also summarized in Table 3.3-2 from the South Lake Tahoe monitoring station near the Project Area. A brief description of each criteria pollutant is provided below.

Ozone can cause respiratory problems, especially for sensitive persons such as infants, children, elderly, and those chronically ill at receptors such as residences, hospitals, day care providers, schools, etc., as well as damage to vegetation. Ozone is a result of photochemical reactions involving hydrocarbon compounds and oxides of nitrogen. During sunny days, especially during the summer, increased levels of ultraviolet radiation contribute to higher levels of O3. Because O3 is a secondary pollutant (formed by other primary pollutants in the atmosphere), elevated concentrations of O3 may be found miles downwind of the pollutant source when a temperature inversion layer is present. The Proposed Project is located in the region of El Dorado County that is within the Lake Tahoe Basin. This area is designated as a federal attainment area for O3 as noted in 40 CFR 81.275. However, the area is not in attainment for California standards for 8-hour O3 (CARB 2010a).

The primary sources of CO emissions are the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels by motor vehicles, as well as fireplaces, stoves, and furnaces. In the Project Area, most CO emissions are from mobile sources. CO is regulated because of concern for public health. The EPA and California both have the same 8-hour standard of 9 parts per million (ppm). Currently, the Project Area is classified as a maintenance area for CO. TRPA 8-hour standard for CO is set at 6 ppm. Based on air quality data collected from 2004-2006, no CO standards were exceeded on any day.

Hydrocarbons and NOX are emitted primarily from fossil fuel combustion, chemical processing, fuel storage and handling, and solvent usage. NO2 is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban environments. Combustion devices emit primarily nitric oxide (NO), which reacts through oxidation in the atmosphere to form NO2 (USEPA 2008a). The combined emissions of NO and NO2 are referred to as NOX and reported as equivalent NO2. Because NO2 is formed and depleted by photochemical reactions associated with O3, the NO2 concentration in a particular geographical area may not be representative of the local NOX emission sources.

Particulate matter in the atmosphere results from many sources including fugitive dust, vehicle and residential combustion processes, and road abrasives and deicers. Standards are in place to regulate the amount of

ENTRIX, INC. 69 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

respirable particulate matter in the atmosphere that is smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The adverse health effects associated with PM10 depend on the specific composition of the particulate matter, and generally are associated with both short-term and long-term exposures to elevated concentrations and may include respiratory symptoms, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, alterations to the immune system, carcinogenesis, and premature death (USEPA 2008a). The EPA’s 24-hour Ambient Air 3 3 Quality Standards (AAQS) for PM10 is 150 μg/m . The federal annual AAQS for PM10 (50 μg/m ) was revoked on December 17, 2006. State standards are more stringent, set at 50 μg/m3 for the 24-hour AAQS, and 20 μg/m3 for the annual average AAQS. There is no TRPA threshold for particulate matter measured in total mass. The region is not in attainment for PM10 emission standard. The area’s attainment status is summarized in Table 3.3-1.

Visibility is affected by the amount of fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) in the atmosphere. Fine sulfur aerosols and soils, ammonium nitrate, and smoke contribute to the concentrations of PM2.5. PM2.5 poses an increased health risk because the particles can deposit deep in the lungs and may contain substances that are particularly harmful to human health. Additionally, humidity is a factor in visibility; when relative humidity is above 70 percent, there is a significant decrease in the visual range. A decrease in visibility is caused by a layer of haze and results in a reduction in clarity, contrast, and color. This is of great concern, especially for areas such as the Tahoe Basin, known to have such stunning scenery. The TRPA’s thresholds for air quality include visibility standards for both regional and sub-regional visibility. Regional visibility is defined as the overall visibility in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Sub-regional visibility is characterized by the visibility over an urbanized area, such as the south shore of Lake Tahoe.

The TRPA’s regional thresholds for air quality are to achieve visual ranges as follows:

 Ninety-seven (97) miles 50 percent of the time.  Seventy-one (71) miles 90 percent of the time.

TRPA’s subregional thresholds for air quality are to achieve visual ranges as follows:

 Forty-eight (48) miles 50 percent of the time.  Nineteen (19) miles 90 percent of the time.

The regional and subregional 50 percent visibility ranges and the 90 percent subregional visibility range are in attainment. The 90 percent regional visibility standard is not in attainment.

70 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.3-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status.

Pollutants Averaging TRPA California National Standards1 Time Standards Standards2,3 Attainment Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Attainment Status4 Status7

Ozone 1 – hour 0.08 ppm 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) A _ _ _ (O3) Same as 0.075 ppm 8 – hour 0.07 ppm (137 μg/m3) N Primary A _ (147 μg/m3) Standard Carbon 35 ppm (40 1 – hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) Monoxide _ mg/m3) (CO) A _ A 9 ppm (10 8 – hour 6 ppm (7 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) mg/m3) Nitrogen Annual 0.053 ppm Dioxide Arithmetic 0.030 ppm (56 μg/m3) (100 μg/m3) Same as (NO2)8 Mean No TRPA Standard A Primary _ 0.100 ppm Standard 1 – hour 0.18 ppm (338 μg/m3) (188 μg/m3) _ Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.030 ppm (80 (SO2) Arithmetic _ μg/m3) _ Mean 24 – hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) _ _ No TRPA Standard A A 0.5 ppm 3 – hour _ _ (1,300 μg/m3) 0.075 ppm 1 – hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) (196 μg/m3) _ Respirable Annual Same as Particulate Arithmetic 20 μg/m3 _ No TRPA Standard N Primary U Matter (PM10) Mean Standard 24 – hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Fine Annual Particulate Arithmetic 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 Same as Matter (PM2.5) Mean No TRPA Standard A Primary U Standard 24 – hour _ 35 μg/m3 Lead9 30 – day 1.5 μg/m3 Average _ _ No TRPA Standard A Same as A Calendar 1.5 μg/m3 Primary Quarter _ Standard Sulfates 24 – hour No TRPA Standard 25 μg/m3 A Hydrogen 1 – hour No TRPA Standard 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) U Sulfide

Vinyl Chloride 24 – hour No TRPA Standard 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) U

Visibility – Extinction coefficient of 25Mm-1 at Extinction coefficient Reducing least 50 percent of the time (visual of 0.23 per kilometer – No National Standards Particulate range of 156km, 97 miles); and visibility o f10 miles or Matter extinction coefficient of 34 Mm-1 at more (0.07 – 30 miles 8 – hour least 90 percent of the time (visual or more for Lake U range of 115km, 71miles). Tahoe) because of Calculated from aerosol species particles when the concentrations measured at Bliss relative humidity is State Park monitoring site. less than 70 percent. Sources: CARB 2010a, USEPA 2010, TRPA 2006 Key: CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards – = not applicable A = attainment μg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter N = nonattainment mg/m3 = milligram per cubic meter U = unclassified ppm = parts per million

ENTRIX, INC. 71 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Notes: 1 Federal standard (other than O3, PM, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. The PM10 24-hour standard is attained when 99 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. The PM2.5 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the USEPA for further clarification and current Federal policies.

2 California standards for O3, CO (except Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1- and 24-hour), NO2, PM, and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. CAAQS are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

3 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated (ppm or μg/m3). Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a reference temperature of 25 degrees Celsius (°C) and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4 Unclassified (U): a pollutant is designated unclassified if the data are incomplete and do not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment. Attainment (A): a pollutant is designated attainment if the State standard for that pollutant was not violated at any site in the area during a 3-year period. Nonattainment (N): a pollutant is designated nonattainment if there was a least one violation of a State standard for that pollutant in the area. Nonattainment/Transitional (NT): is a subcategory of the nonattainment designation. An area is designated nonattainment/transitional to signify that the area is close to attaining the standard for that pollutant. 5 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. 6 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 7 Nonattainment (N): any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant. Attainment (A): any area that meets the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant. Unclassifiable (U): any area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant.

8 On February 19, 2008, the Office of Administrative Law approved a new NO2 ambient air quality standard, which lowers the 1-hr standard to 0.18 ppm and establishes a new annual standard of 0.030 ppm. These changes will become effective March 20, 2008. 9 CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

Table 3.3-2 Summary of Annual Air Quality Data (2004 – 2006) South Lake Tahoe – Sandy Way and Airport Road Air Quality Monitoring Stations

2004 2005 2006

Ozone (O3 ) 1ST High (ppm) 1 hr: 0.066 1 hr: 0.073 1 hr: 0.086 8 – hr: 0.061 8 – hr: 0.067 8 – hr: 0.075 Number of days national standard 1 hr: 0 1 hr: 0 1 hr: 0 exceeded (1–hr/8–hr, ppm) 8 – hr: 0 8 – hr: 0 8 – hr: 0 Carbon Monoxide (CO) First High 1.18 Na Na Number of days national standard 0 Na Na exceeded (1–hr/8–hr, ppm)

Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) State Annual Average Na 14.7 17.7 Number of days national standard 2 0 3 exceeded

Fine Particulate (PM2.5)

Maximum Concentration (μg/m3 ) 7 N/A N/A Number of days national standard 0 N/A N/A exceeded Source: CARB 2008, 2010a

72 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project Alternative Because the No Action/No Project alternative would not involve construction and related emissions, this alternative would have no direct, indirect or cumulative air quality impacts.

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project

3.3.3.1 Compliance with Air Quality Standards Emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants would occur during construction activities. Typical construction activities include construction of access roads and staging areas, vegetation removal, excavation and grading, bank stabilization, import of material, and site restoration. These activities would generate emissions of ROG, NOX, and PM10. Ozone precursors (ROG and NOX) and CO would be emitted from construction equipment and vehicles (i.e., heavy equipment and delivery/haul trucks, worker commute vehicles, and construction equipment). Emission sources would include construction equipment, construction worker automobiles, hauling of excavated material, importing construction materials and fill and site deliveries. Diesel-powered equipment would include a grader, excavator, loader, water pumps, haul trucks, chippers, backhoes, and tractors. Site clearing, grading and vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces would contribute to fugitive dust emissions (including PM10 and PM2.5) and on- and off-site diesel exhaust emissions. Due to earthmoving activities, sensitive receptors within approximately one-quarter mile radius of the site would potentially be affected by fugitive dust. These sensitive receptors include nearby residences. Because the completed project would not involve long-term emissions from stationary sources, only temporary construction air quality impacts have been analyzed.

Short-term construction emissions of ROG, NOX, or PM10 were modeled using the Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 6.3.2 (Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District [SMAQMD] 2009) worksheet, which utilizes CARB EMFAC 2007 and OFFROAD 2007 exhaust emission factors and EPA fugitive dust algorithms. The spreadsheet model is designed to estimate construction emissions for road construction projects and allows for the input of project-specific information. Input parameters were based on default model settings and information provided in section 2.4.3.8 of the “Project Description”. The modeled maximum daily construction emissions are summarized in Table 3.3-3, described in more detail below, and provided in Appendix K. The construction emissions estimates shown in Table 3.3-3 assume construction would begin in 2011 and continue in phases during the summer over several years and assumes that imported fill would need to come from outside the Basin. Soil disturbance for channel excavation would occur on approximately 10 acres; soil disturbance for haul roads would occur on approximately 4 acres over the life of the project. Most ground disturbance would occur during the summer and early fall construction season. In this way, the project’s production of fugitive dust would not overlap with PM10 emissions from wood-burning stoves during winter. Approximately 16 acres could be used for staging as mentioned in Section 2.4.3.10. However, according to Figure 2-1 there are approximately 30 acres devoted to staging and dewatering which was used for the worst-case scenario. It is probable that only 4 to 6 acres of that 30 will be used for staging sites (mostly for equipment and materials storage) and when watered appropriately would not generate substantial dust.

Required fugitive dust controls would further reduce the temporary emissions to below levels that would significantly contribute to violations of CARB and Lake Tahoe Air Basin (LTAB) air quality standards. A plan to address fugitive dust will be included in the project SWPPP prior to construction to ensure that mitigated PM10 emissions are below established air quality standards.

Fugitive dust control measures would be addressed in the Proposed Project’s SWPPP and implemented in addition to design features and construction control measures which are proposed to reduce effects to air quality from project activities. These controls include watering exposed soil with adequate frequency to avoid

ENTRIX, INC. 73 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

dry soil conditions, watering all exposed stockpiled materials (soil, mulch) during construction, and covering soil stockpiles with weighted down tarpaulins.

Based on the modeling conducted, project construction would result in maximum daily emissions of approximately 7.7 lbs/day of ROG, 58.2 lbs/day of NOX, 3.7 lbs/day of PM10 and 2.6 lbs/day of PM2.5. Fugitive dust results are included in the totals for PM10 and PM2.5 (Table 3.3-3), and model outputs are included in Appendix K.

Table 3.3-3 Construction Emission Inventories.

ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Proposed 7.7 58.2 51.4 3.7 2.6 Project CEQA 82 82 N/A N/A N/A Threshold

Source: ENTRIX modeling utilizing Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 6.3.2 (SMAQMD 2009)

3.3.4 Effects Determination

3.3.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act Determination Emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants would occur during earthmoving cut/fill, site grading, import of fill material, rock and gravels, and soil transport by haul trucks, all of which would generate fugitive dust and diesel exhaust emissions. Construction would result in temporary emissions related to operation of combustion engines and generation of airborne particulates (dust) during construction. Ozone precursors (ROG and NOX) and CO would be emitted from construction equipment and vehicles, along with SO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The Proposed Project could also generate some fugitive dust, and emissions would be mitigated using dust control measures. However, any impacts would be short-term during construction and would be limited to the stockpiling and staging area on the Sunset Stables site. In addition, estimated emissions from Project construction activities would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations. The staging area is located more than 100 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor, and there are no other sensitive receptors including schools, day care centers, hospitals, retirement homes, or convalescence facilities within one-quarter mile of the construction area.

Implementation of dust control measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 (Section 2.4.1.11), would reduce emissions associated with construction to below levels that would significantly contribute to violations of the CARB and LTAB existing air quality standards. Therefore, emissions associated with this project would not have a significant effect on air quality.

74 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.3.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act Determination

AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria establish by the applicable air quality Less than management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following Potentially Significant Impact Less than determinations. Significant with Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected X air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air X quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X

a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any applicable air quality plan because it would not increase population or employment beyond that identified in local plans and would not increase mobile source emissions, which may conflict with air quality planning. All potential impacts would be avoided through compliance with the TRPA air pollution regulations, which require implementation of standard construction measures AQ-1 and AQ-2as described in Chapter 2. The Proposed Project would not increase population or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) beyond projections in local plans. In addition, the Proposed Project would not result in the operation of any stationary emissions sources or long- term operation of area or mobile sources of emissions. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality efforts of CARB; thus, there would be no impact. b) Less than Significant Impact. Emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants would occur during construction activities. Typical construction activities are described above and include grading, excavation, fill hauling, and restoration. These activities would generate emissions of ROG, NOX, and PM10. Ozone precursors (ROG and NOX) and CO would be emitted from construction equipment and passenger and haul vehicles, along with SO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Site clearing, grading and vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces would contribute to fugitive dust emissions (mainly PM10 and some PM2.5) and on- and off-site diesel exhaust emissions. Sensitive receptors within approximately one-quarter mile radius of the site would potentially be affected by fugitive dust. Although there are residences nearby, there are no sensitive receptors within one-quarter mile. As described above, emissions were estimated using the Road Construction Emissions Model. Table 3.3-3 (see Section 3.3.3.1 above) provides a summary of peak daily rates for ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5

ROG and NOX have a short-term significance threshold of 82 pounds per day under CEQA (El Dorado County AQMD 2002). The emission inventory indicates that both the ROG and NOX emissions would be below CEQA thresholds; therefore the Project would produce less than significant impacts from ROG and NOX. Required air emission controls would further reduce the temporary emissions (Section 2.4.1.11) to below levels that would significantly contribute to violations of CARB and LTAB air quality standards.

Lastly, if fugitive dust controls (e.g., watering, covering stockpiled material) are used, emissions need not be quantified. Therefore, the Proposed Project construction of the new channel would have a less-than- significant effect on air quality.

ENTRIX, INC. 75 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

c) Less than Significant Impact. The El Dorado County portion of the Lake Tahoe Air Basin is designated attainment or unclassified for all pollutants, except with regard to the state standard for PM10, for which it is designated nonattainment. The Proposed Project would result in a small (3.7 lbs/day), temporary incremental contribution to a cumulative effect for PM10. However, according to El Dorado County AQMD CEQA guidelines, the Proposed Project would not be considered cumulatively significant because the Proposed Project would not require a change in land use or exceed other air quality significance criteria.

The guidelines further state that the incremental contribution of a project will not be considered cumulatively considerable if the project “will comply with requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program,” such as a formally adopted and enforceable air quality plan, that contains requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (Guidelines, Section 15064[i][3]). The El Dorado County AQMD participates in a regional plan for attaining and maintaining the national and state ambient air quality standards for O3 that takes incremental emissions of ROG and NOX from economic growth into account. The Proposed Project would implement the emission reduction measures including fugitive dust controls. Because these emissions would be offset by construction controls and BMPs (AQ-1 and AQ-2) the Proposed Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and therefore less than significant.

d) Less than Significant Impact. Estimated emissions from Project construction activities would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations. The staging area is located more than 100 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor, and there are no other sensitive receptors such as schools, day care centers, hospitals, retirement homes, or convalescence facilities within one-quarter mile of the construction area. Due to the relatively small scale of the proposed construction activity, its short-term temporary nature and its location in a sparely populated rural area, the construction dust and diesel particulate matter emissions control measures (AQ-1 and AQ-2) would lower the release of particles such that the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. Also, TRPA control measures would be implemented, as described above. The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and therefore the impact would be less than significant with implementation of the Proposed Project construction dust control measures.

e) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the new stream channel would require excavation of wetland sediments and stockpiling of sediments near Highway U.S. 50, potentially resulting in odors from decomposition of organic matter in the stockpiled sediments. However, any impacts would be short-term during construction, and would be limited to the staging and stockpiling area on the Sunset Stables site. This area is located near a sensitive receptor (within 200 feet of fewer than 15 residences in the Tahoe Paradise neighborhood). However, construction controls (AQ-2) would be implemented, including covering exposed stockpiled materials between periods of active construction, thereby reducing or avoiding odors from stockpiled soils. Therefore, Project construction would not create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people.

3.3.5 Cumulative Effects and Determination Construction of the Proposed Project could overlap to some degree with the construction of other projects described in Section 3.1.3 including restoration projects, trail projects, erosion control and other construction projects. Generally, cumulative air quality impacts resulting from concurrent construction activities at different locations would be dispersed over a broad geographic area and would not be the sole cause of any exceedences of ambient air quality standards shown in Table 3.3-1. Due to the relatively small scale of each project, direct mass emissions of pollutants should not be sufficient to cause localized violations of NO2, CO, or PM10 standards during typical weather conditions. Construction emissions would temporarily and nominally affect the Tahoe Basin. The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of applicable air quality or attainment plans since temporary construction emissions would not prevent attainment or maintenance of air quality standards over the long-term. Construction-related CO and O3 precursor emissions (ROG and NOX) from the Proposed Project, together with other construction projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact.

76 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Similarly, all other projects, including restoration projects, would be required to not violate air quality standards and implement controls like those described in Section 2.4.1.11. Restoration projects managed by the CTC and the USFS would implement the same types of construction controls described in Section 2.4.1.11, including fugitive dust controls and engine management procedures, which would respectively prevent excessive generation of fugitive dust and diesel exhaust, thus rendering cumulative impacts less than significant.

Estimated construction emissions would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations that would affect sensitive receptors. The Proposed Project, and other projects in the UTR watershed and Lake Tahoe South Shore area, would be required to implement construction controls, including fugitive dust control measures to reduce emissions of PM10. The proposed Project and all other projects, including restoration projects, would be required to control odors. Restoration projects managed by CTC and USFS would implement the construction controls described in Section 2.4.1.11, including covering stockpiled soil (AQ-2). The staging area is located more than 100 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore there would be no cumulative air quality effects from staging area operations.

ENTRIX, INC. 77 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

This page intentionally left blank

78 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section describes the existing conditions of biological resources in the Project Area (vegetation, plants, wildlife, fisheries, and sensitive biological communities), and analyzes the potential impacts from the Proposed Project and the No Project Alternative. Design features, construction controls, and permitting requirements are identified which reduce potential impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level (Section 2.4.3.11).

3.4.1 Methods In order to assess existing conditions and potential Project-related impacts, ENTRIX biologists conducted field surveys of the Project Area in the summer of 2004, 2005, and 2008. Surveys focused on identification of vegetation communities, special-status species or their potential habitat, noxious weeds, and Washoe culturally-important plants.

3.4.1.1 Plant Surveys During the field surveys, all plants observed were identified and occurrences of special-status plants and invasive plant/noxious weed species were recorded. All field mapping data collected and updated was transferred into a GIS database and is provided as overlays on the project aerial base map. The assessment of the existing plant communities, special-status plant species, and noxious weeds in the Project Area was based on field surveys conducted in summer 2004, 2005, and 2008 (CTC 2008d). Washoe culturally-important plants were recorded during the 2004/5 surveys, but not the 2008 survey. Plant communities were mapped from 2003 aerial photos and ground truthed in summer 2004 (CTC 2008d).

In 2004/5, comprehensive floristic field surveys were conducted throughout most of the publicly held lands (CTC and USFS) within the MPA. Private property within the MPA was not surveyed.

The 2008 survey included all Federal lands (USFS property) and elsewhere focused on sensitive vegetation communities and areas of suitable habitat for special-status species, as well as proposed restoration activity areas i.e. staging area, access roads, and proposed and existing channel alignments. The 2008 survey did not extend into the developed portion of the MPA (i.e., residential area in the eastern half), with the exception of some USFS urban lots.

3.4.1.2 Wildlife Surveys The results of wildlife surveys and information on biological resources in both aquatic and terrestrial habitats were developed by CTC for the Sunset Stables Reach (CTC 2004a, 2005d, 2005e, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d, 2007e, and 2008d). LTBMU also conducted field surveys in the Project Area in 2007 and 2009.

3.4.1.3 Literature Review Technical studies were conducted for the Sunset Stables Reach to develop background information on a wide variety of biological resources in both aquatic and terrestrial habitats (CTC 2004a, 2005d, 2005e, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d, 2007e, and 2008d). In addition, the following sources have been reviewed to obtain information on existing aquatic and terrestrial species, including special-status species in the Project Area:

. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFG 2008) query of lands within 5 miles of the MPA;

. California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2008) query of the four 7.5-minute quadrangles that cover the MPA (Emerald Bay, Echo Lake, Freel Peak and South Lake Tahoe);

ENTRIX, INC. 79 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento District website query for sensitive species using the quads listed above;

. USFS Biological Evaluation: Aquatic and Terrestrial Species (USDA-FS 2010);

. Species of Interest (LSI) and USFS Sensitive Species (FSS) listed on the USFS Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, Region 5 (USFS 2006); and

. Species listed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), i.e. Special Interest Species as listed in the Regional Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin: Goals and Policies (TRPA 1986) and Code of Ordinances (TRPA 1987).

Information on habitat, elevation range, and population occurrences was compiled from the following resources:

. Existing Conditions Report for the Sunset Stables Restoration and Resource Management Project (CTC 2004a);

. USFS Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi report template (USDA-FS 2007);

. CalFlora database (CalFlora 2008);

. CNDDB (CDFG 2008); and

. CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2008).

3.4.2 Existing Conditions The “baseline conditions” for this analysis are based on the field surveys discussed above, other data collected or research conducted within the Project Area, and federal and state agency information resources. This information was used to identify and characterize existing conditions in the Project Area, and accordingly, was used to assess the Project’s effect on biological resources.

3.4.2.1 Vegetation

Plant Communities The predominant plant communities in the Project Area are montane meadow and montane coniferous forest. Sensitive habitats include wet montane meadow and montane riparian scrub (Figure 3.4-1 and Table 3.4-1). These plant communities comprise the SEZ habitat, which has been identified by TRPA, CTC and other agencies for protection, restoration actions, and enhancement in the Tahoe Basin.

80 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.4-1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover in the Project Area

Cover Type Acreage Percent of Total (%) Aspen Woodland Forest 0.8 0.3% Big Sagebrush Scrub 8.2 2.8% Developed 4.1 1.4% Jeffrey Pine Forest 66.8 22.5% Jeffrey Pine/Fir Forest 23.3 7.8% Lodgepole Pine Forest 56.7 19.1% Montane Riparian Scrub 18.0 6.1% Open Ground 4.0 1.3% Ruderal 6.1 2.1% Water 10.7 3.6% Wet Montane Meadow 98.3 33.1% Total 297 100%

Source: El Dorado County 2003 and CTC

ENTRIX, INC. 81 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

This page intentionally left blank

82 ENTRIX, INC. E

m

e

r

a

l

d

Lake B a

Tahoe y 15000 R 14000

d

.

N E C V A A L D IF O A R N IA

16000

T

R

O

P

R I 18000 17000 A

E

O

H

A

T

E

K A 19000 L

20000

21000

22000

23000 50

24000

l i al ri Ta r r T e er e n e o in Po i P 25000

26000

27000

28000

Project Boundary Vegetation Communities

Upper Truckee River Aspen Forest Montane Riparian Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restor ation Project

1000-foot River Station Big Sagebrush Scrub Montane Riparian Scrub Figure 3.4-1 Parcel Boundary Developed Open Ground Alignment Based on Jeffrey Pine Forest Ruderal Vegetation Communites in the Project Area 50% Design Plans Jeffrey Pine/Fir Forest Wet Montane Meadow Potential Storage/Staging 500 250 0 500 and/or Dewatering Area Lodgepole Pine Forest Feet Projection: California Stateplane, Zone 2 Potential Haul Route Datum: NAD 83 3/25/11

Z:\GIS\Entrix\3089102_SunsetStables\map\mxd\EA\SS_VegetationCommunities_11i17i.mxd FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

In general, plant communities along the UTR are in poor condition, with only minimal regeneration of meadow and riparian vegetation (TRCD 2003). This is attributed to historic timber harvesting, grazing, river relocation, and channelization when the airport was built. Much of the wet montane meadow in the Project Area appears to be in transition toward dry montane meadow. Additionally, lodgepole pines are encroaching on the meadow, which is often indicative of meadow drying. Further details on the main plant communities are provided in CTC (2008d) and summarized below.

Wet Montane Meadow (Holland code #45110). The wet meadows (98.3 acres) within the Project Area are dominated by sedges including Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis) and slender-beak sedge (Carex athrostachya). Long-stalked clover (Trifolium longipes), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), leafy arnica (Arnica chamissonis), water miners lettuce (Montia chamissoi), narrowleaf miners lettuce (Monta linearis), and cinquefoil (Potentilla gracilis) are also common in the wet meadows.

Montane Riparian Scrub (Holland code #63500). The montane riparian scrub (18.0 acres) in the Project Area is dominated by various species of willow and contains several species of sedges (Carex spp.) Montane riparian scrub borders both banks of the stream channel in a discontinuous band of varying width, and occurs in a few cases on hillslopes where soil moisture is adequate.

Aspen Woodland Forest. Small non-riparian aspen stands (0.8 acres) are found in the two fingers of wet montane meadow that extend into the eastern uplands near the south end of the Project Area. The herbaceous layer includes such species as western columbine (Aquilegia formosa), Fendler’s meadow rue (Thalictrum fendleri), California corn lily (Veratrum californicum var. californicum), sedges, Richard’s geranium (Geranium richardsonii), and rein bog orchid (Platanthera leucostachys).

Jeffrey Pine Forest (Holland code #85100). Jeffrey pine forest (66.8 acres) is the predominant forest type within the Project Area. This community type is dominated by Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), interspersed with white fir (Abies concolor), and incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens). Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta ssp. murrayana) was found in areas that collect more moisture. The understory is dominated by gooseberries and currents (Ribes spp.), service-berry (Amelanchier alnifolia var. pumila), and Sierra chinquapin (Chrysolepis sempervirens). Small areas of Jeffrey pine forest are found along the northeast and southwest edges of the meadow.

Jeffrey Pine/Fir Forest (Holland code #85210). Jeffrey pine/fir forest (23.3 acres) occurs on drier slopes and flats and on coarse soils. Jeffrey pine and white fir dominate the tree layer, but lodgepole pine is also common.

Lodgepole Pine Forest (Holland code #86100). Lodgepole pine forest (56.7 acres) borders the UTR and the montane riparian scrub in the central and southern part the Project Area, and surrounds the south end of the airport. Typically, lodgepole pine overwhelmingly dominates the habitat, with occasional aspen and mountain hemlock. The understory may be virtually absent, consisting of scattered shrubs and herbs, or a rich herbaceous layer at meadow margins. Many lodgepole stands are associated with meadow edges and streams, where the understory consists of grasses, forbs, and sedges. Lodgepole pine forest is found on moist sites such as creek banks and meadow margins.

Big Sagebrush Scrub (Holland code #35210). Big sagebrush scrub (8.2 acres) occurs as small patches in the Project Area. This vegetation type is dominated by mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana). Rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus) and bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) are common associates of this community.

Ruderal Vegetation. Ruderal vegetation (6.1 acres) occurs in areas where vegetation is subject to routine disturbance. Invasive plants are often found in these areas as well as pioneer native species. Ruderal vegetation occurs within the Project Area at roads and trails, the former stables parking area by the gate, and the snowmobile staging area and former jumping ring.

ENTRIX, INC. 85 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Special-Status Plants Special-status plant species and their habitat potential on the Project Area are provided in Table 3.4-2. Special-status plants include those that are listed as endangered under the FESA by the USFWS, those that are species of concern by the USFWS, species of concern identified by USFS Region 5 for the LTMBU and species of interest under TRPA. Additionally, the California Native Plant Society maintains a list of sensitive plants. The CNDDB also maintains a list of sensitive plant species.

Forty-four species of sensitive plants or fungi have the potential to occur in the LTBMU, but only 27 have the potential to occur within the Project Area. Additionally, four out of the eight of the LTBMU special interest species have the potential to occur in the Project Area. These include Meesia longiseta, Orthotricum praemorsum, O. shevockii, and Sphagnum species. Further details are available in the “Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi” prepared for the LTBMU (ENTRIX 2009a). No plant species in the LTBMU are currently listed as “Threatened” or “Endangered” by USFWS under ESA. Species that have no potential to occur within the Project Area are not discussed further in the existing conditions or impact analysis sections.

In addition to the database searches, vegetation surveys were conducted in 2004 and 2005 (CTC 2008d) and in spring and summer of 2008 (ENTRIX 2009a) to assess habitat suitability and presence and absence of special-status species. The results of these surveys identified only one special-status plant species found near the Project Area: the three-ranked hump-moss (Meesia triquetra) (CTC 2008d), for which a brief species account is provided below. Another bryophyte, broad-nerved hump-moss (Meesia uliginosa), is reported in the CNDDB and is recorded as LTBMU population MEUL2 (CNPS 2008 in ENTRIX 2009a). The MEUL occurrence is near the METR occurrence, and, as the METR occurrence, it is also outside the project boundary (by approximately 500 feet). Also, Meesia sp. collected in this location in 2008 were identified as three-ranked hump-moss (see previous paragraph). Repeated surveys in this location did not indicate the presence of Meesia uliginosa.

Based on project surveys for special-status plant species, the following species have been found in or adjacent to the Project Area and therefore have a May Effect determination under NEPA and CEQA.

. Meesia triquetra

Three-ranked hump-moss (Meesia triquetra) Status: Forest Service Sensitive Species

Three-ranked hump-moss is a bryophyte native to California. This moss prefers bogs and fen habitats, but is also found in very wet meadows. This species is known to occur on the LTBMU and has been found near the Project Area (Figure 3.4-2). One population was found near (but outside of) the extreme northeast corner of the Project Area during in summer 2008 survey (ENTRIX 2009a). Meesia triquetra are found in bogs, fens, and very wet meadows in upper montane coniferous forests at elevations between 4,000 and 10,000 feet in elevation. This moss seems to prefer acidic meadows with sphagnum moss (Sphagnum), sundew (Drosera), and huckleberry (Vaccinium) associates. Cold spring-fed fens in the meadow also seem essential. This species requires permanent saturation and is not found in meadows that dry out. Suitable habitat for this species was present near but not within the northeast corner of the Project Area in a localized area measuring approximately 200 feet by 5 feet.

86 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.4-2 Candidate, sensitive and special interest plant and fungi species potentially occurring within the Project Area.

Species Status Known to Habitat Description occur in Rationale for why a plant is not analyzed further in the document Project Area Federal Candidate Species and Forest Service Sensitive Arabis rigidissima var. demota S, CNPS No Species is found in open, rocky areas along forest edges of conifer and/or aspen stands. Usually found on northerly aspects above 7,500 feet (ft). Galena Creek rock cress 1B.2 Unlikely to occur. Potential habitat exists in the study area, but the study area is outside of the known elevation range for the species. This species does occur on the LTBMU, but is known in California from only two occurrences near Martis Peak and in Nevada from eleven occurrences in the Carson Range. Arabis tiehmii S, CNPS No Species is known from open rocky soils in the Mt. Rose Wilderness. Tiehm’s rock cress 1B.3 Unlikely to occur. No suitable habitat exists in the study area, and the study area is outside of the known elevation range for the species. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. Regional endemic, known to occur only in the Carson Range of the Sierra Nevada in southern Washoe County (Mt. Rose Wilderness). Botrychium ascendens S, CNPS No Botrychium species share similar preferences in habitat, i.e. wet or moist soils such as marshes, meadows, and along the edges of lakes and streams Upswept moonwort 2.3 at elevations between 4,700 and 9,000 ft. They generally occur with mosses, grasses, sedges, rushes, and other riparian vegetation. Has the potential to occur within the study area. Known in California from only two occurrences: near Jonesville on the Butte and Tehama County border, and south of Fallen Leaf Lake, El Dorado County. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. Botrychium crenulatum S, CNPS No See Botrychium ascendens above Scalloped moonwort 2.2 Potential to occur within the study area. This species is known to occur on the LTBMU. Two known occurrences include Ward Canyon and Blackwood Canyon. Botrychium lineare S, CNPS No See Botrychium ascendens above Slender moonwort 1B.3 Unlikely to occur. Potential habitat exists in the study area, but the study area is outside of the known elevation range for the species. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. Botrychium lunaria S, CNPS No See Botrychium ascendens above Common moonwort 2.3 Potential to occur within the study area. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. Botrychium minganense S, CNPS No See Botrychium ascendens above Mingan moonwort 2.2 Potential to occur within the study area. This species is known to occur on the LTBMU. Botrychium montanum S, CNPS No See Botrychium ascendens above Western goblin 2.1 Potential to occur within the study area. This species is known to occur on the LTBMU. Bruchia bolanderi S, CNPS No Montane meadows and stream banks are favored habitat. This moss tends to grow on bare, slightly eroding soil where there is little competition from Bolander’s candle moss 2.2 other vegetation. Unlikley to occur based on the limited range of this species. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. This species is documented from Yosemite National Park south to Sequoia National Forest in Tulare County and it is known from Plumas County on Plumas National Forest.

ENTRIX, INC. 87 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.4-2 Candidate, sensitive and special interest plant and fungi species potentially occurring within the Project Area (continued).

Species Status Known to Habitat Description occur in Rationale for why a plant is not analyzed further in the document Project Area Dendrocollybia racemosa S No This species is a mycoparasite growing on old decayed or blackened mushrooms or occasionally in coniferous duff, usually within old growth stands. Branched collybia Potential to occur within the study area. This species is known to occur on the (LTBMU. Draba asterophora var. S, SI, No Species is found in rock crevices and open granite talus slopes at high elevations between 8,000 to 10,200 ft. on north-east facing slopes. asterophora CNPS Unlikely to occur. No suitable habitat exists in the study area, and the study area is outside of the known elevation range for the species. Known in Tahoe draba 1B.2 California from fewer than ten occurrences. This species is known to occur on the LTBMU on the slopes of Mt. Rose, in Washoe County, on the slopes of Freel Peak and Job’s sister, in El Dorado and Alpine Counties, on Monument Peak in the Carson Range, and Saucer Lake Desolation Wilderness. Draba asterophora var. S, SI, No This species is found on steep, gravelly or rocky slopes at elevations of 8,400 to 9,235 ft. macrocarpa CNPS Unlikely to occur. No suitable habitat exists in the study area, and the study area is outside of the known elevation range for the species. Known from Cup Lake draba 1B.1 only two occurrences near Cup Lake and Saucer Lake below Ralston Peak. This species is known to occur on the LTBMU within Desolation Wilderness, El Dorado County, near Cup Lake and Saucer Lake. Epilobium howellii S, CNPS No Plants are known from wet meadows and mossy seeps at 6,500 to 9,000 ft in subalpine coniferous forest. Subalpine fireweed 1B.3 Potential to occur within the study area. This species is known to occur on the LTBMU; however, the occurrence record is not fully verified.

Erigeron miser S, CNPS No Plants are known from high elevation granitic rock outcrops above 6,000 ft. Starved daisy 1B.3 Potential to occur within the study area. This species has been found in Nevada and Placer counties. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. Eriogonum umbellatum var. S, CNPS No This species grows in dry gravelly or stony sites, often on harsh exposures such as ridge tops or steep slopes. torreyanum 1B.2 Unlikely to occur. No suitable habitat exists in the study area, and the study area is outside the known geographic range of the species. Known from Torrey’s or Donner Pass fewer than 10 occurrences in Nevada, Placer, and Sierra Counties. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. buckwheat Helodium blandowii S, CNPS No Habitat for this moss is in bogs and fens, wet meadows, and along streams under willows. Blandow’s bog-moss 2.3 Potential to occur within the study area. There is a known occurrence within the LTBMU near Grass Lake. This species is known from various locations in Europe, Canada, and the United States including California, Michigan, Colorado, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and other states in the Midwest. Hulsea brevifolia S, CNPS No This species is known primarily from red fir forests, but has also been found in mixed conifer forests. The elevation range of the plant is from 4,920 to Short-leaved hulsea 1B.2 8,860 ft. Potential to occur within the study area. The plant is known to occur in Tulare, Fresno, Madera, Mariposa, Tuolumne, and El Dorado Counties, however, there are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. Lewisia kelloggii ssp. S, CNPS No Habitat for this plant occurs on ridge tops or flat open spaces with widely spaced trees and sandy granitic to erosive volcanic soil from about 5,000 to hutchisonii 3.3 7,000 ft. Hutchison’s lewisia Unlikely to occur due to inappropriate habitat within study area. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. Known occurrences of the plant are in Butte, Sierra, Plumas, Nevada, El Dorado, and Amador counties.

88 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.4-2 Candidate, sensitive and special interest plant and fungi species potentially occurring within the Project Area (continued).

Species Status Known to Habitat Description occur in Rationale for why a plant is not analyzed further in the document Project Area Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii S No See above Kellogg’s lewisia Unlikely to occur due to inappropriate habitat within study area. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. Known occurrences of the plant are in Plumas, Sierra, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Mariposa, and Madera Counties. Lewisia longipetala S, SI, No This species occurs on the northerly exposures on slopes and ridge tops at elevations between 8,000 and 12,500 ft. where snow banks persist Long-petaled lewisia CNPS throughout the summer. The plants are often found near the margins of the snow banks in wet soils. 1B.3 Unlikely to occur. Potential habitat exists in the study area, but the study area is outside of the known elevation range for the species. This species is known to occur on the LTBMU in Desolation Wilderness, El Dorado County. Meesia triquetra S No This moss prefers bogs and fen habitats, but is also found in very wet meadows. Three-ranked hump-moss Potential to occur within the study area. This species is known to occur on the LTBMU and has been found near the Project Area. Meesia uliginosa S, CNPS Yes This moss prefers bogs and fen habitats, but is also found in very wet meadows. Broad-nerved hump-moss 2.2 Potential to occur within the study area. This species is known to occur on the LTBMU and has been found near the Project Area. CNDDB occurrence recorded within the Project Area. Peltigera hydrothyria S No This species is found in cold unpolluted streams in mixed conifer forests. Veined water lichen Potential to occur within the study area. There is one known occurrence within the LTBMU. Rorippa subumbellata CE, S, SI, No This species is endemic to the shore zone around Lake Tahoe in California and Nevada. Typically found in back beach areas between elevations of Tahoe yellow cress CNPS 6,223 and 6,230 ft. 1B.1 Unlikely to occur due to the lack of suitable habitat. This species is known to occur on the LTBMU. State Rare or Endangered Plants Calochortus clavatus var. avius CNPS No This species occurs in lower montane coniferous forest on Josephine silt loam and volcanic substrate. Pleasant Valley mariposa lily 1B.2 Unlikely to occur within the study area. The study area is outside of the known elevation range for the species. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. Carex limosa CNPS 2.2 No This species occurs in bogs and fens, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps, and upper montane coniferous Mud sedge forest. Potential to occur within the study area. This species is known to occur on the Lake Tahoe Basin at Grass Lake, near Luther Pass and near Lake Audrian, El Dorado County. Carex paucifructus SI No This species occurs in bogs and fens, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps, and upper montane coniferous Mariposa sedge CNPS 2 forest. Potential to occur within the study area. This species is known to occur within the LTBMU. Carex scirpoidea ssp. CNPS 2.2 No This species occurs in rocky areas in subalpine forests; alpine fell-fields, meadows, seeps in mesic substrate. pseudoscirpoidea Unlikely to occur within the study area. The study area is outside of the known elevation range for the species. There are no known occurrences Western singlespike sedge within the LTBMU.

ENTRIX, INC. 89 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.4-2 Candidate, sensitive and special interest plant and fungi species potentially occurring within the Project Area (continued).

Species Status Known to Habitat Description occur in Rationale for why a plant is not analyzed further in the document Project Area Chaenactis douglasii var. alpina CNPS 2.3 No This species occurs in alpine boulder and rock fields in granitic substrate. Alpine dusty maidens Unlikely to occur within the study area. The study area is outside of the known elevation range for the species. This species is known to occur within the LTBMU. Historical occurrences are reported from Freel Peak and Jobs sister Peak. Claytonia megarhiza CNPS 2.3 No This species occurs in gravelly and rocky substrate in subalpine forests and alpine fell-fields. Alpine spring beauty Unlikely to occur within the study area. The study area is outside of the known elevation range for the species. This species is known to occur within the LTBMU. Cryptantha crymophila CNPS No This species occurs in subalpine coniferous forests in volcanic or rocky substrate. Subalpine cryptantha 1B.3 Unlikely to occur within the study area. The study area is outside of the known elevation range for the species. There are no known occurrences within the Lake Tahoe Basin. CDFG reports one historical occurrence from Hope Valley. Epilobium oreganum CNPS No This species occurs in bogs and fens, and lower montane coniferous forests in mesic substrate. Oregon fireweed 1B.2 Potential to occur within the study area. This species is known to occur within the LTMBU at Echo Summit. Epilobium palustre CNPS 2.3 No This species occurs in bogs and fens, and lower montane coniferous forests in mesic substrate. Marsh willowherb Potential to occur within the study area. This species is known to occur within the LTMBU. Known in California from only two occurrences, but one occurrence is within the county. These known populations are located at Grass Lake (El Dorado County) and Willow Lake (Plumas County). Eriogonum luteolum var. CNPS No This species occurs in Great Basin scrub, upper montane coniferous forest on sandy or granitic sites. saltuarium 1B.2 Potential to occur within the study area. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. One historical (1975) occurrence from Luther Pass, Goldencarpet buckwheat Alpine County. Ivesia sericoleuca CNPS No This species occurs in Great Basin scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, and vernal pools in vernally mesic, usually volcanic Plumas ivesia 1B.2 substrate. Potential to occur within the study area. This species is known to occur within the LTBMU. Lewisia serrata CNPS No This species occurs in broad-leaved upland forest, lower montane coniferous forest, and riparian scrub. Saw-toothed lewisi 1B.1 Unlikely to occur within the study area. The study area is outside of the known elevation range for the species. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. Phacelia stebbinsii CNPS No This species occurs in cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps. Stebbins’ phacelia 1B.2 Potential to occur within the study area. This species is known to occur within the LTBMU. Polystichum lonchitis CNPS 3.-- No This species occurs in subalpine coniferous forest, upper montane coniferous forest; granitic or carbonate substrate. Northern holly fern Potential to occur within the study area. This species is known to occur within the LTBMU. Potamogeton epihydrus ssp. CNPS 2.2 No This species occurs in saturated soils in freshwater swamps, marshes, and riparian areas. nuttallii Potential to occur within the study area. This species is known to occur within the LTBMU. Nuttall’s pondweed Potamogeton filiformis CNPS 2.2 No This species is typically found in shallow, standing, or slow moving water from 985 to 7,055 ft elevation. Often in shallows of hard-water lakes. Slender-leaved pondweed Potential to occur within the study area. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU.

90 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.4-2 Candidate, sensitive and special interest plant and fungi species potentially occurring within the Project Area (continued).

Species Status Known to Habitat Description occur in Rationale for why a plant is not analyzed further in the document Project Area Rhamnus alnifolia CNPS 2.2 No This species occurs in lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, riparian scrub, and upper montane coniferous forest. Alder buckthorn Potential to occur within the study area. Schoenoplectus (=Scirpus) CNPS 2.3 No This species occurs in bogs and fens, and marshes and swamps on montane lake margins. subterminalis Potential to occur within the study area. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. Water bulrush Scutellaria galericulata CNPS 2.2 No This species occurs in lower montane coniferous forests, meadows and seeps, and marshes and swamps. Marsh skullcap Potential to occur within the study area. This species is known to occur within the LTBMU, at Tallac Marsh. Utricularia ochroleuca CNPS 2.2 No This species occurs in lake margins, meadows, seeps, and swamps on mesic substrate. Cream-flowered bladderwort Potential to occur within the study area. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU.

LTBMU Special Interest Arabis rectissima var. simulans LSI No Habitat is dry, sandy, granitic soils on gentle slopes of all aspects, in mature open stands of Jeffrey pine and white fir. Excluded from areas of bare Washoe tall rock cress ground, deep litter, dense tree or shrub cover, or intense disturbance. Unlikely to occur. The study area is outside the known range of this species. This species is known from Douglas and Washoe Counties, Nevada. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. Meesia longiseta LSI No This species occurs primarily in high elevation fens, but is also found along streams. Found in calcareous fens or boggy woods. Meesia moss Potential to occur within the study area. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. The moss is known from Greenland to Alaska and south to Idaho and Illinois. Myurella julacea LSI, CNPS No This moss grows on damp rock and soil in alpine boulder and rock fields or subalpine coniferous forests. Known occurrences are in Inyo and Fresno Myurella moss 2.3 Counties. Unlikely to occur. The study area is outside of the known elevation range for the species. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. Orthotrichum praemorsum LSI No This species occurs on rock outcrops up to 8000 ft. Orthotrichum moss Potential to occur within the study area. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. Orthotrichum shevockii LSI, CNPS No This moss occurs on rocks or trunks of trees and has been found in Kern County. This moss generally prefers Joshua tree woodland and pinyon Shevrock’s moss 1B.3 juniper woodland. Plants are known to occur on dry granite outcrops in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Potential to occur within the study area. This species is known to occur on the LTBMU. Orthotrichum spjutii LSI, CNPS No This moss grows on granitic rock in lower montane coniferous forests, pinyon juniper woodland, subalpine coniferous forest and upper montane Spjut’s bristle-moss 1B.3 coniferous forest. It occurs next to waterfalls. Potential to occur within the study area. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. Known occurrences are in Kern County. There is no potential habitat.

ENTRIX, INC. 91 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.4-2 Candidate, sensitive and special interest plant and fungi species potentially occurring within the Project Area (continued).

Species Status Known to Habitat Description occur in Rationale for why a plant is not analyzed further in the document Project Area Pohlia tundrae LSI, CNPS No This moss grows in gravelly, damp soil in alpine boulder and rock fields. Known occurrences are within Tulare, Inyo, and Siskiyou Counties. Tundrae pohlia moss 2.3 This moss has been found within the LTBMU and has the potential to occur within the Project Area but is unlikely to occur because the Project Area is outside of the known elevation range for the species. There are no known occurrences within the LTBMU. Sphagnum spp. LSI, CNPS No These moss species are found in fens and bogs, normally in acidic conditions. They are occasionally found in very wet non-acidic conditions, or along Sphagnum species 2.-- streams. Elevation range of Sphagnums is from sea level to over 2,600 meters (Saawyer, Keeler-Wolf, Evens, 2009). There is potential for this moss within the Project Area. Sphagnum species are known to occur on the LTBMU. a Status explanations C = USFWS Candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered under ESA CA STATE LIST: CR = rare CT = threatened CE = endangered CNPS LIST 1B = Rare or Endangered in CA and elsewhere 2 = Rare or Endangered in CA but more common elsewhere 3 = Plants need more information - Review list CNPS Threat Code extensions .1 - Seriously endangered in CA (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 - Fairly endangered in CA (20-80% occurrences threatened) .3 - Not very endangered in CA (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known) S = USFS LTBMU Sensitive Species, Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, Amended 2006; protection of these species is mandated on USFS land (FSM 2670) SI = TRPA Special Interest Species, Regional Plan for the LTBMU: TRPA Goals and Policies (1986) and Code of Ordinances (1987) LSI = USFS LTBMU Species of Interest.

92 ENTRIX, INC. 1 34 30 - 32 34 33 2 - 10 11, 12 35, 36 Meesia triquetra 13 1 33 14, 15

35, 36 29

16, 17

28

18, 19

27

20 25, 26 23, 24 21

22

Management Planning Area Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restor ation Project Federally-owned Parcels Figure 3.4-2 Moss Sample Collection Site (Early-season) 2008 Moss Survey Results

Moss Sample Collection Site (Late-season) 500 250 0 500 Feet

Projection: California Stateplane, Zone 2 Special-status moss population (Meesia triquetra) Datum: NAD 83 3/30/11

E:\GIS\Entrix\3089102\map\2008_MossSurvey_17i11i_01.mxd FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Based on project surveys for special-status plant species, the following species have no habitat in or adjacent to the Project Area and therefore have a No Effect determination under NEPA and a No Impact Determination under CEQA and TRPA: . Arabis rigidissima var. demota . Arabis tiehmii . Botrychium lineare . Draba asterophora var. asterophora . Draba asterophora var. macrocarpa . Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum . Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii . Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii . Lewisia longipetala . Rorippa subumbellata

Descriptions of the status and habitat requirements of special-status plant species that could potentially occur within the Project Area, and thus be affected by the Proposed Project and No Project alternative are provided below: . Botrychium ascendens . Botrychium crenulatum . Botrychium lunaria . Botrychium minganense . Botrychium montanum . Bruchia bolanderi . Dendrocollybia racemosa . Epilobium howellii . Erigeron miser . Helodium blandowii . Hulsea brevifolia . Meesia triquetra . Meesia uliginosa . Peltigera hydrothyria

ENTRIX, INC. 95 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Special-Status Vegetation Communities Special-status vegetation communities include vegetation types and habitats that are unique, of relatively limited distribution in the region, or of particularly high wildlife value. Sensitive habitats within the Project Area include wet montane meadow (98.3 acres) and montane riparian scrub (18.0 acres). These plant communities comprise the SEZ habitat, which has been targeted by TRPA, the CTC, and other agencies for protection and enhancement in the Tahoe Basin. At this time, wetlands in the Project Area SEZ have not been formally determined or delineated. The wet montane meadow and riparian scrub would likely be eligible for federal wetland protection, and therefore appropriate construction controls have been incorporated into the Proposed Project to protect these resources. Overall, there would be no net change in wetland acreage within the Project Area as a result of the Proposed Project. Temporary access road would occupy the meadow during the construction period but would be removed at the end of each construction season. The existing channel would be filled and a new narrower smaller capacity channel would be constructed. Conceptually there would be somewhat less open water and somewhat more meadow at the conclusion of the project. The meadow would experience more frequent flood inundation from the restored channel. The higher bed elevation of the new channel would result in a better connection between the seasonal low groundwater elevation and the meadow. Collectively, these factors would combine to improve the health of obligate and facultative wetland plants that occupy the wet montane meadow.

Invasive Non-Native Plants Field surveys confirmed populations of five species of invasive plants/noxious weeds: cheat grass (Bromus tectorum), bullthistle (Cirsium vulgare), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), ox-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), and Klamath weed (Hypericum perforatum) (CTC 2008d). Cheat grass is a California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) List A species, indicating that it is widespread and very invasive. Bullthistle and Klamath weed are targeted by the USDA, USFS, and El Dorado County Noxious Weed Management Group for active management (eradication/containment). A survey of the UTR in September 2006 did not detect non-native Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), an aquatic weed that infests the UTR Marsh and Lake Tahoe (CTC 2007a).

All noxious or invasive nonnative plants are further discussed in the project’s Noxious Weed Risk Assessment (PR Doc # K-4).

3.4.2.2 Wildlife

Terrestrial Habitat and Species The Project Area encompasses an array of terrestrial habitats which support a variety of resident and migratory wildlife species, including both native and non-native animals (CTC 2004a). Surveys have documented 56 terrestrial species, including 44 birds, nine mammals, two reptiles, and one amphibian (Borgmann et al. 2008, TRCD 2003, CTC 2004a). Montane riparian scrub vegetation provides important habitat for many wildlife species such as willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri), calliope hummingbird (Stellula calliope), Lincoln’s sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii), western jumping mouse (Zapus princeps), shrews, and voles (Borgmann et al. 2008). Several beaver colonies are active along the UTR (CTC 2005d). LTBMU field surveys documented willow flycatchers in the Project Area in 2007 (one adult and adult territory) and 2009 (one non-territorial male), but no breeding activity. The meadow is drier today compared to historic conditions. This has consequences for plant communities, habitat values, and wildlife species composition.

In the conifer forest, dead standing trees, or snags, are important habitat features for many cavity-nesting wildlife species. The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment recommends retaining four snags per acre with a minimum dbh of 15 inches during treatments within the wildland urban interface zone (USFS 2004). The Project Area currently has an average of nine snags per acre with an average dbh of 18.5 inches. However, the

96 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT quality of the existing snags for wildlife is limited, as inferred from avian surveys (CTC 2007b). Jeffrey pine snags comprised only 17 percent of all of the snags sampled, and their dbh averaged less than 20 inches. Moreover, the majority of all snags lacked cavities and signs of fungal infection, two indicators of snag value for wildlife.

Aquatic Habitat and Species Aquatic habitat in the Sunset Stables Reach is predominantly flowing water in the UTR. Riverine habitat in the channel is composed of riffles, runs, and pools (CTC 2005e). A few backwater areas and side channels may contain standing water seasonally. The substrate is dominated by sands and small gravel. The gravel is often a thin veneer over hardpan clay or embedded with sand and is poor habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates or substrate-spawning fish such as trout. Some sections of Reach 5 have eroded down to the clay hardpan with overlying silts. Additionally, water temperature fluctuations may be extreme during summer. Aquatic habitat conditions are fair to poor due to homogenous channel conditions (i.e. long runs with few pools and riffles), lack of riparian vegetation, limited substrate quality, lack of cover (e.g., overhanging willows along well vegetated banks), actively eroding banks, and limited depth during the summer low flow period (CTC 2005e).

Fish distribution and abundance was surveyed in the Project Area in 2005 (electrofishing) and 2006 (snorkel survey and seining) (CTC 2007a). The fish assemblage in UTR Reach 5 and Reach 6 includes almost all the native species typical of the UTR, including Lahontan redside (Richardsonius egregius), Lahontan speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus robustus), tui chub (Siphateles bicolor), Paiute sculpin (Cottus beldingi), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), Tahoe sucker (Catostomus tahoensis), and mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) (CTC 2004a, 2007a). Non-native fish species include rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brown trout (Salmo trutta) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Distribution and habitat use vary among the species, depending on microhabitat features. Features with higher fish use include areas with submerged emergent vegetation (such as sedges) and deep pools with woody debris (CTC 2007a). The river also supports a population of the western pearlshell mussel (Margaritifera falcata), a large bivalve mollusk that inhabit salmon and trout streams in the Pacific Northwest (CTC 2007c). They are not officially a special-status species in California, although populations are currently being evaluated. They are a long-lived species with limited mobility and therefore require special attention during stream restoration projects where channel relocation is employed. In the UTR this mussel can be found individually or in dense beds of several hundred individuals. Reach 5 contains the highest total number of mussels found within the Sunset Stables Project Area (CTC 2007c). Localized high mussel abundance has also been documented recently in the Airport Reach (CSLT 2008).

The native Lahontan cutthroat trout (O. clarki henshawi) (LCT) is a federally threatened species. This species was lost from the Tahoe basin by the late 1930s, a consequence of introduced competing trout species, overfishing and habitat degradation. In the late 1980s and early 1990s the LTBMU reintroduced LCT in the headwaters of the UTR watershed (Meiss Meadow), far upstream of the Project Area. This population is considered a self-sustaining population. Another population of LCT is maintained by stocking of Round Lake in the upper reaches of the Truckee River. Barriers separate LCT populations in the upper reaches of the UTR from upstream movement of non-native trout species; however, downstream migration is feasible. Annual brook trout removal efforts have yielded no brook trout in the upper watershed since 2007, and LTBMU is currently undertaking a project to facilitate range expansion from the Meiss Meadow source population to lower portions in the watershed. In the Project Area, habitat is potentially available for LCT. However, the stream is presently occupied by non-native trout species (rainbow, brown and brook) that compete with and exclude LCT.

Movement Corridors The southern portion of the Project Area (south of the airport runway) also functions as a passage corridor for wildlife (Figure 3.4-3). It is the only east-west corridor in the south shore region of the Basin. This area

ENTRIX, INC. 97 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

provides a corridor for animal movements south of the fenced airport due to less urbanization, less disturbance, and more forest cover for wildlife crossing the UTR between the east and west sides of the Tahoe Basin, as well as up and downstream (north-south) along the UTR between Christmas Valley and Lake Tahoe. Riparian corridors are important for landscape connectivity and biodiversity (Hilty et al. 2006). Upland corridors connect fragmented forest habitat. Wildlife populations maintain metapopulation dynamics by individuals moving among more suitable core areas. Forest habitat within the Project Area is too small and fragmented by surrounding residential development, the airport, and the highway corridor to support regular use by mesocarnivores such as American marten (Martes americana) and bobcat (Lynx rufus), although it is likely used as an east-west corridor (H.T. Harvey and Associates 2007). Wildlife can cross the UTR valley from east of Pioneer Trail moving west down the finger valleys, across the meadow and forest areas south of the airport, over Highway U.S. 50 and up to Twin Peaks. American marten utilize the undeveloped land to the west, southeast, and northeast of the Project Area (H.T. Harvey and Associates 2007), and in March 2008 one was detected in the corridor area (Garth Alling, Hauge Breuck Associates, pers. comm. March 2008). Bobcats found west of the Project Area may use the Project Area for dispersal or foraging. The summer range of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), which winters outside of the Tahoe Basin, occurs in the Project Area.

3.4.3 Special-Status Wildlife The following section addresses sensitive and special-status wildlife species observed, reported, or having the potential to occur in the Project Area. These resources include wildlife species that have been afforded special status and/or recognition by federal and state resource agencies, as well as private conservation organizations and special interest groups such as the TRPA. In general, the principal reason an individual taxon (species, subspecies, or variety) is given such recognition is the documented or expected decline or limitation of its population size or geographical extent and/or distribution that results in most cases, from habitat loss. Table 3.4-4 (Habitat potential for special-status wildlife species in the Project Area) lists special-status wildlife known to occur within the region of the project, along with their listing status and potential for occurrence in the Project Area. These resources have been defined as sensitive by federal, state, and local government conservation programs.

Special-status wildlife species include:

. Federally listed, proposed, and candidate threatened and endangered species

. Species listed as sensitive in California by the USFS

. State of California listed candidate, threatened, or endangered species

. Species of Special Concern (CSC) to the CDFG

. Species that are California Fully Protected (FP)

. Species listed as Special Interest Species (SI) by the TRPA

. Species listed as Special Interest Species (SI) by the LTBMU

Further details on these species are available in the “Biological Evaluation: Aquatic and Terrestrial Species” (ENTRIX 2011) and the TRPA Impact Analysis Report (USFS 2010). The Project Area contains, or is adjacent to, habitat for various special-status fish and wildlife species designated by various agencies. No critical habitat for federally-listed endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate species has been designated on the LTBMU. Table 3.4-3 identifies all potential special-status wildlife and fish species and their status under the different agencies for the Tahoe Basin, and the habitat potential for these species within the Project Area is presented in Table 3.4-4. Additional information on TRPA Sensitive species is found in the TRPA Impact Analysis Report (USFS 2010).

98 ENTRIX, INC. E

m

e

r

a

l

d

Lake B a

Tahoe y 15000 R 14000

d

.

N E C V A A L D IF O A R N IA

16000

T

R

O P 18000 17000

R I

A

E

O

H

A

T

E 19000 K

A

L

20000

21000

50

22000

23000

24000

l i a r T

r e e n o i P 25000

26000

27000

28000

Project Boundary Terrestrial Habitat and Biological Features Upper Truckee River => 30-inch DBH Trees Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restor ation Project 1000-foot River Station Invasive / Exotic Plant Occurrences Parcel Boundary Invasive / Exotic Plant Occurrences Figure 3.4-3 Alignment based on Aspen Forest 50% Design Plans Terrestrial Habitat and Biological Features Potential Storage/Staging Willow Flycatcher Suitable Habitat* in the Project Area and/or Dewatering Area Willow Flycatcher - 2009 Visual / Aural Detections 500 250 0 500 Potential Haul Route Feet *SOURCE: USDA-FS, 2009 Projection: California Stateplane, Zone 2 Wildlife Corridor (Presumed)** Datum: NAD 83 3/30/11 **SOURCE: CTC, 2010 Z:\GIS\Entrix\3089102_SunsetStables\map\mxd\EA\SS_Terr&AqHabitat_11i17i_01.mxd FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Based on available data for wildlife, the following species have no habitat in or adjacent to the Project Area and therefore have a No Effect determination under NEPA and a No Impact Determination under CEQA and TRPA:

Mammals

. Sierra Nevada mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa californica)

. California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus)

. Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica)

. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) (No TRPA-designated Mule deer threshold sites exist in the Project Area)

. American badger (Taxidea taxus)

. Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator)

Birds . Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)

. American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)

. Bank swallow (Riparia riparia)

. Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa)

. Yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus)

. Waterfowl (No TRPA-designated waterfowl threshold sites exist in the Project Area.)

Amphibians and Reptiles . Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus)

. Mt. Lyell salamander (Hydromantes platycephalus)

. Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens)

. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierra)

Fish . Lahontan lake tui chub (Gila bicolor pectinifer)

. Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus)

. Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

ENTRIX, INC. 101 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Invertebrates . Lake Tahoe benthic stonefly (Capnia lacustra)

Descriptions of the status and habitat requirements of special-status wildlife and fish species that could potentially occur within the Project Area, and thus be affected by the Proposed Project and No Project alternative are provided below.

In addition, the following MIS wildlife habitats were identified in the MIS Report (PR Doc #K-5) as not being present in or adjacent to the Project area, and would not be affected by the Project.

. Riparian

. Early Seral Coniferous Forest

. Mid Seral Coniferous Forest

. Late Seral Open canopy Coniferous Forest

. Lake Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest

. Snags in Green Forest

. Snags in Burned Forest

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Status: Forest Service Sensitive Species, California Species of Special Concern

Townsend’s big-eared bats are found throughout California in a wide variety of habitats, from desert scrub, to chaparral, oak woodland and conifer forest (Pierson & Rainey 1998). They are primarily a cave-dwelling bat, but can also be found roosting in large trees (Fellers & Pierson 2002; Gellman & Zielinski 1996). These bats prefer to forage along habitat edges, including coniferous forest edge habitat and riparian habitat. Small moths are the principal food of this species. Beetles and a variety of soft-bodied insects also are taken. They capture their prey in flight using echolocation, or by gleaning from foliage (Fellers & Pierson 2002). This species travels up to 15 km from their day roosts when foraging (Pierson & Rainey 1998).

The trees within the Project Area are likely too small to provide suitable roosting habitat for Townsend’s big- eared bat. However, suitable roosting trees are likely located within 15 km of the Project Area (CDFG 2005). Because the Project Area is located within foraging range of potential roosting trees, the forest edge habitat and the riparian habitat within the Project Area could provide suitable foraging habitat for this species.

Townsend’s big-eared bats have not been detected within the Project Area. The closest known occurrence of Townsend’s big-eared bats was at Cookhouse Meadow in 2007, located approximately seven kilometers (km) to the south of the Project Area (Borgman, Gross, and Morrison, unpublished data). The forest edge habitat and the riparian habitat within the Project Area could provide suitable foraging habitat for this species.

Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus tahoensis) Status: California Species of Special Concern

In California, the Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare is primarily found in montane riparian habitats with thickets of alders and willows, and in stands of young conifers interspersed with chaparral. The early seral stages of

102 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT mixed conifer forests of subalpine conifer, red fir, Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, and aspen are likely habitats, primarily along edges, and especially near meadows (CDFG 2005).

Suitable breeding and foraging habitat are present within the Project Area, so this species may occur in the Project Area. Construction activity would temporarily alter montane riparian habitats along the river. Access roads will temporarily occupy other habitat in the Project Area. Once the project is completed, there would be improved montane riparian habitat along the river with more abundant and dense willow thickets once vegetation has regrown within three to five years after construction. Snowshoe hares are nocturnal and construction activities would only occur during daylight hours.

American marten (Martes americana sierrae) Status: Forest Service Sensitive Species, MIS

Forest types in the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada and northern Sierra Nevada that are important for marten include red fir, lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, mixed conifer-fir, Jeffrey pine, and eastside pine (Spencer et al. 1983). Martens are closely associated with relatively mesic, late successional coniferous forests with complex physical structures (large snags, large down woody material, and debris piles), especially near the ground. These complex ground cover characteristics provide protection from predators, support prey, allow access to subnivean (below snow) spaces, and provide protective thermal microenvironments particularly important in the winter. Empirical data on use of forested habitat on the eastside of the Sierra Nevada by marten are sparse. Marten in these habitats appear to focus on microhabitat elements available in greater proportion than westside areas, such as rock piles and scree slopes (Cablk and Spaulding 2002).

As an MIS, American marten are one of three indicators species for Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest habitat. The Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest habitat as described in the MIS report is not present in the Project Area. Patches of potential suitable habitat occur in the Project Area. Although habitat within the Project Area is too small and fragmented by residential development to support regular use, the forested area south of the airport is likely used as a passage corridor for east-west movement (H.T. Harvey and Associates 2007).

A survey in early 2006 detected marten utilizing undeveloped land around the Project Area to the west, southeast, and northeast (H.T. Harvey and Associates 2007). In 2008, a single marten was detected at wildlife camera stations in the undeveloped forest area south of the airport runway, near the wildlife corridor (Garth Alling, Hauge Breuck Associates, pers. comm. March 2008).

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Status: Forest Sensitive Species, California Species of Special Concern, TRPA SI

Northern goshawks generally require mature conifer and deciduous forests with large trees, snags, downed logs, dense canopy cover, and open understories for nesting (Keane 2008). Goshawk foraging habitat includes forests with dense to moderately open overstories, and open understories interspersed with meadows, brush patches, riparian areas, or other natural or artificial openings. Although absolute structural characteristics of nesting habitat may differ between vegetation types and geographic regions, relative habitat use patterns are consistent: nest sites have greater canopy cover, greater basal area, greater numbers of large diameter trees, lower shrub/sapling/understory cover and numbers of small diameter trees, and gentle to moderate slopes relative to non-used random sites. This habitat provides large trees for nest sites, a closed canopy for protection from predators and thermal cover, and open understories that provide for maneuverability and detection of prey below the canopy. Northern goshawks are year-round residents of the Tahoe basin.

ENTRIX, INC. 103 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

There are no historic detections of northern goshawks in the Project Area, and broadcast surveys failed to detect this species in 2007 (USFS 2007b) and 2008 (USFS 2008a). The closest recent (2000 or later) goshawk detection occurred in 2004 approximately ½ kilometer east of the Project Area near Pioneer Trail. The closest recent nest occurred in 2010 at a new territory east of Sawmill Pond approximately 1,931 meters west of the Project Area. This nest failed soon after discovery (Loupe. Pers Comm 2011).

Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) Status: California Species of Species Concern, MIS

In California, the yellow warbler breeds from the coast range in Del Norte County, east to the Modoc plateau, south along coast range to Santa Barbara and Ventura counties and along the western slopes of Sierra Nevada south to Kern county; it also breeds along the eastern side of California, from the Lake Tahoe area south through Inyo County and in several southern California mountain ranges and throughout most of San Diego County (CDFG 2005). The yellow warbler was selected as the MIS for riparian habitat in the Sierra Nevada and is usually found in riparian deciduous habitats in summer (cottonwoods, willows, alders, and other small trees and shrubs typical of low, open-canopy riparian woodland) (CDFG 2005). Yellow warbler is dependent on both meadow and non-meadow riparian habitat in the Sierra Nevada (Siegel and DeSante 1999).

Suitable breeding and foraging habitat for this species is present in the Project Area, so this species may occur in the Project Area.

Willow flycatcher (Empidonax trallii) Status: Forest Sensitive Species, California Endangered

Willow flycatchers are highly habitat specific, and utilize wet meadows with well-developed willow or other deciduous shrub element; in some cases riparian deciduous shrubs along streams are also used. Water is always present on willow flycatcher territories in the form of running water, pools, or saturated soils, and always available during early stages of breeding and pair formation (reviewed in Timossi et al. 1995). Bombay (1999 as cited in Green et al. 2003) found occupied meadows to have a significantly higher percentage of meadow with a shrub component (60 percent versus 40 percent) and standing water or saturated soils (57 percent versus 41 percent) than unoccupied meadows. Sanders and Flett (1989) documented an average territory size of 0.84 acres with 44% willow cover. Willow flycatchers prefer clumps of willows to dense continuous thickets, and prefer shrubby rather than arborescent willows (Siegel and DeSante 1999). Suitable habitat recommendations by Greene and others (2003) include riparian deciduous shrub coverage of 20-30% of meadow area as a minimum, and foliar density of 76% (at 2 meter shrub height level) as representative. Estimates of the minimum habitat area of support a willow flycatcher family during the breeding season range from 2.5 acres (Sanders and Flett 1989) to 4 acres (Timossi et al. 1995). Although use of meadows less than 1 acre has been documented, more than 95% of the breeding meadows are greater than10 acres, and the most successful (i.e., >1 territory fledged young) meadows are greater than 15 acres (Green et al. 2003).

The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision defines ‘emphasis’ habitat as meadows larger than 15 acres with standing water on June 1 and a deciduous shrub component that are within five miles of an occupied site (USFS 2004). The LTBMU has identified patches of willow flycatcher ‘emphasis habitat’ at the Project Area in patches along the river and in the wet meadow (Figure 3.4-3) (CTC 2008d). In 2007, LTBMU field crews detected one adult and adult territory in the northernmost meadow of the Project Area. In 2008, no willow flycatchers were detected during LTBMU field surveys. However, in early August 2009, there was an incidental detection of a male willow flycatcher in the Project Area, which was determined to be a non- territorial floater (USFS 2009b).

104 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) Status: Forest Sensitive Species, California Species of Special Concern, MIS

California spotted owl occurs in several forest vegetation types, including mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, red fir and montane hardwood (USFS 2004). Suitable habitat for spotted owl nesting and roosting is generally characterized by having 1) two or more canopy layers; 2) dominant and codominant trees in the canopy averaging at least 24 inches dbh; 3) at least 70 percent total canopy cover (including the hardwood component); 4) higher than average levels of very large, old trees; and 5) higher than average levels of snags and downed woody material. High canopy cover and dense forest structure is important as thermal cover during roosting. In general, stands suitable for spotted owl foraging have 1) at least two canopy layers; 2) dominant and codominant trees in the canopy averaging at least 11 inches dbh; 3) at least 40 percent canopy cover in overstory trees; and 4) higher than average numbers of snags and downed woody material. Spotted owls forage most frequently in intermediate to late-successional forest with greater than 40 percent canopy cover and a mixture of tree sizes, including some larger than 24 inches dbh. Although habitat characterized by canopy cover as low as 40 percent can be suitable for foraging, owls spend disproportionately less time in areas with canopy cover less than 40 percent. California spotted owl are year-round residents of the Tahoe basin and are a nocturnally active (e.g., foraging) species that roost during the day.

No spotted owls have been detected in the Project Area, either historically or during the LTBMU surveys in 2007 (USFS 2007b) or 2008 (USFS 2009b). There are no spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs) in the Project Area. Spotted owls exist in the watershed but not near the Project Area. The closest recent detection (2000 or later) is approximately 2,190 meters from the area and the closest PAC is approximately 2,400 meters from the area.

As an MIS, spotted owls are one of three indicators species for Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest habitat. The Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest habitat as described in the MIS report is not present in the Project Area.

Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) Status: Federal Threatened, TRPA SI

Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) was listed as an endangered species in 1970 (Federal Register Vol. 35, p.13520). In 1975, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (ESA), LCT was reclassified as threatened to facilitate management and to allow for regulated angling (Federal Register Vol. 40, p.29864). In 1995, the USFWS released its recovery plan for LCT, encompassing six river basins within LCT historic range, including the Truckee River basin.

LCT was the only salmonid native to the Tahoe Basin except Mountain whitefish, but it was extirpated from the Basin in the early 1900’s by human activities. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s the LTBMU reintroduced LCT to the headwaters of the UTR in Meiss Meadows. This population is considered a self- sustaining population. Annual brook trout removal efforts have yielded no brook trout in the upper watershed since 2007.

LCT inhabit lakes and streams and require spawning and nursery habitat characterized by cool water, pools in close proximity to cover and velocity breaks, well vegetated and stable stream banks, and relatively silt free rocky substrate in riffle-run areas (USFWS 1995).

LCT cannot persist in habitats with non-native salmonid competitors such as rainbow, brook, and brown trout and kokanee salmon (Moyle 2002). Non-native salmonids have displaced many LCT populations. Introduced fall spawning salmonids may have an advantage over spring spawning LCT because altered watersheds provide poor habitat with such conditions as excessive turbidity, limited spawning gravel, and high flows.

ENTRIX, INC. 105 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Habitat improvement without the removal of non-native salmonids could impact LCT populations through hybridization and displacement (USFWS 1995). Although habitat suitability in the Project Area is impaired by degraded aquatic habitat conditions (unstable banks, lack of extensive cover) and the presence of nonnative salmonids, such as rainbow trout, brook trout and brown trout, which are known competitors (USFWS 1995), potential habitat does exist.

Snorkel surveys in the UTR above Christmas Valley conducted in 2006 and 2007 discovered LCT had occupied stream reaches as much as 1.5 miles below Meiss Meadows. This tendency of LCT downstream migration in the UTR is expected to occur more frequently within the next 2-5 years. Due to outmigration there is potential for the species to occupy habitat in the UTR within the Project Area in the next 5 years.

Mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) Status: California Species of Special Concern

Contrary to descriptions of habitat requirements elsewhere, mountain suckers in California streams generally occupy pool-like habitats (Moyle et al. 1995). Olson and Erman (1987 as cited in Moyle 2002) found that mountain sucker abundance was positively correlated with pools, but negatively correlated with riffles. Decker (1989) observed that mountain suckers were never found in riffles and swift currents despite presumed morphological adaptations for inhabiting fast water. She found that the suckers selected areas with mean water-column velocities of 0.1-0.5 m sec-1 and depths of 0.5-1.8 m. Decker (1989) also found that mountain sucker abundance was greatest in areas with dense cover, especially where abundant instream rootwads were present. Suckers presumably require such cover as refuge, and fish were often observed resting on the bottom in close proximity to cover during daylight hours (Moyle et al. 1995).

Fish surveys conducted in 2005 and 2006 documented this species within the Project Area (CTC 2007a).

Great Basin Rams-Horn (Helisoma (Carninifex) newberryi) Status: Forest Sensitive Species

This snail is found in large lakes and slow rivers with muddy substrate, including larger spring sources and spring-fed creeks. This habitat is not generally available within the UTR within the Project Area.

This species has not been documented in the Project Area, although no surveys targeting this species have been conducted. The aquatic habitat in the Project Area is dominated by sands and small gravel. The gravel is often a thin veneer over hardpan clay or embedded with sand and is poor habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates. Additionally, water temperature fluctuations may be extreme during summer. Although the Project Area does not include high quality habitat for this species, it is possible the Great Basin rams-horn snail does inhabit the Project Area, but has merely been undetected.

106 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.4-3 South Lake Tahoe Basin Special-status Wildlife and Aquatic Species.

Status by Designating Agency* Scientific Name Common Name LTBMU USFWS CA State list TRPA Mammals Aplodontia rufa californica Sierra Nevada mountain beaver -- -- CSC -- Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat FSS -- CSC -- Gulo gulo luteus California wolverine FSS -- CT, CFP -- Lepus americanus tahoensis Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare -- -- CSC -- Martes americana sierrae American marten MIS, FSS ------Martes pennanti pacifica Pacific fisher -- FC CSC -- Odocoileus hemionus mule deer -- -- SI Taxidea taxus American badger -- -- CSC -- Vulpes vulpes necator Sierra Nevada red fox FSS -- CT -- Birds Accipiter gentilis northern goshawk FSS -- CSC SI Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle -- -- CSC, CFP SI Dendroica petechia brewsteri yellow warbler -- -- CSC -- Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher FSS -- CE -- Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon FD CE, CFP SI Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle FSS FD CE, CFP SI Pandion haliaetus osprey -- CSC SI Riparia riparia bank swallow -- -- CT -- Strix nebulosa great gray owl FSS -- CE -- Strix occidentalis occidentalis California spotted owl MIS, FSS -- CSC -- Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus yellow-headed blackbird -- -- CSC -- -- Waterfowl ------SI Reptiles and Amphibians Bufo canorus Yosemite toad -- FC CSC -- Hydromantes platycephalus Mount Lyell salamander -- -- CSC -- Rana sierrae Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog FSS FC CSC -- Rana pipiens northern leopard frog FSS -- CSC (native pops only) -- Fishes Gila bicolor pectinifer Lahontan lake tui chub FSS -- CSC -- Catostomus platyrhynchus mountain sucker -- -- CSC -- Hypomesus transpacificus delta smelt FSS -- SE FT Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi Lahontan cutthroat trout FT -- SI -- Oncorhynchus mykiss Central Valley steelhead FT ------Invertebrates Capnia lacustra Lake Tahoe benthic stonefly -- -- CSC -- Helisoma (Carninifex) newberryi Great Basin rams-horn FSS ------

ENTRIX, INC. 107 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.4-3 South Lake Tahoe Basin Special-status Wildlife and Aquatic Species (continued). * Designation Codes FSS = USFS LTBMU Sensitive Species, Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, Region 5 MIS = USFS LTBMU Management Indicator Species SI = TRPA Special Interest Species, Regional Plan for the LTBMU: Goals and Policies (1986) and Code of Ordinances (1987) CA STATE LIST: CSC = Special Concern; CE = Endangered; CT = Threatened; CFP = Fully Protected USFWS:;; FE = Endangered; FT = Threatened; FC = Candidate for listing; FD = Delisted NOTE: No species in the USFS Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit are currently listed as “Endangered” by USFWS under ESA) Sources: CDFG 2008; USFS 2008a; USFS 2008b; TRPA 2007

108 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.4-4 Habitat potential for special-status wildlife species in the Project Area.

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Characteristics Habitat in Rationale for Determining No Habitat Project Area MAMMALS Aplodontia rufa Sierra Nevada CSC Occurs within dense deciduous forest and thickets, usually in moist soils and near abundant No Insufficient dense habitat in SEZ. californica mountain beaver supply of water. Corynorhinus Townsend’s big- FSS, CSC Desert scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, and conifer forest. Roosts in caves, mines, buildings, Potential - townsendii eared bat and large trees Gulo gulo luteus California wolverine FSS, CT, Mixed conifer, red fir, and lodgepole habitats and wet meadows with dense cover and low No Fragmented habitat and high human disturbance. CFP human disturbance. Lepus americanus Sierra Nevada CSC Montane riparian habitats with thickets of alders and willows, and stands of young conifers Potential This species was observed in the Project Area. tahoensis snowshoe hare interspersed with chaparral above 4,800 feet. Martes Americana American marten FSS, MIS Mixed evergreen forests with > 40% crown closure with large trees and snags. Red fir and Potential This species was observed in the Project Area. lodgepole pine forests. Martes pennanti Pacific fisher FC, CSC Dense mature trees in coniferous forests and deciduous riparian. Requires large areas, No No `old-growth forest present. pacifica snags, and greater than 50% canopy closure. Odocoileus Mule deer SI Only for population site goals for Critical Fawning Habitat under TRPA Threshold No No high quality mule deer fawning habitat occurs hemionus Evaluations. within or adjacent to the Project Area Taxidea taxus American badger CSC Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest and herbaceous habitats with No Existing limited habitat with friable soils and has high friable soils. human disturbance. Vulpes vulpes Sierra Nevada red FSS, CT A variety of habitats including wet-meadow, montane chaparral, montane riparian, mixed No Believed to be extirpated from the Tahoe basin. necator fox conifer, red fir, lodgepole pine, and ponderosa pine. Dense vegetation required for cover and denning. Open areas for hunting. BIRDS Accipiter gentilis northern goshawk FSS, CSC, Mature coniferous forests. Potential - SI Aquila chrysaeto golden eagle CSC, CFP, Grasslands and early successional stages of forest and shrub habitats, mountain areas with No Unsuitable habitat in the Project Area. SI open slopes. Nests in cliffs or large trees in open areas. Dendroica petechia yellow warbler MIS, CSC Breeds in riparian woodlands from coastal and desert lowlands up to 8,000 feet in Sierra Potential -. Nevada. Nest in montane chaparral, and in open ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitats with substantial amounts of brush.

Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher CE, FSS Wet meadow and montane riparian habitats from 2,000 to 8,000 feet. Breeding seldom Potential - occurs below 5,000 feet. Nests in extensive montane willow thickets. Falco peregrinus American peregrine FD, CE, Woodlands, forests, coastal habitats, and riparian areas near water bodies and cliffs. No Absence of cliffs for cover and nesting. TRPA anatum falcon CFP, SI Migrates along the coast and the western Sierra Nevada in spring and fall. mapped disturbance zones do not fall within the Project Area. Haliaeetus bald eagle FD, FSS, Coniferous and mixed forests near water. Low human disturbance. No No large bodies of open water in the Project Area. leucocephalus CE, CFP, SI TRPA mapped disturbance zones do not fall within the Project Area

ENTRIX, INC. 109 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.4-4 Habitat potential for special-status wildlife species in the Project Area (continued).

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Characteristics Habitat in Rationale for Determining No Habitat Project Area Pandion haliaetus Osprey CSC, SI Breeds in northern California, associated strictly with large fish-bearing No TRPA mapped disturbance zones do not fall within the Project Area. waters, primarily in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitats. Riparia bank swallow CT Riparian habitats. Requires vertical banks and cliffs with fine-textured or No Absence of nesting habitat sandy soils near water for nesting. Strix nebulous great gray owl FSS, CE Breeds in old-growth red fir, mixed conifer, or lodgepole pine habitats, No Not known to occur in the Tahoe Basin always in the vicinity of wet meadows. Strix occidentalis California spotted FSS, CSC, Mature conifer forests with suitable nest sites or foraging areas. Potential - owl MIS Xanthocephalus yellow-headed CSC Nests in fresh emergent wetland with dense vegetation along lakes or No Insufficient dense emergent wetland, no lake habitat. xanthocephalus blackbird ponds. Forages in emergent wetland and moist, open areas (e.g., cropland, muddy shores of lacustrine habitat) N/A Waterfowl SI Preferred habitat for waterfowl includes marshes, wet meadows, creek No TRPA mapped disturbance zones do not fall within the Project Area. drainages, and along the shallow shorelines of lakes. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES Bufo canorus Yosemite toad FC, CSC Restricted to central high Sierra Nevada. Prefers mountain, alpine No Yosemite toad is does not occur in the Tahoe Basin meadow, lodgepole pine, successional stages of mixed conifer, Jeffrey pine, red fir. Elev. 6,400 to 11,300 ft. Hydromantes Mt. Lyell CSC High elevation rock outcrops associated with permanent streams, No Habitat not present within or adjacent to Project Area platycephalus salamander waterfalls, and seeps. Breeds beneath granite rocks or slabs covering moist granitic soil. Rana pipiens northern leopard CSC (native Quiet, permanent and semi-permanent water in many habitats. No The Lake Tahoe basin is not in the historic range of the northern frog populs only), Introduced populations in the Tahoe Basin. leopard frog (Jennings and Hayes 1994 as cited in Manley et al. 2000). FSS Rana sierrae Sierra Nevada FC, FSS, Associated with streams, lakes, and ponds in montane riparian, No Habitat suitability in the Proposed Project area is impaired by the yellow-legged CSC lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, and wet meadows. Breeds in presence of nonnative salmonids, such as rainbow trout, brook trout, frog shallow water in low gradient perennial streams and lakes. and brown trout, which are known to prey on tadpoles.

110 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.4-4 Habitat potential for special-status wildlife species in the Project Area (continued).

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Characteristics Habitat in Rationale for Determining No Habitat Project Area FISHES Catostomus mountain sucker CSC Inhabits low to moderate gradient sections of rivers and streams of the Potential This species was observed in the Project Area. platyrhynchus Lahontan Basin. Gila bicolor Lahontan lake tui FSS, CSC Inhabits large, deep lakes of the Lahontan basin. Algal beds in shallow, No No large, deep lakes in the Project Area . pectinifer chub inshore areas for spawning, egg incubation, larval rearing. Inhabits pelagic habitat in Lake Tahoe. Hypomesus Delta smelt FT, FSS, SE Lives year round in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. No The range of the species does not include any area within the Lake transpacificus Tahoe Basin. Oncorhynchus Lahontan FT,SI Inhabits cold water lakes, rivers and streams in the Lahontan Basin that Potential - clarki henshawi cutthroat trout are not occupied by introduced rainbow, brown, brook or lake trout. Spawns in gravel beds in river and stream habitats. Oncorhynchus Central Valley FT Inhabits the Sacramento-San Joaquin river systems and spawns in No The range of the species does not include any area within the Lake mykiss steelhead gravel beds in river and stream habitats. Tahoe Basin. INVERTEBRATES Capnia lacustra Lake Tahoe CSC Deep-water plant beds in Lake Tahoe. Most abundant at depths 200 to No Occurs in deep water lacustrine habitats in Lake Tahoe. benthic stonefly 360 ft. Helisoma Great Basin FSS Larger lakes and slow rivers, including larger spring sources and spring- Potential - (Carninifex) rams-horn fed creeks. Snails like to burrow in soft mud. newberryi

Key to Codes: FED LIST: FD = Delisted; FC = Candidate for listing; FE = Endangered; FT = Threatened CA STATE LIST: CSC = Special Concern; CE = Endangered; CT = Threatened; CFP = Fully Protected FSS = USFS LTBMU Sensitive Species, Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, Region 5 MIS = USFS LTBMU Management Indicator Species SI = TRPA Special Interest Species, Regional Plan for the LTBMU: TRPA Goals and Policies (1986) and Code of Ordinances (1987) Sources: CDFG 2008; USDA FS 2008; USFS 2008b; TRPA 2008

ENTRIX, INC. 111 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.4.4 Regulatory Setting for Biological Resources Section 1.5 (Regulatory Authorities and Intended Uses of this Document) presents the regulatory framework for the Proposed Project. This Regulatory Setting for Biological Resources Section (3.4.1) is included to further describe the framework surrounding the complex regulatory setting required to fully address Federal, State and local requirements at the habitat, community and species levels to fully address plant communities, sensitive plants, noxious weeds, federal and state listed species, FS sensitive species, California species of concern, potential habitat for FS MIS, TRPA Special Interest Species (SI) and TRPA thresholds. Assessments in this Section are consistent with four other documents prepared by the LTBMU: the Vegetation BE, the Wildlife BE, the MIS Report and the TRPA Impact Report.

3.4.4.1 Federal Requirements NEPA [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.] establishes a broad national framework for protecting the environment. Basic policy is to assure that all branches of government give proper consideration to the environment prior to undertaking any major federal action that significantly affects the environment. Potential effects of the Proposed Project and No Project on vegetation and terrestrial and aquatic wildlife in compliance with the NEPA and the requirements for interagency cooperation identified under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended (16 U.S. Government Code [[USC] 1536[a]). A Biological Evaluation (BE) has been prepared for this project. The BE addresses species designated as endangered, threatened, candidate or proposed under the federal ESA or by the State under interagency cooperation. The BE also addresses species designated as sensitive by the Regional Forester in Region 5.

These federally listed species are managed under the authority of the FESA and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA; PL 94-588). The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that all actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed species. The ESA requires that a BA be written and that the analysis conducted to determine whether formal consultation or conference is required with the United States USDI and FWS.

The FWS species list is based on the January 29, 2009 (verified on May 15, 2009) list of federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species for the LTBMU from the FWS (USFWS 2009). This list is the most current version for the LTMBU and is shown in Appendix E.

3.4.4.2 State / TRPA Requirements

State Requirements The State of California considers an endangered species under the CESA as one whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy; a threatened species as one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future in the absence of special protection or management; and a rare species as one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens. Rare species applies to California native plants.

California Species of Special Concern is an informal designation used by the CDFG, and applies to some declining wildlife species that are not state candidates for listing as threatened or endangered. This designation does not provide legal protection, but signifies that these species are recognized as special status by the CDFG and thus under CEQA Guidelines (Section 15380) potential impacts to these species need to be assessed.

Species that are California fully protected include those protected by special legislation for various reasons, such as the white-tailed kite and golden eagle.

112 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Special-status habitats are vegetation communities, associations, or sub-associations designated by the CDFG and/or CNPS that support concentrations of special-status plant or wildlife species, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife. Although special-status habitats are not afforded legal protection unless they support protected species, potential impacts on them may increase concerns and result in mitigation suggestions by resources agencies.

TRPA Species of Special Interest In order to help maintain and protect natural resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin, the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact formed the TRPA Regional Plan, which created and adopted environmental threshold carrying capacities (“thresholds” or “threshold standards”) in two documents for fisheries and wildlife resources. These documents, the Goals and Policies (TRPA 1986) and the Code of Ordinances and Rules of Procedure (TRPA 1987), provide guidelines for threshold standards (TRPA 2002b). These thresholds and findings are detailed in the TRPA Initial Environmental Checklist (Appendix B) and indicated that the Proposed Project’s impacts to biological resources are at a less-than-significant level and do not require additional TRPA analysis.

3.4.5 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project Alternative The No Action/No Project Alternative would not result in a direct disturbance to wildlife or wildlife habitat within the Project Area. However, the No Action/No Project Alternative also includes the most likely future conditions in the absence of the project, including other projects in and adjacent to the Project Area. Of the currently proposed future projects, the only projects that could potentially directly affect wildlife in the area of this project are the California Department of Parks and Recreation Golf Course project proposed upstream; the City of South Lake Tahoe’s project immediately downstream (new channel constructed in 2010), the CTC’s Reach 1 and 2 projects, the CTC’s UTR Marsh Project, the Angora Creek restoration project just upstream of Lake Tahoe Blvd, and South Tahoe Greenway Project. These projects would also have short-term localized impacts on terrestrial and aquatic habitat and the special-status species that utilize these habitats However, because the projects listed in Table 3.1-1 are within the same regulatory setting, they would also be required to comply with state and federal regulations protecting rare and endangered species and mitigate identified impacts to special status wildlife and vegetation resources or make a Statement of Overriding Consideration through the CEQA process. Thus, the No Action/No Project Alternative would not have any significant adverse impacts on wildlife resources and habitat. However, in the absence of the project there would also be no benefit to wildlife habitat that could result with implementation of the project, the degraded habitat conditions for aquatic and riparian resources along the UTR in the Project Area would continue to decline, and there would be no cumulative benefit along the UTR as Reach 5 and 6 of the River would not be restored and linked with adjacent restoration projects.

3.4.6 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project

3.4.6.1 Special-Status Species This section analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Project on 12 wildlife species, one wildlife species assemblage, and one rare plant species that are either federal or state listed, designated as Forest Service Sensitive, a California Species of Special Concern, a LTBMU or a TRPA Special Interest Species(see Table 3.4-2 and Table 3.4-4) and occur and/or have potential habitat in the Project Area: three- ranked hump-moss, Townsend’s big-eared bat, Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare, American marten, northern goshawk, yellow warbler, willow flycatcher, California spotted owl, Pacific tree frog, Lahontan cutthroat trout, mountain sucker, and Great Basin rams-horn snail. Effects of the Proposed Project on aquatic macroinvertebrates will also be addressed. Overall, while the construction activities and project operations have the potential to affect these species and/or their habitat, implementation design features and construction controls would reduce or avoid substantial adverse effects on listed or candidate species. Further, given the

ENTRIX, INC. 113 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

phased implementation of these projects, special-status species in the area would be able to move, or in the case of fish, be relocated to other unaffected habitat along the river corridor. The effects analysis for each species is presented as follows, with additional details on LTBMU-status species in the “Biological Evaluation: Aquatic and Terrestrial Species” (ENTRIX 2011), “Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi” (ENTRIX 2009a), “Management Indicator Species Report: Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restoration Project” (ENTRIX 2010), and the Aquatic and Terrestrial Species Impact Analysis Report for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (USFS 2010).

Three-ranked hump-moss Direct impacts on the known population of Meesia triquetra are not expected because of the isolated location relative to planned project activity. The Proposed Project has been designed to avoid the area where the habitat is located. Undetected populations in other areas of the Project Area could be directly affected by trampling, excavation, burial, or crushing during restoration efforts; however, implementation of standard avoidance and impact minimization measures (BIO-1) would significantly reduce or eliminate the potential for direct impacts to sensitive habitats and known populations of special-status plants in the Project Area.

Indirect effects to the known population of Meesia triquetra are not expected because of the isolated and elevated location relative to planned project effects. Undetected populations in other areas of the Project Area may be indirectly affected by introduction of invasive or noxious species or sedimentation. Introduction of invasive plants or noxious weeds could increase competition for resources in that species-limited habitat. In severe cases, highly competitive plants can alter habitat characteristics by changing exposure and moisture levels. However, restoration of past hydrologic patterns would reduce the likelihood of an infestation. Nevertheless, a weed control plan which includes revegetation would be adopted as a part of the Proposed Project (BIO-5, WEED-1, and WEED-2). Implementing this plan would decrease the risk of Project-related weed infestations to a level that is at or below pre-construction conditions. With implementation of this construction control, the potential impact would be reduced to less than significant.

The Proposed Project could also contribute to impacts on fens, which supports three-ranked hump-moss. Fens in the Project Area are located on the slopes east of the meadow and therefore would not be directly affected by project construction in the meadow. They could be affected by access roads entering the project from the Tahoe Paradise subdivision. Access road alignments would be made to avoid fens and known populations of three-ranked hump-moss.

Townsend’s big-eared bat The Proposed Project is not expected to have direct impacts on Townsend’s big-eared bats because this species is not known to be present in the Project Area, nor is there suitable roosting habitat within the Project Area. The Project Area is within foraging distance from known roost sites and contains foraging habitat. Temporary indirect impacts could include short term reduction in riparian foraging habitat quality and quantity during channel construction. Portions of existing riparian foraging habitat would be affected by construction activities. However, a significant amount of suitable foraging habitat (including riparian and forest edge habitats) exist within 15 km of the Project Area. The amount of foraging habitat potentially impacted by construction activities represents a small fraction of the available foraging habitat within the vicinity. Nearby foraging habitats would be able to absorb foraging activities from any individuals temporarily displaced from the Project Area. Therefore, the potential impacts to Townsend’s big-eared bats are less than significant.

114 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare The Proposed Project is not expected to have direct impacts on Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare because this species is not known to be present in the Project Area, and habitat present is marginal at best. Temporary indirect impacts could include short term reduction in foraging and breeding habitat quality and quantity during channel construction due to disturbance on the meadow and cuttings from willows. However, a significant amount of breeding and foraging habitat exists in areas surrounding the Project Area. The amount of foraging or breeding habitat potentially impacted by construction activities represents a small fraction of the available habitat within the vicinity. Nearby habitats would be able to absorb foraging and breeding activities from any individuals temporarily displaced from the Project Area. Therefore, the potential impacts to Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare are less than significant.

American Marten An individual American marten was documented in winter 2008 in the undeveloped forest area south of the airport runway. The forest habitat within the Project Area is likely used as a movement corridor, but is too small and fragmented to support regular use by martens (H.T. Harvey and Associates 2007). Construction activities and tree removal along the new channel alignment could affect American marten either directly (disturbance of individuals if present) or indirectly (reduced habitat structure and canopy cover in the movement corridor). Individuals could be temporarily displaced from forested areas during construction to adjacent and nearby suitable habitat.

The Proposed Project incorporates design features to reduce these potential impacts and through implementation of BIO-8, BIO-9, BIO-10, BIO-11, BIO-12, BIO-13 the American marten would be protected or avoided by following standard management requirements within these design measures avoidance. BIO-8 would require LTBMU or TRPA wildlife biologist will implement appropriate LOPs around the protected activity centers should this species be observed. To maintain habitat quality in the forested wildlife corridor, conifer removal along the new channel alignment would be minimized. To provide habitat for wildlife that depend on them for cover (BIO-9, 11, and 12) logs and snags will be retained where possible. Construction would be phased and managed so as not to present a continuous barrier to wildlife movement (BIO-10). Trash and other debris would be managed at the construction site such that it would be unavailable to wildlife (BIO- 11). Implementation of these design features would reduce potential impacts to this species to less-than- significant levels.

Northern goshawk This Proposed Project is not expected to have direct impact on northern goshawk, largely because this species is not confirmed in the Project Area. Impacts on potential goshawk habitat may include a short term reduction in habitat structure from reduced tree cover in locations where individual conifers must be removed to allow channel construction or to reduce conifer encroachment in meadow riparian habitat. Most of the trees that would be removed are along Reach 6 in the forested areas south of the airport. Indirect effects include a long term increase in the quality and quantity of riparian forest.

The Proposed Project has incorporated design features and construction controls to reduce potential impacts on northern goshawk. If this species is encountered during implementation, it would be protected by following standard management requirements such as preconstruction nesting avian surveys and LOPs around nests (BIO-7 and BIO-8). Furthermore, conifer removal would be minimized, and large snags would be retained for possible roosts (BIO-9). With implementation of these construction controls, the potential impact on northern goshawk would be less than significant.

ENTRIX, INC. 115 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Yellow warbler The yellow warbler was selected as the MIS for riparian habitat in the Sierra Nevada. Although not observed within the Project Area, this species is usually found in riparian deciduous habitats in summer (cottonwoods, willows, alders, and other small trees and shrubs typical of low, open-canopy riparian woodland) (CDFG 2005). It also breeds in montane shrubbery in open conifer forests. During migration, it visits woodland, forest, and shrub habitats. Yellow warbler is dependent on both meadow and non-meadow riparian habitat in the Sierra Nevada (Siegel and DeSante 1999). Direct effects of the Proposed Project could include direct disturbance of nesting individuals if present, or short term reduction in habitat quality and quantity during channel construction due to disturbance on the meadow and riparian areas.

Per project design feature BIO-7 a qualified biologist would conduct surveys for MBTA protected species (including the yellow warbler) within the Project Area to determine the locations of active nest sites. If active nests are encountered during construction, they would be protected by a construction buffer of at least 100 feet from an active MBTA nest (BIO-8). Implementation of these project design features would reduce potential direct impacts on this species to a less-than-significant level.

Indirect effects include positive long-term effects on riparian habitat for these species. Construction of a new channel is expected to increase the extent and duration of floodplain inundation and to increase meadow wetness through raised groundwater levels. The restored hydrologic processes combined with extensive riparian plantings that would be installed as part of the construction would increase the quality and quantity of riparian willow scrub habitat in portions of the Project Area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have beneficial indirect effects on riparian avian species such as the yellow warbler.

Willow flycatcher Willow flycatchers have been occasionally documented in suitable riparian (willow) habitat in the Project Area. Direct effects could include direct disturbance of nesting individuals if present, or short term reduction in habitat quality and quantity during channel construction due to disturbance on the meadow and cuttings from willows. Prior to project implementation, a qualified biologist would conduct surveys for willow flycatcher in suitable habitat within the Project Area to determine the locations of active nest sites (BIO-7). If active nests are encountered during construction, they would be protected by following standard management requirements such as LOPs around nests (e.g. no construction permitted between June 1 and August 31 within 500 feet of an active nest) (BIO-8). If pre-construction surveys determine that a nest is not active, the associated LOP(s) may be lifted at the discretion of a USFS wildlife biologist on NFS land or TRPA biologist on CTC land. Implementation of these measures would reduce potential direct impacts on these species to a less-than-significant level.

Indirect effects include positive long-term effects on riparian habitat for this species. Construction of a new channel is expected to increase the extent and duration of floodplain inundation and to increase meadow wetness through raised groundwater levels. The restored hydrologic processes combined with extensive riparian plantings that would be installed as part of the construction would increase the quality and quantity of riparian willow scrub habitat in portions of the Project Area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have beneficial indirect effects on this bird species.

California spotted owl The Proposed Project is not likely to have direct impacts on spotted owls because of marginal habitat and absence of individuals in the Project Area. No spotted owls have been detected in the Project Area, nor are there any spotted owl PACs in the Project Area. Indirect effects to potential habitat may include a short term reduction in habitat quality (reduced structure and canopy cover) where large conifers along the new channel alignment must be removed to allow channel construction. Most of the trees to be removed would be along Reach 6 in the forested areas south of the airport.

116 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

The Proposed Project has incorporated design features and construction controls to reduce potential impacts. If this species is encountered during construction, it would be protected by following standard management requirements such as establishing LOPs around nests or PACs (BIO-8). If surveys determine that a nest or PAC is not active, the associated LOP may be lifted at the discretion of Forest Service wildlife biologist on NFS land or TRPA biologist on CTC land. Efforts would be made to minimize tree removal where possible, specifically the removal of large trees (BIO-9).

Lahontan cutthroat trout LCT have not been documented by fish surveys conducted in the Project Area (Reach 5 and 6) in 2005 and 2006 (CTC 2007a) and in downstream reaches (Reach 3 and 4 for the City of South Lake Tahoe’s Middle Reach restoration project) in 2008. However, the potential for adult LCT to move through the Project Area is possible as the physical habitat does exist and population expansion efforts are occurring upstream.

Any potential direct effect on LCT individuals would be incidental harassment during stream restoration activities. More specifically, potential harassment could include fish salvage efforts, short term handling while moving fish out of the Project Area, and short term sedimentation from channel diversion and excavation activities. Construction controls BIO-14 and BIO-16 would reduce impacts on LCT to less than significant. UTR reaches would be monitored for the occurrence of LCT prior to construction. Fish rescues would occur under BIO-14 by ensuring that construction would not impact fish migration, and LCT would be removed and relocated to suitable habitat upstream or downstream within the Project Area (BIO-14). Block nets will be installed to insure no fish move back into the Project Area. Block nets will be cleaned of debris at least two times daily to maintain functionality (BIO-14). The potential for harassment would not be high as LCT individuals are not expected in the Project Area, and would occur only in low abundance. Mortality to LCT individuals is not expected during implementation activities. Implementation of these design and construction measures would reduce any impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Mountain sucker The Proposed Project is not expected to have significant effects on mountain suckers. This species is present throughout this reach of the UTR and spawns in mid-summer. The Proposed Project could cause short term localized impacts on stream access during late summer or fall when the old channel is connected up with the new channel, however, since mountain suckers typically spawn in midsummer, their spawning movements would not be impaired during this time of the year.

If this species is encountered during channel dewatering, it would be protected by capture and removal to other suitable habitat in the UTR (BIO-14) outside of the immediate construction area. Implementation of these controls would reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Construction activities that could potentially block access would be limited to periods after the spawning season for mountain suckers (BIO- 17). Entrainment into dewatering pumps would be minimized by screening the pump intakes (BIO-18). Implementation of these measures would reduce any potential impact to less than significant.

Great Basin rams-horn snail This species has not been documented in the Proposed Project Area, although no surveys targeting this species have been conducted. The aquatic habitat in the Proposed Project Area is dominated by hardpan clay, sand and gravel to cobble substrate. The gravel is often a thin veneer over hardpan clay or embedded with sand and is poor habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates. Additionally, water temperature fluctuations may be extreme during summer. Although the Proposed Project Area does not include high quality habitat for this species, it is possible the Great Basin rams-horn snail may inhabit some areas of the Proposed Project Area, but has merely gone undetected.

ENTRIX, INC. 117 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

It is possible the Great Basin rams-horn snail does inhabit the Proposed Project Area, but has merely been undetected. In such a case direct effects to individuals could include physical injury or death when flow is diverted from the old river channel and the channel is backfilled.

Indirect effects are not anticipated because after construction, the new channel length will remain approximately the same and provide the same amount of potential habitat for this species. The Proposed Project may affect potential habitat by reducing the amount of fine muds and silts in the channel that are the preferred habitat of the Great Basin rams-horn snail.

3.4.6.2 Wetlands, Riparian and Other Sensitive Communities Construction would involve excavating the channel, brush cutting, and some riparian vegetation removal in these sensitive habitats in order to create the new channel (up to 3.5 acres along the channel alignment) and to provide access. BMPs and construction controls would minimize these short-term impacts. For example, movement of construction equipment across the meadow would be limited to designated temporary access roads that would be removed at the end of construction (GHWQ-4). Construction fencing would be placed around wetland areas located outside of proposed disturbance to avoid direct impacts during construction (BIO-1). During construction, upland and riparian native vegetation would be removed (BIO-2) and suitable native riparian vegetation would be stockpiled (BIO-3) and replanted once the new channel is constructed (BIO-4). All disturbed areas would be revegetated with appropriate native vegetation following construction (BIO-5). With incorporation of these control measures, the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian and wetland habitat.

To protect riparian and wetland communities from temporary construction impacts due to sedimentation, pollution, or contamination from hazardous materials, the Proposed Project would implement several design features and construction controls. These potential impacts are also analyzed in further detail in Section 3.6 Geology, Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality. As required by State and federal stormwater regulations, a SWPPP would be prepared outlining BMPs designed to protect surface water quality during and after construction (GHWQ-1). Such BMPs would include erosion control, slope stabilization, sediment control, and non-stormwater management. Equipment fueling and maintenance areas would be limited to specified upland areas (GHWQ-8) to prevent impacts to surface water resources such as wetlands. The Proposed Project also incorporates hazardous spill prevention and control measures (HAZ-1 through HAZ-5). With implementation of these and other control measures, the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on wetlands and riparian communities. In addition, the project proponents would also be required to obtain permits under Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA and Section 1600, et seq., of the California Fish and Game Code, to comply with the “no net wetlands loss” policies of the USACE (Executive Order 11990), RWQCB, and CDFG (Executive Order W-59-93), and to restore or rehabilitate impacted wetlands and other waters of the U.S. or waters of the State. In the long-term, the Proposed Project would have a beneficial effect on these sensitive SEZ habitats. Following construction, it is expected that wet meadow and montane riparian habitat would be enhanced and likely increase in acreage due to improvements in the hydrologic regime that supports meadows (i.e., increased frequency of floodplain inundation and raised groundwater levels) and re-establishment of riparian vegetation.

3.4.6.3 Other Biological Resources

Movement Corridors Fish movement through the river channel could be affected by the construction or operation of the new channel. Construction activities along Reach 5 and 6 have the potential to disrupt movement. Construction controls and design features such as a limited construction season (BIO-17) would reduce this potential impact by allowing individuals to move while no construction actives are occurring. The new channel would

118 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT be designed to provide fish passage at low river flows. A water line and backup effluent line crossing the UTR would be lowered to eliminate the potential to create fish passage barriers at these pipeline crossing. Lateral and vertical grade controls would be designed and constructed to provide for up and downstream movement of fish during high to low flow conditions. Connecting up the old and new channels occurs late in the summer between periods of fish movement and each connection would take, at the most, one to two days. This would not impair movement of fish up and downstream in the UTR.

The forested area south of the airport functions as a movement corridor for terrestrial wildlife crossing the UTR valley. Construction activities along Reach 6 have the potential to disrupt movement by removing vegetative cover (i.e. tree removal in the path of the channel) or disturbing any wildlife present by the use of haul roads through this area. Construction of the new stream channel could result in short-term disruption of small travel pathways for wildlife species; however, it would not interfere substantially with wildlife migration or other movements as practices listed in BIO-9 and BIO-10 that will phase construction and retain tree and brush piles to allow movement during and after construction would be implemented. The channel passes principally through the meadow; however construction would only affect a portion of the meadow at any one time, leaving other areas available for wildlife movement. Further, construction would occur predominantly during the day and not at night when many wildlife species (e.g., deer) are active. Impacts from the physical obstruction of wildlife movement during construction would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.

Project construction would result in a temporary increase in noise levels and human activity, which could disturb wildlife on and near the construction site, potentially reducing their use of adjacent habitats. However, during channel construction, these effects would be less than significant because of their temporary nature and due to the limited hours of construction. For channel construction, disturbance would generally proceed along the channel alignment and not persist at any one location for more than a few days. In addition, construction activity would be limited to daytime hours and most animal movement occurs at night. Construction would be phased and managed so as not to present a continuous barrier to wildlife movement across the Project Area (BIO-10). Tree removal would be minimized where possible, and efforts would be made to retain large trees and snags for cover (BIO-9). Construction activities would not take place during the night (NOI-1). With the implementation of these protective measures, the potential impact to terrestrial wildlife movements would be less than significant.

Protected Trees The TRPA Code of Ordinances (Chapter 71.2A) limits removal of live, dead, or dying trees greater than 30 inches dbh in westside forest types on lands classified by TRPA as conservation, recreation or SEZ (TRPA 1987). Tree removal would occur along about 2 acres along Reach 5 and about 1.5 acres along Reach 6. A limited number of large trees would be removed within the Project Area to allow for construction of the new channel or for access road construction to implement the Proposed Project. All efforts would be made to minimize the cutting of large trees. The TRPA Code of Ordinances (Chapter 71.2A subsection [4]) “…provides for large tree removal where it is not likely to cause significant adverse impacts to a stream or river,…” and subsection (5) “…where identified trees need to be cut for ecosystem management goals consistent with TRPA goals and policies.” The Proposed Project would avoid trees where possible and for those trees that can’t be avoided, any removal would be closely coordinated with TRPA to insure that those needed to be removed are done so in a manner that is consistent with TRPA’s Code of Ordinances. The Proposed Project is consistent with TRPA goals and policies.

In the long-term, the Proposed Project will contribute to beneficial effects for the species that utilize the canopy cover in the Project Area by creating healthy forests and habitat enhancement from increased riparian cover along the stream. For example, when not a hazard to people or property, logs and snags would be retained in the Project Area to provide habitat for wildlife that depend on them for perches, nesting, or cover.

ENTRIX, INC. 119 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Invasive Non-native Plants Construction controls (WEED-1 through 8) have been developed for the Proposed Project to prevent introduction of terrestrial invasive non-native plants. Construction controls have also been developed to prevent the spread of terrestrial invasive non-native plants that are known to exist within the project area: cheat grass, bull thistle, ox-eye daisy, Klamathweed, and common mullein. These construction controls include but are not confined to pre- and post-project surveys, equipment washing, use of weed-free materials, minimization of disturbance, revegetation, weed treatment or “flag and avoid,” use of weed barriers, and encapsulated roads. With construction controls in place, the Proposed Project will not introduce or spread terrestrial non-native invasive plants. Effects Determination

3.4.7 Effects Determination

3.4.7.1 National Environmental Policy Act Determination The Proposed Project would not result in changes in the diversity or distribution of species, or number of any species of plants. While riparian and native vegetation would be removed and redistributed/replanted either along the new channel or in disturbed areas, no changes in the diversity of plant species would occur, since the same plants to be removed would be replanted. Since the replanting would occur within the Project Area, impacts related to changes in the distribution of the riparian/native plants would be less than significant, and over the long term, beneficial.

The Proposed Project would not result in direct effects on special-status species (identified above in Section 3.4.5.1 and are designated as FT, FSS, or MIS as shown in Table 3.4-4) or sensitive habitats because it will result in reduced structure and canopy cover only in limited areas in locations where large conifers must be removed to allow channel construction or access road construction, and would not largely alter the structure or canopy conditions of the area. As described in detail above, upon implementation of project control and design measures listed in Chapter 2, direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Project would not likely adversely affect special-status species their habitats, wildlife movement corridors, or designated sensitive habitats, including federally protected wetlands.

The Proposed Project will cause a short-term reduction in riparian habitat quality and quantity during channel construction and short-term, localized impacts on instream habitat, due to construction activities in segments of the channel and subsequent dewatering of the existing stream channel once flow is diverted to the new channel. These impacts would not be expected to adversely affect riparian habitat or species that depend on it as in the long term, the Proposed Project will contribute to beneficial effects for these species and habitats by creating a healthier meadow, healthy forests and enhanced habitat from increased riparian cover along the stream, and by improving physical structure of aquatic habitat.

The effects determination specific to each wildlife species analyzed are summarized below. For additional details about the rationale supporting these determinations can be found in the BE for this project (Appendix H, PR Doc # K-1).

 The Proposed Project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability of the northern goshawk, willow flycatcher, California spotted owl, American marten, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and Great Basin rams-horn snail.

 The Proposed Project may affect, but is not likely adversely affect the Lahontan cutthroat trout for both the No Action and the Proposed Project.

120 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.4.7.2 California Environmental Quality Act Determination

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than

Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) 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 X or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural X community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by X Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or X impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such X as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat X conservation plan?

a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not have a substantial direct adverse effect on any special-status or candidate species. As described above, although construction as well as the future hydrology of the river and meadow would have indirect effects on Project Area habitats, these changes would result in a net improvement in habitat for all species in that the river will create conditions for a wetter meadow. To ensure that impacts to special-status species that may occur within the Project Area are less than significant, construction controls BIO-7 through BIO-14 would be implemented. Specifically, these measures would ensure that pre-construction surveys would be conducted for special-status species and MBTA- protected species (BIO-7), that vegetation removal would not impact nesting birds by establishing PACs (BIO-8), that conifer removal would be minimized in the wildlife corridor area (BIO-9), that construction would be staged to avoid establishing barriers to animal movement (BIO-10), trash would be contained in wildlife proof containers (BIO-11), that salvage/recovery of fish and other aquatic organisms would be conducted during dewatering (BIO-12), that construction activities would be scheduled to avoid upstream migration periods (BIO-13) and that pump intakes would be screened to protect fish and other aquatic organisms from entrainment (BIO-14). These construction controls would reduce effects to special-status species and any migratory fish to a less-than-significant level for candidate, sensitive, or special-status species designated by the CDFG or USFWS or species covered in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or USFS Sensitive Species. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Riparian habitat is protected in the Tahoe Basin; however, removed native and riparian vegetation would be stockpiled and irrigated, and that riparian and native vegetation would be replanted in disturbed areas. These construction controls and wetland and floodplain restoration will ensure that effects on sensitive habitats and federally protected wetlands are less than significant. Construction controls would ensure that all non-degradation standards associated with TRPA habitat buffers would be observed, reducing the conflict with local policies to less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. Wetland areas would be temporarily affected by construction of temporary access roads, the new channel and backfilling of the old channel; however, construction controls would ensure that wetland

ENTRIX, INC. 121 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

impacts would be minimized and temporary. Wetlands are associated with the 98.3 acres of wet montane meadow, 18 acres of riparian scrub meadow and 10.7 acres of open water. A portion of those habitats would be affected by the project including the area along the access road and in the alignment of the new channel. The new channel will be narrower compared to the existing channel. However, the impacted wetlands would be restored, and adjacent wetlands enhanced by the Proposed Project, as the floodplain would be more frequently inundated and ground water elevations would be higher resulting in slightly more wetland habitats and improved conditions of the habitat.

d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Nor would the channel restoration impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Short- term effects on wildlife movement would occur during the day, primarily affecting the area around the river channel.

e) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Tree removal would be minimized and any removed trees would be replaced with native plantings, thus avoiding any conflict with local TRPA policies regarding tree removal. f) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) or Natural Communities Conservation Plans (NCCP) have been adopted. However, channel restoration is consistent with TRPA plans for SEZ restoration and the EIP programs to protect Lake Tahoe water quality. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

3.4.8 Cumulative Effects and Determination The cumulative effects analysis considers past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the UTR watershed. Cumulative impacts are not analyzed for thresholds for which the Proposed Project will have no impact. Projects considered in species-specific cumulative effects analyses are listed above in Table 3.1-1. Past projects are considered in the baseline condition. For additional information about the cumulative effects of this project on biological resources, refer to the BE (PR Doc # K-1), MIS report (PR Doc # K-5), and the TRPA Report (PR. Doc # K-8).

In general, cumulative projects within the Tahoe Basin that are listed in Table 3.1-1 would include, but not be limited to new development, water quality protection projects, recreation projects, and restoration projects. These projects could involve removal and/or modification of areas that have the potential to contain special- status species and sensitive natural communities. Many of these projects would be beneficial and restorative in the long term, through improving channel form and geomorphic processes of the UTR and reducing erosion and enhancing and protecting wildlife habitats within the Tahoe Basin. This project would add to these beneficial cumulative effects to wildlife habitat by continuing the restoration of the UTR. Although c, The effects are not expected to be significant and this project’s contributions would not be considerable.

Special-Status Species The channel restoration and related activities could contribute to cumulative impacts on northern goshawk, American marten, and California spotted owl because it will result in reduced structure and canopy cover in locations where large conifers must be removed to allow channel and access road construction and meadow restoration. Other projects, including the nearby California Department of Parks and Recreation Golf Course project proposed upstream; the City of South Lake Tahoe’s project immediately downstream (new channel constructed in 2008), the CTC’s Reach 1 and 2 projects, the CTC’s UTR Marsh Project, and the Angora Creek restoration project just upstream of Lake Tahoe Blvd could contribute to similar cumulative impacts. These projects, as well as others listed in Table 3.1-1 could also affect habitat for willow flycatcher, yellow warbler, Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare, and Townsend’s big-eared bat due to a short-term reduction in

122 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT riparian habitat quality and quantity during channel construction. The Proposed Project and nearby projects listed in Table 3.1-1 could also cause short term localized impacts on instream habitat that contribute to cumulative impacts to Lahontan cutthroat trout, mountain sucker, Great Basin rams-horn, Pacific tree frog, and aquatic macroinvertebrates.

To reduce these potential cumulative effects the Proposed Project would implement design features and construction controls specifically designed to avoid, reduce, or mitigate impacts to special status/sensitive species and their habitat and reduce the project’s contribution to the cumulative loss of these species and their habitats. Specifically, the Proposed Project’s design components identified above in Section 3.4.3.1 and in Section 2.4.3.11 would remove invasive species; restore, preserve, and enhance wetland, aquatic and riparian habitats; protect sensitive habitat and nesting avian species through fencing and construction buffers; enact LOPs as necessary if special status species are identified during construction or pre-construction surveys; relocate aquatic species from the existing channel; create a stable new channel; revegetate the site with native plantings of trees and shrubs; increase the habitat quality through the restoration of a functioning floodplain, vegetative cover for foraging and dispersing animals; maintain and enhance habitat connectivity through the forest and meadow; avoid any fish migration season; and improve water quality within the UTR and Lake Tahoe. Consequently, with implementation of the proposed design features and construction controls the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact to candidate, sensitive, or special- status species, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any regionally significant cumulative impact and long- term impacts to sensitive species would be beneficial, as the Proposed Project would result in enhanced wetland and riparian habitats and increase water quality.

Riparian, Wet Meadow, Fens and Aquatic Habitats The Proposed Project would contribute to cumulative effects on riparian and meadow habitats, fens and potentially their associated special-status species due to short term reduction in habitat quality and quantity during channel construction, disturbance on the meadow or fens, riparian vegetation trimming, and vegetation removal. The Proposed Project would temporarily contribute to cumulative effects on wetlands and aquatic habitat because it would result in short term localized impacts on instream habitat during construction activities in segments of the channel, and then dewatering of the stream channel once flow is diverted to the new channel. The projects listed in Table 3.1-1, particularly stream restoration projects, could contribute to similar cumulative impacts during construction including temporary disturbance of meadow, streambank, fens, and aquatic habitat. These stream restoration projects include the California Department of Parks and Recreation Golf Course project proposed upstream; the City of South Lake Tahoe’s project immediately downstream (new channel constructed in 2008), the CTC’s Reach 1 and 2 projects, the CTC’s UTR Marsh Project, and the Angora Creek restoration project just upstream of Lake Tahoe Blvd. These projects would have short term localized impacts on wet montane meadow and montane riparian scrub sensitive habitats and on special-status species that utilize these habitats. These cumulative projects would also have short term localized impacts on aquatic habitat and the special-status species that utilize this habitat (Lahontan cutthroat trout, mountain sucker, and Great Basin rams-horn snail) from short-term changes in stream channel flow and rescue and relocation during channel tie-ins. While the Proposed Project and other projects considered for cumulative effects could contribute to cumulative effects on riparian, fens, streambank and other protected habitat, construction controls and BMPs as described in Section 2.4 (i.e., BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-5) would be implemented to reduce this impact. Specifically, the Proposed Project would implement measures that would erect temporary construction fencing to protect riparian and wetland resources; prune or cut riparian vegetation at the ground to protect root structures and soil integrity where disturbance cannot be avoided; replanted native vegetation that was removed and restore the site’s native wetland vegetation; revegetate or stabilize disturbed areas such as staging areas and access road footprints; and regrade the stockpile site to the natural contours.

ENTRIX, INC. 123 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Under existing conditions, aquatic habitat is of marginal quality and continues to be impaired by the effects of channel incision and widening, including increased fine sediment deposition, low depth of flow resulting in poor rearing habitat conditions during summer and limited passage in the fall, poor substrate suitability, limited stream margin or shallow water habitat during high flows, and increased turbidity during high flow events. The Proposed Project and cumulative restoration of EIP projects would contribute to long-term benefits for these habitats and the special-status species that utilize them because it would enhance and expand riparian habitat and wet meadow habitat (through restoration of hydrological processes and riparian vegetation) and improve water quality in the Tahoe Basin. Aquatic habitat would benefit from multiple restoration projects through restoration of appropriate channel form, installation of woody debris and other instream habitat features, and planting of riparian vegetation. These cumulative projects would also benefit aquatic habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates (mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies and other aquatic invertebrates). Although the Proposed Project and other projects (Section 3.1.3) would have short term impacts on habitat, they would result in long-term benefits to stream habitat. Consequently, with implementation of the proposed design features and construction controls the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact to sensitive or special-status habitat and other sensitive natural communities. The Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any regionally significant cumulative impact and long-term impacts to sensitive habitats would be beneficial.

Wildlife Movement The Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Nor would the channel restoration impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. For both the Proposed Project and projects considered for cumulative effects, particularly those in the UTR corridor, short-term effects on wildlife movement would occur during the day, primarily affecting the area around the river channel. To ensure that the Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with wildlife migration the Proposed Project would implement design features and construction control measures BIO-9 and BIO-10. These features will phase construction and retain tree and brush piles to allow movement during and after construction.

Consequently, with implementation of the proposed design features and construction controls the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact on wildlife movement corridors. The proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any regionally significant cumulative impacts or and long-term impacts.

124 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the cultural resources that have been identified in the Project Area (also known as the Area of Potential Effects or APE) and the historical significance of those resources. An analysis of potential impacts resulting from the No Action/No Project Alternative and the Proposed Project is discussed in this section. Impacts were considered significant if they affected known historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources.

3.5.1 Existing Conditions

3.5.1.1 Prehistory The archaeology of the north-central Sierra Nevada is complex and also related to surrounding areas such as the Central Valley, Southern Sierra Nevada, and the Great Basin. The Proposed Project, however, is located in an area primarily associated with the Martis and Kings Beach Complexes.

Heizer and Elsasser (1953) identified the Martis Complex during investigations they were conducting east of the crest of the Sierra Nevada around Lake Tahoe. Heizer and Elsasser (1953) stated that the Martis Complex exhibited a preference for basalt in the production of tools and projectile points, used the mano and metate, and appeared to emphasize the hunting of large game. They (1953) suggested that the preference for basalt tools was the most distinguishing characteristic of the Martis Complex and that it linked the Martis Complex to other basalt-using complexes in the Great Basin, the Mohave Desert, and the Central Valley of California. The Martis Complex may be divided into two phases: Early (5,000-3,000 B.P. [Before Present]) and Late Martis ([3,000-1,500 B.P.] [Elston et al. 1994]).

At about 1,500 B.P. shifts in the cultural patterns of the Martis Complex become evident in the archaeological record of the north-central Sierra Nevada. Changes become evident in technology and subsistence and settlement strategies. Technological shifts are apparent in the appearance of larger numbers of smaller sized projectile points made from obsidian rather than larger sized projectile points made from basalt. Shifts in subsistence and settlement strategies are highlighted by an intensification of plant exploitation that is probably related to a shift in climate across the region and an increase in overall population in the region. These changes mark the waning of the Martis Complex and the emergence of the Kings Beach Complex.

Initial characterizations of the Kings Beach Complex by Heizer and Elsasser (1953) highlighted a preference for obsidian in the production of tools and projectile points, the use of bedrock mortars, and an economic emphasis on seed processing and fishing. The Kings Beach Complex may be divided into two periods: Early Kings Beach (1,300-700 B.P) and Late Kings Beach (700-150 B.P.) (Elston 1971, Zeier and Elston 1986). Early Kings Beach is thought to represent the initial phase of the Washoe ethnographic pattern.

3.5.1.2 Ethnography Prior to the arrival of Euro Americans in the region, California was inhabited by groups of Native Americans speaking more than 100 different languages and occupying a variety of ecological settings. Washoe occupied the area surrounding Lake Tahoe and historically inhabited the region east of the crest of the Sierra Nevada into Carson Valley, extending from the Walker River in the south to Honey Lake in the north, with peripheral territory extending to the mid-elevations of the west Sierran slope (d’Azevedo 1986). Washoe fully exploited their territory by following a pattern of seasonal transhumance (moving from one elevation to another, to harvest plants, fish, and hunt across contrasting and vertically defined ecological zones), which allowed them to acquire different resources across a range of altitudes and environments. Washoe speak a Hokan language and are the only Great Basin group that speaks Hokan (d’Azevedo 1986). Washoe are also unique in that they span both the California and Great Basin culture areas. They exploit environments and resources in both areas and possess general cultural traits attributable to groups occupying both regions. The cultural origins of the Washoe are unclear, but linguistic evidence suggests relations to other groups in California.

ENTRIX, INC. 125 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

The basic social and economic group of Washoe was the family or household unit. Washoe households were somewhat loosely combined to form villages, referred to as bunches by Downs (1966:44-46). Each bunch had a headman or chief (teubeyu) (Downs 1966:41). Washoe practiced seasonal transhumance that facilitated seasonal exploitation of resources occurring at different altitudes and in different ecological zones. Indeed, Washoe subsistence highlighted fishing along rivers that entered Lake Tahoe, gathering acorns from the western slope of the Sierra Nevada, and hunting a variety of birds and mammals across their territory (Downs 1966).

Contemporary Washoe continue to inhabit the area and are very interested in preserving their traditional culture and protecting their traditional cultural properties. Washoe have developed a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which addresses these issues. This plan includes establishing a tribal and political presence across their traditional lands and revitalizing Washoe cultural heritage.

3.5.1.3 History Early exploration of the Sierra Nevada is credited to mountain men such as Jedediah Smith who crossed the mountains into California in 1826 (Beck and Haase 1974). Smith explored and traveled along the American, Sacramento, and Cosumnes Rivers. Other explorers such as Ewing Young, Joseph Walker, John Fremont, and Christopher “Kit” Carson soon followed Smith. Indeed, in 1844 Fremont crossed the Sierra Nevada near Lake Tahoe and descended the west slope in proximity to the American River, which he eventually followed to Sutter’s Fort. Many of the trails, however, used by these early explorers and subsequent immigrants were not newly discovered routes, but rather Native American trails that were already in use.

Early explorations of the Sierra Nevada and its flanks were soon followed by groups of immigrants moving west. The first of these immigrant groups was the Bartleson-Bidwell party in 1841, the Joseph Chiles and Joseph Walker parties followed that crossed the Sierra Nevada in 1843, and the Stevens-Murphy party in 1844 that appears to be the first immigrant group to enter California via the Truckee and Bear Rivers. Subsequently, the Gold Rush in 1849 dramatically increased the numbers of immigrants passing through the Lake Tahoe Basin to reach the gold fields in California.

At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, there was a growing demand for roads that linked California and Nevada and other states and local communities. Initial road construction generally followed immigrant trails and other routes used by overland stage traffic and the Pony Express. One such road connecting Placerville and Nevada was constructed near the location of South Lake Tahoe. This road became known as Placerville Road. Placerville Road was incorporated into the intercontinental Lincoln Highway system that today is U.S. Highway U.S. 50. Construction of roads between California and Nevada improved access to Lake Tahoe and facilitated its development as a resort area. Since the late 1940s, recreational use of the Lake Tahoe Basin and legalized gambling in Nevada has attracted large numbers of tourists and permanent residents to the area. Overall development of the area facilitated the growth of cities such as South Lake Tahoe, which was incorporated in 1965.

3.5.1.4 Project Cultural Surveys The project APE was surveyed by Lindström and Rucks (2002) and Rushing (CTC 2005a). These investigations identified 41 cultural resources in the APE (Lindström and Rucks 2002, CTC 2005a). The prehistoric sites within the APE include bedrock milling stations, flake scatters, and isolated flakes or tools. The historic cultural resources include fence lines, roads, trash scatters, and isolated artifacts. ENTRIX also requested a sacred lands search from the NAHC in December 2008. The sacred lands search completed on December 23, 2008 by the NAHC did not identify any sensitive Native American cultural resources within or near the Project Area.

ENTRIX (CTC 2010) determined that nine of the 41 sites identified within the Project APE are in locations that could be impacted by currently Proposed Project related activity (Table 3.5.1). Consequently, ENTRIX

126 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT recommended the significance and eligibility of these sites for inclusion in the NRHP and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) following appropriate criteria and in relation to appropriate historic themes. Table 3.5-1 presents the eligibility recommendations for the sites.

Subsequent discussions with SHPO during the Section 106 consultation process resulted in identifying 3 additional sites that might be affected by the project activities (FS 05-19-99-0575, FS 05-19-0557, and FS 05- 19-99-1274), for a total of 12 sites within the APE. Of these 3 additional sites that might be affected, 2 of the sites are considered to be potentially eligible. The site numbers for the two additional heritage resources in the project area which will be treated as potentially eligible are FS 05-19-0575 and FS 05-19-0557.

A search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley database was completed for the Project Area and surrounding area. The database search did not identify any paleontological resources within or adjacent to the Project Area.

Table 3.5-1 Sites Located in the Impact Areas in the Project Area or APE and Their Eligibility for the NRHP and CRHR

Site No. Period Site Type NRHP Eligibility CRHR Eligibility 58/FS-05-19-1206 Prehistoric Milling Yes Yes 61/FS-05-19-1205 Historic Road No No SS01/ FS-05-19-1208 Historic Fence No No SS13/ FS-05-19-1204 Historic Ditch No No SS14/ FS-05-19-1203 Historic Skid trail No No SS15/FS-05-19-1202 Historic Skid trail No No SS21/FS-05-19-1201 Historic Stables No No Conservancy Bike Trail #5/ Yes Prehistoric Milling Yes Site 34/ FS-05-19-1207 FS-05-19-0915 Prehistoric Milling Yes Yes FS-05-19-99-0575 Prehistoric Milling Yes Yes FS-05-19-0557 Prehistoric Milling Yes Yes FS-05-19-99-1274 Historic Skid trail No No

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences/ Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project Alternative The No Action/No Project Alternative is the future condition without the Proposed Project. Under this alternative, no work would be performed in the Project Area.

The No Action/No Project Alternative would result in no physical changes or land use changes to the Project Area. Because Site 58/FS-05-19-1206 is currently affected by stream erosion, the No Action/No Project Alternative would allow for continued stream erosion in this area, which may cause scour around the site over the long-term. This site is well protected by floodplain vegetation currently, so additional erosion is not anticipated to undermine the site or cause impacts to its current condition. Therefore, the No Action/No Project Alternative could potentially affect Site 58/FS-05-19-1206 over the long-term, however these impacts would not be significant. The no project alternative will not impact cultural resources sites in the project area, it will therefore not contribute to cumulative effects to these resources, and no cumulative effects to cultural resources would result.

ENTRIX, INC. 127 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences/ Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project The Project Area contains nine (9) reported cultural resources (Table 3.5-1) that could be affected by Project activity. The Proposed Project incorporates design features, BMPs, and control measures (described below and in Section 2.4.1.11, CR-1 to CR-4) to reduce or eliminate potential construction impacts to cultural resources.

3.5.3.1 Historic Sites There are six (6) historic sites within the APE. The eligibility of these resources for inclusion in the NRHP and CRHR was determined following Federal and State regulatory guidance. These resources are not considered significant; therefore no special protections are required. Regardless, the Proposed Project has incorporated design features, BMPs and control measures to avoid or eliminate potential impacts (described in Section 2.4.1.11). Any known sites within the Project Area that are near access routes, staging areas or construction areas will be flagged, fenced off, and avoided during project implementation (CR-1). If new cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features) are discovered during construction, then work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery, the CTC and LTBMU Cultural Resource Specialists shall be notified, and a professional archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards and Guidelines (CFR, 36 CFR Part 61) in archaeology and/or history shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery (CR-2). Implementation of these control measures would reduce this potential impact to less than significant.

3.5.3.2 Prehistoric Archaeological Sites There are three (3) prehistoric archaeological sites within the Project Area that appear eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and CRHR because they possess the potential to yield information important in regional prehistory. These three sites are FS-05-19-915, Site 58/FS-05-19-1206, and Conservancy Bike Trail #5/Site 34/FS-05-19- 1207.

There are five (5) prehistoric archaeological sites within the APE that appear eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and CRHR because they possess the potential to yield information important in regional prehistory. These five sites are FS 05-19-0915, FS 05-19-1206, FS 05-19-1207, FS 05-19-99-0575, and FS 05-19-0557.

As described above, the Proposed Project incorporates design features, BMPs and control measures to reduce or eliminate potential construction impacts. Flagging and fencing would be installed around these sites and contractors instructed to avoid impacting them (CR-1). Site 58//FS-05-19-1206 (a large boulder with two milling slicks) is embedded in the bank of the existing UTR channel. The boulder is currently becoming undercut by the river and placement of backfill would stabilize it. This would not affect the site. Implementation of the Proposed Project would stabilize and protect Site 58/FS-05-19-1206 from impacts associated with erosion. Therefore, any potential impacts would be less than significant. In order to protect site FS 05-19-1206, which is situated on the bank of the existing UTR channel, this site will also be flagged and avoided. The existing channel backfill will avoid the immediate vicinity surrounding the site, and a shallow depression will be left in the backfilled channel area at this location. Any existing erosion occurring around the site caused by channel flow will be stopped, and the site will be protected in place. Therefore, no adverse effects to heritage resources will result from the project activities.

If previously unknown archaeological resources are encountered during construction, the Proposed Project would follow the Design Features as described in the response for Historical Resources, above (CR-2).

3.5.3.3 Paleontological Resources and Geological Features The Project Area is not reported to contain unique paleontological resources (fossils) or unique geologic features that could be encountered by the Proposed Project activities, and therefore the Proposed Project would have no impact. If previously unknown unique paleontological resources are discovered during Project

128 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT construction, then work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery, the CTC and LTBMU shall be notified, and a professional paleontologist shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery (CR-3).

3.5.3.4 Human Remains The Proposed Project would have no impact on human remains because the Project Area is not reported to contain burials. If previously unknown human remains are discovered during the Proposed Project implementation, then work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery, the CTC and LTBMU shall be notified, and the County Coroner must also be notified, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code (CR-4). If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the NAHC, and the procedures outlined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and CEQA Section 15064.5(d) and (e) shall be followed.

3.5.4 Effects Determination

3.5.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act Determination Following NEPA Section 1508.8, effects are direct and indirect project actions that could impact historic and cultural properties. According to 36 CFR Part 800.16(i) “Effect means alteration to the characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for inclusion in or eligibility for the National Register.” According to CCR 15064.5(b) an effect is a substantial adverse change, which is physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of a historical resource or its surroundings such that its significance is impaired. The Proposed Project has been designed to avoid or have a beneficial effect (e.g., backfill and stabilize Site 58/FS-05-19- 1206) on known cultural resources within the Project APE (CR-1) and to prevent effects if new resources are inadvertently discovered during construction (CR-2, CR-3, and CR-4). With implementation of these design features and construction controls, there would be no significant adverse change or affect on historical or cultural resources.

3.5.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act Determination

Less than CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource X pursuant to §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource X pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique X geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X

ENTRIX, INC. 129 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

a) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would avoid all potentially significant historical resources within the Project Area (CR-1) or limit impacts to less than significant. With the incorporation of appropriate avoidance measures (CR-1) and construction controls (CR-2 through CR-4) into the Proposed Project, impacts on historic properties would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would avoid all potentially significant archaeological resources within the Project Area (CR-1) or limit impacts to less than significant. With the incorporation of appropriate avoidance measures (CR-1) and construction controls (CR-2 through CR-4) into the Proposed Project, impacts on archaeological resources would be less than significant. c) No Impact. There would be no impacts to paleontological resources or unique geologic features because none have been documented in the Project Area. Furthermore, appropriate measures (CR-2 through CR-4) would prevent impacts to resources inadvertently discovered during project implementation through the requirements of these construction practices. Therefore, under CEQA, the Proposed Project would have no impact on paleontological resources and unique geological features. d) No Impact. There would be no impacts to human remains because none have been documented in the Project Area. Furthermore, appropriate measures (CR-2, through CR-4) would prevent impacts to resources inadvertently discovered during project implementation. Therefore, under CEQA, the Proposed Project would have no impact on human remains.

3.5.5 Cumulative Effects and Determination The cumulative effects analysis evaluates the impact of the Proposed Project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Developments and planned land uses would contribute to potential conflicts with cultural and paleontological resources. Proposed and approved projects in the city and county, including the Proposed Project and those projects listed in Table 3.1-1, could impact known and unknown prehistoric and historic resources, human remains, and paleontological resources. Three Five cultural resources sites in the APE are potentially eligible for listing, and all would be flagged and avoided during project implementation. However, as described above, the Proposed Project would avoid two of the three cultural resources and have a beneficial effect on the third cultural resources within the APE. The Proposed Project would reduce or eliminate effects through construction and avoidance measures, including measures that would be implemented in the event of inadvertent discovery of cultural resources, human remains, and paleontological resources during project implementation (CR-1 through CR-4). The Proposed Project would have a beneficial effect on one of the cultural resources within the APE by stabilizing features associated with it. Because the Proposed Project will avoid disturbance and impacts or result in beneficial impacts on to cultural resources, it would not considerably contribute to a cumulative impact to cultural resources within the region.

130 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS This section describes the existing geologic and soils conditions, and analyzes the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on soils and geology. Design features and construction controls are identified to reduce or eliminate potential impacts on geology and soils.

3.6.1 Existing Conditions

3.6.1.1 Geology The geology and soil types vary over the UTR drainage area, from lake and glacial deposits at the lower altitudes, to granitic rocks that make up the high mountain peaks (Rowe and Allander 2000). The Project Area is located in the lower watershed approximately four miles south of Lake Tahoe, and consists of a river channel and floodplain that are bounded on the east by uplands, and on the west by the South Lake Tahoe Airport runway and fence, including the uplands toward Highway U.S. 50. In the UTR drainage area, the river flows through sediment that was deposited from Lake Tahoe during the Quaternary period as a result of a high stand of Lake Tahoe. The sediment deposits are predominantly poorly to moderately sorted silts, sands, and gravels. Just downstream of the Project Area, the valley floor is composed of more recent Holocene lake deposits (USACE 2001 as referenced in CSLT 2008).

3.6.1.2 Soils

Soil Map Units A soil map unit represents an area dominated by one or more major soil types. A map unit is identified and named according to precisely defined properties of the dominant soils. Soil mapping by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service has identified seven soil map units within the Project Area (USDA NRCS 2009) (Figure 3.6-1). The seven soil types are described in the following paragraphs.

Tahoe complex is the most prevalent soil type in the Project Area, extending across much of the valley floor along the UTR and underlying most of the airport. These soils are composed primarily of silt loam and similar fine particles. The soil types found in the Tahoe complex are characterized by the presence of surface or subsurface water, and usually occur in meadows or adjacent to stream channels. These areas tend to be nearly level, and runoff is slow with poor permeability. Drainage is very poor. Associated vegetation includes meadow grasses and scattered lodgepole pine (CTC 2004b). The Tahoe complex soil map unit is classified as “all hydric” (USDA NRCS 2009).

Marla loamy coarse sand (0 to 5 percent slopes) is similar to Tahoe complex, but with a higher percentage of sand. It occurs on outwash terraces and valley flats. It drains somewhat poorly and is moderately permeable. Associated vegetation includes meadow grasses and lodgepole pine. This soil type occurs in the southwest corner of the Project Area. Some channel work would occur in this area. The Marla loamy coarse sand soil map unit is classified as “partially hydric” (USDA NRCS 2009).

Jabu coarse sandy loam (on 0 to 9 percent slopes) develops on granitic alluvium of glacial outwash terraces. It occurs at the south end of the Project Area. It is moderately well drained, with moderate permeability in the subsoils and slight to moderate erodibility. Associated vegetation is coniferous forest with an understory of shrubs. A small portion of channel work would occur in Jabu coarse sandy loam, and one of the proposed staging areas would be located on this soil unit. The Jabu coarse sandy loam map unit is classified as “partially hydric” (USDA NRCS 2009).

Celio loamy coarse sand (0 to 5 percent slopes) occurs on outwash terraces and valley flats. It drains poorly but is highly permeable. Associated vegetation includes meadow grasses and lodgepole pine. A small patch

ENTRIX, INC. 131 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

exists at the extreme south end of the Project Area, at the former site of the Elks Club building. One of the proposed staging areas would be on this site. The Celio loamy coarse sand map unit is classified as “partially hydric” (USDA NRCS 2009).

The Gefo gravelly loamy coarse sand (2 to 9 percent slopes) occurs along the southwest side of the Project Area, between the toe of the slopes on the east side of Twin Peaks and the west edge of the meadow (Figure 3.6-1). A small patch occurs just south of the Lake Tahoe Airport. This soil develops on granitic alluvium (glacial outwash and alluvial fans). It is characterized by excessive drainage and very rapid permeability, and slight to moderate erodibility. Land uses include home sites, range, and timber. Associated vegetation includes sagebrush, bitterbrush, Jeffrey pine, and perennial grasses. This soil unit hosts the former stable site and a portion of one of the proposed staging areas. The Gefo gravelly loamy coarse sand map unit is classified as “partially hydric” (USDA NRCS 2009).

Ubaj sandy loam (0 to 9 percent slopes), moderately fine subsoil, occurs along the eastern portion of the Project Area. It is moderately well drained, with slight to moderate erodibility. Associated vegetation is coniferous forest with an understory of shrubs. Much of the proposed smaller staging areas would be situated primarily on this soil unit. The Ubaj sandy loam map unit is classified as “partially hydric” (USDA NRCS 2009).

Christopher loamy coarse sand makes up a portion of the uplands on the eastern portion of the Project Area. This soil is developed from granitic alluvium or weathered till. Drainage is somewhat excessive, with rapid permeability. Slopes are generally between 9 and 30 percent, but flatter slopes (0 to 9 percent) occur at the southeast corner of the Project Area, where one of the staging areas is proposed. Erodibility is moderate to high on the slopes, and slight to moderate on the flats. Associated vegetation includes coniferous forest, sagebrush, and some perennial grasses. The Christopher loamy coarse sand soil map units are classified as “partially hydric” (USDA NRCS 2009).

Land Capability Classification The USDA uses a soil classification system that correlates the soil types to their suitability for various field crops. Since farming is extremely uncommon in the Lake Tahoe Basin, an alternate regional capability class system was devised by Bailey for the Lake Tahoe Basin (Bailey 1974). Bailey soil capability classes are based on how particular soils react to various land uses. The Bailey capability classes (1 to 7) are assigned based on a combined rating of the following properties:

 Erosion hazard (high, moderate, slight);  Hydrologic soil group (infiltration rates: A – high, B – moderate, C – slow, D – very slow, with high runoff rate);  Soil drainage;  Rockiness, stoniness; and  Geomorphic unit (usable, unusable, hazard rating). The 50% Draft Project Design Plans (Appendix E) show the Bailey capability classes of soils in the Project Area. Table 3.6-1 describes the features and recommendations for each class.

132 ENTRIX, INC. E

m

e

r

a

l

d

B

Lake a Tahoe y 15000 R 14000

d

.

N E C V A A L D IF O A R N IA

16000

T 7541 R

O

P

R I 18000 A 17000

E

Cagwin and Toem rock outcrop complexes O 5 - 50% slopes H A 7041

T

E

K A 19000 L 7031

7451 20000

7441

21000

22000 7442

23000 50 7471

24000

l i a r T

r e e n o i P 25000 7541 7461 7451

26000

27000 Miscellaneous sandy / loamy soils 7441 0 - 50% slopes

7431

28000

Project Boundary Soils* Upper Truckee River 7431 - Celio loamy coarse sand, 7471 - Marla loamy coarse sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes 0 to 5 percent slopes Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restor ation Project 1000-foot River Station 7441 - Christopher loamy coarse sand, 7031 - Pits and dumps 0 to 9 percent slopes Figure 3.6-1 Parcel Boundary 7041 - Tahoe complex, Alignment Based on 7442 - Christopher loamy coarse sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 50% Design Plans 9 to 30 percent slopes Soil Types in the Project Area 7541 - Ubaj sandy loam, Potential Storage/Staging 7451 - Gefo gravelly loamy coarse sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes and/or Dewatering Area 2 to 9 percent slopes 500 250 0 500 Feet Potential Haul Route 7461 - Jabu coarse sandy loam, 0 to 9 percent slopes Projection: California Stateplane, Zone 2 Datum: NAD 83 3/25/11 *SOURCE: Adapted from SURGO data, NRCS, USDA.

Z:\GIS\Entrix\3089102_SunsetStables\map\mxd\EA\SS_Soils_11i17i.mxd FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.6-1 Description and Uses of Bailey Capability Classes.

Class Use and Management Recommendations High hazard class. Some areas with high slopes and fragile environmental balance, with unique plants and animals. Other areas low-lying meadows and/or swampy. Scenic value. Should remain in their natural condition or allow for protection and improvement of visual, wildlife, 1a, 1b, 1c and watershed values. Access facilities should be restricted generally to foot and horse trails. Mountain bikes should be excluded. Recreational use should be dispersed and generally limited to hiking, backcountry camping, and fishing. Not appropriate for intensive commercial resource use. Moderate hazard class. Characterized by moderately steep mountain slopes that allows only limited uses. Provide scenic value for low-hazard 3, 4 areas. Access should be by low standard roads and trails. Recreation use may be varied and concentrated, including campgrounds, picnic areas, and winter sports sites. Low-density housing may be permitted where appropriate, as well as limited harvest of forest products. Low hazard class. Characterized by areas of gently sloping foothills and plains with deep soils. Generally suitable for various development activities as well as for concentrated public occupancy. Access should be by high-standard roads and trails. This land may support most kinds 5, 6, 7 of intensive or mass recreational use if developed judiciously and sensitively. Typical facilities include campgrounds, organizational camp sites, recreational residence, hotels, and resort or other commercial services. Limited commercial resource use is appropriate where it will not detract from other values. Source: Bailey 1974.

Bailey capability classes 1a, 1b and 1c have the least tolerance for developed land use. The Tahoe complex and Marla loamy coarse sand are class 1b, which occurs on the valley floor adjacent to the UTR. These soils have poor natural drainage, except within the river or stream channels. Use of areas with soil capability class 1b is limited due to high disturbance hazard. The new channel to be constructed under the Proposed Project would be located on these soils. This use is consistent with the management recommendations in Table 3.6-1.

Bailey capability classes 3 and 4 have moderate hazard for developed land use. Christopher loamy coarse sand on 9 to 30 percent slopes is classified as Bailey capability class 4. These soils are located along the eastern edge of the Project Area, much of it within residential land use. There would be no Project activity on these soils.

Bailey classes 5, 6, and 7 are low hazard areas. The remaining soil units in the Project Area not mentioned above are class 5 or 6. All of the temporary staging/storage areas would be on Bailey capability class 5 or class 6 land. These uses would be consistent with management recommendations.

3.6.1.3 Seismicity The Lake Tahoe Basin is located in an area of low to moderate seismicity (CGS 2008). Active faults in the area include the North Tahoe and East Tahoe faults beneath Lake Tahoe, and the Genoa-Carson Range Fault System in the east.

The Project Area is traversed by two unnamed faults. Although the precise location, sense of motion, and timing of activity along the faults are uncertain, the faults are mapped in areas underlying Quaternary lake terrace deposits and glacial deposits. The mapping suggests that the faults have been active since the formation was deposited (i.e., within the last 1.6 million years). The more northerly of the faults trends northeastward and extends from the northern margin of Twin Peaks and across the UTR valley, just north of the South Lake Tahoe Airport. Although the fault is not mapped (presumably due to lack of substantial evidence) within the Quaternary floodplain deposits of UTR, the projection of the fault trace crosses this unit.

The second and more southerly fault also trends northeastward, running parallel to the northerly fault. The alignment of the fault, as mapped, traverses the pre-Tahoe glacial till ridge along the Project Area’s eastern edge. The fault also is mapped across Lake Terrace deposits in the area between the channels of Bijou and Heavenly Valley Creeks.

ENTRIX, INC. 135 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.6.1.4 River Channel and Banks This section describes the existing UTR channel characteristics as they relate to geology and soils (TRCD 2003, CTC 2004b and 2008c). The channel in the Project Area (Reaches 5 and 6) has experienced incision (i.e., become deeper) and subsequent bank widening, resulting in increased channel capacity compared to historic conditions (CTC 2004b and 2008c). Consequently, the floodplain meadow is rarely inundated in many areas, and the river is increasingly hydrologically disconnected from the historic floodplain. The bank height channel depth within riffle and pool habitats sections in Reaches 5 and 6 can average 5.4 5.5 to 5.7 feet. , with one section that averages 6.5 feet. Channel deepening and widening throughout the UTR has over- steepened channel banks, resulting in increased delivery of fine-grained sediment to the channel and Lake Tahoe, and diminished aquatic habitat.

The rate of channel migration and bank erosion is affected by the underlying geology. Channel banks are stratified with fine-grained lacustrine sediment overlain by alluvial deposits (Simon et al. 2003, CTC 2007e). The banks are predominantly sand (53 percent), with silt (38 percent) and some clay (8 percent) (CTC 2007e). Typical of other stream channels in watersheds producing weathered granite (Parker 2004), the channel substrate in Reaches 5 and 6 is transitional between sand and gravel, with the median bed surface grain size ranging from fine to medium gravel (4 mm to 16 mm). The bedload is a mix of sand and gravel, with coarse sand composing the greatest percentage of material transported.

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project Alternative The No Action/No Project Alternative is the future condition without the Proposed Project. Under this alternative, no restoration work would be performed in the Project Area. The proposed vegetation management activities listed in Table 3.1-1 would still be conducted; however the geology and soils of the area would be similar to existing conditions. Deepening of the channel and continued contribution of sediments to the river and lake would likely occur. This condition would not be consistent with ongoing programs to stabilize river channels and abate erosion and sedimentation in SEZs and Lake Tahoe. Because no construction activities would occur, the No Action/No Project Alternative would not result in direct, indirect or cumulative effects to geology or soil resources.

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project Temporary exposure of soil to erosion would be expected during construction. Land would be disturbed for access roads (approximately 4.5 acres for roads approximately 12-14 feet wide, approximately two miles long on SEZ land, and approximately one mile long on uplands), staging areas (approximately 4 to 6 acres), knocking over trees with intact rootwads for use in bank stabilization structures, and excavation of the new channel. Access roads and the Sunset Stables staging area may require localized grading to level the surface. These areas would be restored to the pre-existing topography after project implementation is complete and the disturbed areas are no longer needed. Channel construction would involve excavation, management of stockpiled material, and backfill placement of material in the abandoned former stream channel. Soil erosion could occur in construction zones, along access routes, in tree removal areas, and in staging areas that have been cleared of vegetation. The potential for soil erosion would increase during months of high precipitation and run-off, especially if vegetation has not yet been established.

In addition, some limited soil compaction may result from construction along the new channel alignment where the equipment is positioned on the banks for excavation and construction of bed and bank protection measures. This would be limited to the working pad along the new river channel, and would be reduced by operating on landing mats, or an approved alternative, to protect underlying vegetation and soils.

The Proposed Project has incorporated several design features, BMPs, and control measures to reduce the temporary direct effects of construction activities, as detailed in Section 2.4.3.11. In addition excavation and

136 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT grading activities would comply with all ordinances and standard conditions established by jurisdictional agencies, including TRPA, Regional Board, USACE, and CDFG. Earthwork would be confined to designated construction areas (GHWQ-2). Erosion control measures may include but will not be limited to: silt fences, straw wattles, water filled berms, mulching, settling basins, dewatering pumps, gravel/sand bags, stormwater drainage system, construction fencing, and revegetation. Excavated material, including brush and trees, would be stockpiled at the former Sunset Stables and maintained to control runoff and erosion (GHWQ-7) while vegetation along the new channel is seasoning. Due to concerns about the invasive plant cheat grass, portions of the Sunset Stables site may also be paved or otherwise covered temporarily during use. The disturbed sites would be stabilized appropriately to prevent sediment delivery into surface waters (GHWQ-11). All disturbed or filled areas would be graded and revegetated following completion of all construction activities (GHWQ- 11). Tree removal activities would be located primarily in areas at a distance from the existing UTR flow, along the new channel alignment. Disturbance caused by tree removal activities would be localized, and consist of displacing and loosening surface soils. Additionally, erosion hazards would be avoided and minimized by implementing construction controls to address stormwater runoff and reduce erosion at the construction site (GHWQ-1).

Diverting the UTR into the new channel would result in sediment transport of material in the channel and some adjustments of the banks, which is to be expected. Natural processes of erosion and sediment deposition would continue to act on the constructed channel, resulting in some extent of bank erosion and channel adjustments over time. Potential effects of the Proposed Project on channel erosion and geomorphology are discussed further in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.

3.6.4 Effects Determination

3.6.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act Determination The Proposed Project would have the potential to introduce sediments into the UTR during construction in the event of a large flood event or during temporary crossing installation and removal, and initial introduction of water into the new channel. Land would be disturbed for access roads, staging areas, tree removal, and excavation of the new channel. Channel construction would involve excavation and management of excavated materials. Soil erosion could occur in construction zones, along access routes, and in staging areas that have been cleared of vegetation. The potential for soil erosion would increase during months of high precipitation and run-off, especially if vegetation has not yet been established. However, this direct impact would be reduced with incorporation of construction controls (design features) and BMPs summarized above and described in more detail in Section 2.4.3.11. With implementation of these BMPs and control measures, construction and operation of the new channel would not have significant effects on soil erosion, soil loss, compaction or bank erosion or failure. As the new channel would function in a more geomorphically stable manner that would be capable of withstanding floods and transporting sediment without either aggrading or degrading, no significant adverse effects would occur to geology or soil resources.

ENTRIX, INC. 137 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.6.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act Determination

Less than GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk X of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist X for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv. Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, X subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code X (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste X water? a) No Impact. The Proposed Project is a stream and habitat restoration project in the valley along the UTR. It would not involve construction of homes or other building structures that would expose people to risk of loss, injury or death from earthquake faults, ground shaking, liquefaction or landslides. It would not affect hill slopes or threaten any existing houses, buildings or other structures. Therefore, the potential for increasing the exposure of people or structures to harm related to unstable earth conditions or seismic activity is non-existent and there would be no impact. b) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would have the potential to introduce sediments into the UTR during construction, initial re-watering of the new channel, and the first flush of the new channel. Land would be disturbed for access roads, staging areas, and excavation of the new channel. Channel construction would involve excavation and management of excavated materials. Soil erosion could occur in construction zones, along access routes, and in staging areas that have been cleared of vegetation. The potential for soil erosion would increase during months of high precipitation and run-off, especially if vegetation has not yet been established. Section 3.6.3 presents a detailed assessment of potential soil erosion impacts. Soil erosion impacts would be reduced with incorporation of construction controls, design features, and BMPs summarized above and in Section 2.4.3.11. With implementation of these measures temporary construction activities would not have a significant effect on soil loss or erosion, and the new channel’s impacts on soil erosion and bank erosion or failure would be less than significant. c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not involve building homes or structures that could be affected by unstable soils. As described above in Section 3.6.3, the new river channel would be built in an existing floodplain and will be subject to natural erosion but would be capable of withstanding floods and transporting sediment without either aggrading or degrading at rates outside of what would be normally expected; any excessive erosion or bank failure would be addressed by construction controls (design features) and BMPs. Excavation and operation of the new river channel would not affect or be affected significantly by landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The Proposed Project is restoring an existing feature that is inherently compatible with the geological unit and soils on the site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts related to stability of the geologic unit.

138 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT d) No Impact. No structures are proposed that would be adversely affected by expansion or contraction of soil, and therefore the Proposed Project would have no impact regarding risks to life or property. e) No Impact. The Proposed Project does not include the construction of septic systems and therefore would have no impact on operation of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.

3.6.5 Cumulative Effects and Determination As cumulative impacts need only be analyzed only for those thresholds that result in a potential impact (e.g., less than significant or significant and unavoidable), this cumulative impact analysis focuses on the potential cumulative impacts associated with substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Many of the reasonably foreseeable projects in the watershed (Table 3.1-1) would repair and restore streams, wetlands, and riparian habitats. These include the planned Golf Course Restoration Project immediately upstream, the UTR Middle Reach Restoration Project (Reaches 3 and 4) immediately downstream (recently constructed but not connected), the planned UTR Middle Reaches 1 and 2 Stream Restoration Project further downstream, and the planned Upper Truckee River and Marsh Restoration Project (UTR Marsh Project) at the confluence of the river and Lake Tahoe. These projects would involve increasing overbank flow, reducing the UTR channel capacity, and increasing the sinuosity to mimic natural fluvial processes. All the projects planned in this watershed, including the Proposed Project, would implement similar erosion and runoff control measures. In addition, managers and design teams representing each restoration project have and would continue to maintain very close coordination regarding monitoring, planning and implementation to avoid scheduling conflicts and the potential for overlapping construction impacts. As a result of this coordination and the design and implementation of on-site, project-specific construction controls, they would not result in cumulative effects to geology or soil resources.

Implementation of the Proposed Project could result in potential to introduce sediments into the UTR during construction and initial re-watering of the new channel and during the first flush of the new channel. The Proposed Project includes design features, construction controls and other BMPs for erosion and runoff (GHWQ-1 through GHWQ-14) that have been built in to correct short-term impacts and avoid long-term impacts associated with soil loss, compaction and erosion.

The cumulative effect of projects in the area (Table 3.1-1) would likely have a beneficial long-term overall effect on stream channel erosion rates within the UTR and Lake Tahoe. These benefits would be substantial relative to the No Project/No Action Alternative, but largely limited to each respective project area. Consequently, with implementation of the regulatory compliance requirements, design features, construction controls and BMPs identified above and in Section 2.4.3.11 of this document the Proposed Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact to geology and soil resources. The proposed Project would add to a cumulative beneficial effect of other restoration and water quality projects within the Tahoe Basin.

ENTRIX, INC. 139 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

This page intentionally left blank

140 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (Health and Safety Code, Section 38505[g]). The most common GHGs that result from human activity are CO2, followed by CH4 and N2O (OPR 2008). This section evaluates the Proposed Project’s emissions to determine individual and cumulative effects in relation to established thresholds of significance.

3.7.1 Existing Conditions The environmental setting for GHG emissions and climate change is larger than the immediate Project Area. The sections below describe the context for climate change and the properties of GHGs to affect climate change.

3.7.1.1 Common GHGs

The three most common GHGs (CO2, CH4, and N2O) and their potential environmental effects are described below.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) In nature, carbon is cycled between various atmospheric, oceanic, land biotic, marine biotic, and mineral reservoirs. Atmospheric CO2 is part of this global carbon cycle. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increased from 278 ppm by volume in pre-industrial times to 365 ppm by volume in 1998, a 31 percent increase. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes that “this concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years, and likely not during the past 20 million years. The rate of increase over the past century is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000 years.” The IPCC definitively states that “the present atmospheric CO2 increase is caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2” (USEPA 2010).

Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a quantified measure of the globally averaged relative radiative forcing impacts of a particular GHG. It is defined as the cumulative radiative forcing both direct and indirect effects integrated over a period of time from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to a reference gas. CO2 is the reference gas with a GWP of unity (1). Carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) are calculated by summing the products of mass GHG emissions by species times their respective GWP coefficients (USEPA 2010).

Methane (CH4)

CH4 is primarily produced through anaerobic decomposition of organic matter in biological systems. Agricultural processes such as wetland rice cultivation, enteric fermentation in animals, and the decomposition of animal wastes emit CH4, as does the decomposition of municipal solid wastes. CH4 is also emitted during the production and distribution of natural gas and petroleum, and is released as a byproduct of coal mining and incomplete fossil fuel combustion. Atmospheric CH4 concentrations have increased by about 150 percent since preindustrial times, although the rate of increase has been declining. The IPCC has estimated that slightly more than half of the current CH4 flux to the atmosphere is anthropogenic from human activities such as agriculture, fossil fuel use, and waste disposal. The GWP coefficient of CH4 is 21 (USEPA 2010).

Nitrous Oxide (N2O)

Anthropogenic sources of N2O emissions include agricultural soils, especially the use of synthetic and manure fertilizers; fossil fuel combustion, especially from mobile combustion; adipic (nylon) and nitric acid production; wastewater treatment and waste combustion; and biomass burning. The atmospheric concentration of N2O has increased by 16 percent since 1750, from a preindustrial value of about 270 parts

ENTRIX, INC. 141 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

per billion to 314 parts per billion in 1998, a concentration that has not been exceeded during the last thousand years. The GWP coefficient of N2O is 310 (USEPA 2010).

3.7.1.2 Climate Change In its most recent report (Fourth Assessment Report), IPCC stated that warming of the Earth’s climate is unequivocal and that warming is very likely attributable to increases in atmospheric GHGs caused by human activities. IPCC further stated that changes in many physical and biological systems, such as increases in global temperatures, more frequent heat waves, rising sea levels, coastal flooding, loss of wildlife habitat, spread of infectious disease, and other potential environmental impacts are linked to changes in the climate system, and that some changes might be irreversible.

In 2008, the USFS stated that climate change could result in changes in the timing, location, and quantity of precipitation; and increased frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, and floods. The USFS stated further that these changes will vary regionally and affect renewable resources, aquatic, and terrestrial ecosystems, and agriculture, and that while uncertainties exist, trends indicate that continued increases in GHG emissions will lead to increased climate change (USFS 2008c).

The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Because CO2 is the reference gas for climate change, measures of non-CO2 GHGs are converted into CO2-equivalent values based on their potential to absorb heat in the atmosphere, referred to as GWP (USEPA 2010). Table 3.7-1 shows aggregated 3 U.S. and California CO2e emissions for fossil fuel combustion in units of million metric tonnes (MMT) . As shown below, California accounts for about seven percent of fossil fuel CO2e emissions in the U.S. annually.

Because the project area is primarily meadow and forested land, it is currently a sink for greenhouse gases rather than a contributor to emissions.

Table 3.7-1 Estimated GHG Emissions from Fuel Combustion.

National California Summary Year MMT CO2e MMT CO2 e 2000 5,671 397 2001 5,593 412 2002 5,652 410 2003 5,705 408 2004 5,770 418 2005 5,814 409 2006 5,710 406 2007 5,811 412 2008 5,622 408 9-Year Average 5,705 409 Average Annual Variation 1.1% 0.9% Sources: USEPA 2010, CARB 2010b

3.7.2 Greenhouse Gas Statutes and Program Currently, there are no local, state, or federal regulatory standards relating to GHG emissions from temporary sources such as construction projects that would have no quantifiable long-term operational emissions.

3 A metric tonne is 1,000 kilograms or 2,204.6 pounds (1.1023 short tons)

142 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.7.3 Methodology GHGs would result from engine exhaust emissions caused by operation of off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicles. Short-term construction emissions of ROG, NOX, or PM10 were modeled using the Road Construction Emissions Model (RCEM), Version 6.3.2 (SMAQMD 2009) worksheet which utilizes CARB EMFAC 2007 and OFFROAD 2007 exhaust emission factors. The spreadsheet model (contained in Appendix K) is designed to estimate construction emissions for road construction projects and allows for the input of project-specific information. Input parameters were based on default model settings and information provided in Chapter 2, “Project Description.” As RCEM calculates emissions of CO2 only; emissions of CH4 and N2O for determination of CO2e are factored from USEPA (2010) to yield the results presented below. For the purpose of the modeling the shortest construction period was assumed (four years). This scenario would result in the most rapid releases of emissions for the Project and therefore represents the worst case scenario.

3.7.3.1 Estimated Emissions

Based on the modeling conducted, project construction would result in aggregate CO2 emissions of approximately 761 tons (690 metric tonnes) if all construction occurred over a period of four years. Factoring CH4 and N2O emissions using USEPA coefficients, CO2e would be approximately 769 tons (697 metric tonnes). Model outputs are included in Appendix K. As described above, there are no applicable GHG thresholds for this type of construction-only project of a nonstationary source which is not a land development project. Annualized over four years, these estimated CO2e emissions represent about 0.00003 percent of the state inventory and about 0.000002 percent of the national inventory for fuel combustion, which is negligible.

3.7.4 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project Alternative The USFS (2009) policy on climate change states that the No Action alternative can be used to compare emissions; however, because it is not possible to predict the effects of a single project on global climate change, a baseline comparison cannot be made. The No Action/No Project Alternative would not involve construction and would not emit any GHGs, and therefore would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on GHG emissions.

3.7.5 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project During construction, the Proposed Project would temporarily cause GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels (i.e., diesel, gasoline) used to run construction equipment and vehicles, both on site and off site. As described in the Methodology section above, this analysis assumes construction of the Proposed Project would occur over a four-month period during four successive summers (e.g., the worst-case scenario). During construction, a very small net increase in GHG emissions would result from engine exhaust from construction equipment and worker trips. The GHG emissions would predominantly occur as carbon dioxide from diesel engine exhaust. While emissions of other GHGs such as methane and nitrous oxide are contributors to global climate change, emission levels of these GHGs would be minimal compared with CO2, less than one percent of overall CO2e. While any increase in GHG emissions could affect climate change, construction emissions would be a temporary negligible effect. No emissions would occur after construction.

Although it may be possible to quantify direct effects on GHG and carbon sequestration, there is no certainty regarding the intensity of a single project’s indirect effects on global climate change. There are currently no local, state or federal statutes, regulatory standards, or policy direction on the significance of such effects from construction-only projects. Until meaningful, accepted thresholds are adopted, it is not possible to determine whether a specific project would have a significant effect.

Although the Project would emit GHGs during construction, these emissions would be temporary, with no long-term operational component. Furthermore, in the long term, the Proposed Project would add riparian vegetation along the length of the new river channel and would result in a wetter meadow with denser plant

ENTRIX, INC. 143 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

growth. The ecosystem plays an important role in the carbon cycle: carbon stored in live biomass, dead plant material and soil represents the balance between CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere and its release through respiration, decomposition, and burning. Over longer time periods, vegetation will absorb carbon (USFS 201109). During each year’s vegetation production, the meadow and river corridor vegetation would sequester carbon. Given that the new channel would be designed to remain indefinitely, over time the carbon sequestered by this improved plant growth would offset the Project’s overall CO2 emissions.

3.7.6 Effects Determination

3.7.6.1 National Environmental Policy Act Determination

The Proposed Project would emit about 697 metric tonnes CO2e during construction over a period of four years. These emissions would be temporary, with no long-term operational component. Compared to national and statewide GHG inventories for fuel combustion (Table 3.7-1), construction emissions would be negligible. Since the Proposed Project would not use electric power during operation, there would be no net increase of indirect GHG emissions from utility electric power generation as a result of the Proposed Project. The USFS (2009) has determined it is not currently feasible to quantify the indirect effects of individual (or multiple) projects on global climate change and therefore determinations of significance of effects is infeasible. The USFS evaluates GHG emissions and carbon cycling in proportion to the nature and scope of the action and its potential to affect emissions or be affected by climate change impacts (USFS 201109). For the Proposed Project, the USFS has used a qualitative sequestration analysis for several reasons. The action is a very small scale temporary action in terms of emissions. The purpose of the Proposed Project is environmental restoration of both the Project Area and downstream water quality. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would contribute to carbon sequestration by revegetation and improved riparian plant growth. Based on the size, scope, and purpose of the Proposed Project, it would not have significant effects on GHG emissions or climate change and may be beneficial over the long term.

3.7.6.2 California Environmental Quality Act Determination

Less than GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a X significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of X reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

a) Less than Significant Impact. As described in Section 3.7.2 above, there are no promulgated standards of significance for GHG impacts established under CEQA for construction-only projects. Thus, project emissions are compared against existing GHG inventories for context and evaluated for environmental impacts using a cumulative approach.

Construction emissions would be approximately 697 metric tonnes CO2e occurring over the course of four years. These emissions would be temporary and would permanently cease upon project completion. Compared to national and statewide GHG inventories for fuel combustion (Table 3.7-1), estimated annualized CO2 emissions represent about 0.00003 percent of the state inventory and about 0.000002 percent of the national inventory for fuel combustion, which is negligible. Such small percentage contributions are well within the estimation error of emissions inventories, generally plus or minus 10 percent (CARB 2007).

Although the Proposed Project would emit GHGs during construction, these emissions would be temporary, with no long-term operational component. GHG emissions would be reduced by BMPs and control measures described in Section 2.4.3.11, including improved fuel efficiency (GHG-1) and reduced idling time (GHG-2).

144 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

In the context of statewide emissions, the Project’s contribution to the global impact of climate change would not be substantial. Because construction-related impacts would be temporary and finite in nature and would be offset by carbon sequestration, the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions would be less than significant.

Furthermore, in the long term, the Proposed Project would add riparian vegetation along the length of the new river channel and would result in a wetter meadow with denser plant growth. During each year’s production, the meadow and river corridor vegetation would sequester carbon. Given that the new channel would be designed to remain indefinitely, the carbon sequestered by this improved plant growth would further reduce the Proposed Project’s overall CO2 emissions.

Due to its small temporary scale and GHG construction controls, the Proposed Project would not individually affect the environment or impede the state’s ability to meet its 2020 GHG emission reduction goal; thus, the individual impact would be less than significant with implementation of engine exhaust project control measures contained in Section 2.4.3.11, and the incremental cumulative impact would not be considerable. Impacts would be less than significant. b) No Impact. On a local and statewide basis, agencies in California are in the process of implementing identified strategies to reduce GHG emissions, but there are currently none in place that meet the requirements of GL 15064.4(b)(3).

3.7.7 Cumulative Effects and Determination Cumulative impacts were assessed in a qualitative manner by determining if the Proposed Project would have the potential to contribute to a long-term cumulative impact on climate change. Given that GHG emissions and climate change are global issues, a cumulative approach for consideration of environmental impacts is most appropriate.

When project emissions are viewed in combination with global emissions levels that are contributing to the existing cumulative impact on global climate change, the incremental contribution of the Project emissions would not be cumulatively considerable because they occur in the short term and would be mitigated by carbon sequestration over the long term. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on global climate change. With the implementation of the Proposed Project’s control measures, the Proposed Project’s incremental contribution would be reduced further.

ENTRIX, INC. 145 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

This page intentionally left blank

146 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This section evaluates the potential impacts related to hazardous materials, airport safety, and wildfire in relation to the Proposed Project. For analysis of geologic hazards, see Section 3.6, Geology and Soils. For analysis of flooding hazards, see Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. For analysis of excessive noise exposure to Project personnel working near the airport, see Section 3.10, Noise.

3.8.1 Existing Condition

3.8.1.1 Hazardous Materials Sites This assessment uses the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) definition of “recognized environmental conditions” (i.e., hazardous materials sites), which are indicated by “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substance or petroleum product on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release into structures on the property or into the soil, groundwater or surface water of the property” (ASTM, n.d.). Hazardous materials, particularly petroleum products, can migrate naturally from offsite sources into onsite soils and groundwater. The Proposed Project requires a large amount of soil excavation, hauling of soil material, and stockpiling of soil material. If those soils are contaminated, they can pose a health hazard through direct contact or inhalation of airborne fumes or dust.

As part of the due-diligence investigation for this assessment, ENTRIX initiated database searches to determine the locations of potentially contaminated soils or groundwater in or near the Project Area. These searches resulted in identification of four known releases and four existing fuel/oil storage tank sites within one-quarter mile of the Project boundary (Table 3.8-1 and Table 3.8-2). No hazardous materials storage or dump sites, past or present, were identified within the Project Area (EDR 2008, DTSC 2010, SWRCB 2010a, CalEPA 2010).

The nearest school is Lake Tahoe Environmental Science Magnet, located at 1095 San Bernardino Avenue, approximately 1.25 miles southwest of the Proposed Project (CDE 2010).

Table 3.8-1 Leak and spill incidents within one-quarter mile of the Project.

Site Name (property #) Address Report Date Status Summary and Contaminants of Concern Lake Tahoe Airport (1) 1901 Emerald Bay Road 9/9/2009 Undergoing Former leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site. Not within Project Area remediation Diesel and gasoline in soil, left over from UST removal in 1994. Lake Tahoe Airport (1) 1901 Emerald Bay Road 6/30/1988 Case closed Site screening done underground vault contained PCB's Not within Project Area RWQCB has determined hazard is mitigated. Oasis Aviation (2) 1841 Airport Road 7/6/2004 Case closed Leaking UST (LUST). Groundwater contamination from Not within Project Area jet fuel and MTBE released in 1992. Soils excavated and disposed offsite. Ongoing monitoring. Lake Tahoe Golf Course (3) 2500 Emerald Bay Road Unavailable Case closed Leaking UST (LUST). Contaminant type and quantity Not within Project Area unavailable.

Source: EDR 2008, SWRCB 2010a

ENTRIX, INC. 147 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.8-2 Existing aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and underground storage tanks (USTs) within one- quarter mile of the Project.

Site Name (Property #) Address Site Summary Lake Tahoe Airport (1) 1901 Emerald Bay Road Several USTs and/or ASTs containing various fuels and oil Not within Project Area Oasis Aviation (2) 1841 Airport Road One AST and one UST, contents unreported Not within Project Area Lake Tahoe Golf Course (3) 2500 Emerald Bay Road One UST containing motor vehicle fuel Not within Project Area Tahoe Mohawk Service (6) Highway U.S. 50 Airport One UST, contents unreported Not within Project Area Source: EDR 2008, SWRCB 2010a

3.8.1.2 South Tahoe Public Utility District Sewer Facilities The STPUD holds easements for location and access to its sanitary sewer collector lines (gravity-fed), water line (pressurized line), and back-up effluent export line (also called “force main export line”) in the Project Area. The main collector line and the back-up effluent export line run along the eastern side of the meadow and cross the river where the river channel runs east. The water line and several gravity sewer lines from adjacent parcels also cross the river channel. There are four places where sewer and water lines cross the UTR in the Project Area. The utilities are shown on Figure 2-1.

There are no gas or electric facilities within the Project Area.

3.8.1.3 Airport The Lake Tahoe Airport is directly west of the Project Area, and is owned by the City of South Lake Tahoe. The airport allows small planes and jets to land at the airport. No formal commercial service is currently operating at the airport beyond a helicopter tour operation. The airport facilities include a terminal building. An adjacent maintenance facility houses airport equipment. The airport has 53 hangars for airport tenants to store their aircrafts. A Fixed Base Operator (FBO) is located onsite. The FBO provides refueling and other services to transient aircraft. The FBO also operates three hangars to store aircraft. A large hangar has recently been converted to a South Lake Tahoe Fire Station.

CTC staff met with the City of South Lake Tahoe Airport Manager, Sheri Miller, in November 2009 to discuss the Proposed Project. Ms. Miller did not foresee any significant issues in terms of airport operations or safety, and indicated that she would provide a letter to the FAA as well as file a Form 7460-1 (Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration). In addition, Ms. Miller indicated the Proposed Project would not require preparation of a separate Preliminary Wildlife Hazard Assessment (PWHA), but could rely on the Middle Reach (Reach 3 and 4) PWHA findings.

Height Restrictions and Safety Areas An Airport CLUP documents the relationship between the airport and the land uses that surround it, in the context of height, noise, and safety. The total area encompassed by these three safety areas is referred to as the Airport Area of Influence (AAI) (Figure 3.8-1). The Project Area is located entirely within the AAI. Within the AAI, the FAA defines several “Height Restriction Areas,” while the Airport Land Use Commission defines three “Safety Areas.”

Height Restriction Areas are imaginary surfaces that generally slope up and away from all sides of the runway. The pertinent Height Restriction Areas are described in detail in the Airport CLUP and depicted in Figure 3.8-2. The Proposed Project would not exceed the airport’s height restrictions.

148 ENTRIX, INC. SOUTH LAKE TAHOE Lake Tahoe

Lake Tahoe

C A LF I O R N AI N E V A D A

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

Tahoe Valley

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT AREA OF INFLUENCE Safety Area 3

Safety Area 3 Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restoration Project

Lake Tahoe Airport

Safety Area 1 River

Safety Area 3 Safety Area 2

Truckee SS_AirportAreaOfInfluence_8i11i.ai (04/07/2010, 05:28 pm)

Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restoration Project Meyers Figure 3.8-1 Upper Lake Tahoe Airport Area of Influence

4000 2000 0 4000 Feet

SOURCE: El Dorado County, 2009. Topographic map from USGS 7.5’ series, 1994 E

m

e

r

a

l

d

Lake B

a

Tahoe y

14000 15000

R

d

.

N C E A V L A I D F A O A

R R

N I I

A B

A T 16000

“TRANSITIONAL SURFACE” HEIGHT RESTRICTION AREA (7:1 slope from edge of

Primary Surface) 18000 17000

I N

A AK O AO W M H G A HA S O SK I A U T W M N

O

N

N Lake Tahoe Airport Runway “PRIMARY SURFACE” O HEIGHT RESTRICTION AREA 19000

(ground level at runway) KAN SA

20000

T SEMA

Y A M

W I 21000 NGW A E

T

OT

N

A M O C A

A C SAFETY AREA 1 N O 22000 P

A N HEKP E R O B

23000 50

S E L 24000 G A E Y N E E L L L l G A i V a r E T N I r P e e n SAFETY o i AREA 2 25000 P

“TRANSITIONAL SURFACE” HEIGHT RESTRICTION AREA

CH ER S R

E

Y

L 26000 H

I G L

L A E S E 27000 R I N

A E L

L D G E R BI B R E D N U

H

T E N I L

KY Y L S R E V E 28000 A LKS CLUB

W

Project Boundary Airport Safety Areas1 and Height Restriction Areas2

Upper Truckee River Safety Area 1 (Runway Protection Zone/Clear Zone) Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restor ation Project 1000-foot River Station Safety Area 2 (Approach/Departure Zone) Figure 3.8-2 Parcel Boundary Height Restriction Areas (as labeled on map) Notes: Airport Safety Areas Alignment based on 50% design plans 1) Safety Area 3 not shown (applies to entire Project area). and Height Restriction Areas 2) Where the Project area is not covered by the Primary or Transitional surfaces, Potential Haul Route a “Horizontal surface” height restriction applies (150 ft above Primary surface). 500 250 0 500 Temporary Crossing/Bridge Feet Projection: California Stateplane, Zone 2 Datum: NAD 83 3/25/11 SOURCE: Lake Tahoe Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Brand and French, 2007). Map adapted from ENTRIX 1/6/2010 (SS_Prop_Project_Components_11i17i.mxd) (sacramento) ..\PROJECTS\3089102 RESD - Sunset Stables\Sunset_Stables_Graphics\SS_AirportSafetyAreas_11i17i_rw.ai FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Safety Areas are designed to limit activity in and beneath the approach, departure, and overflight paths. The Project Area is overlapped by all three of the airport’s Safety Areas (Figure 3.8-1 and 3.8-2). The following restrictions apply specifically to SEZ restoration activity in the Safety Areas (Brand and French, et al. 2007):

Safety Area 1 (Runway Protection Zone/Clear Zone): SEZ restoration is compatible in Safety Zone 1 as long as it would not result in a possibility of creating ground fog type conditions or a bird hazard; would not result in unapproved uses resulting in a gathering of more than one (1) person per acre at any one time; or would not result in new buildings, structures, fences, aboveground transmission lines or aboveground storage of flammable or explosive materials.

Safety Area 2 (Approach/Departure Zone): SEZ restoration is compatible in Safety Zone 2 only if it would not result in a possibility of creating ground fog type conditions or a bird hazard.

Safety Area 3 (Overflight Zone): SEZ restoration is always compatible in Safety Zone 3, with no conditions.

Other Generalized Limitations for Safety Areas 1 and 2: In addition to the above limitations, the following generalized uses are defined as non-compatible for Safety Areas 1 and 2 combined:4

. Any unapproved use which would direct light (artificial or reflected) toward an aircraft engaged in takeoff or approach;

. Any use which would generate smoke or which could attract large concentrations of birds; and

. Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or airport instrumentation.

Bird Hazards Bird strikes are rare at the airport, with only four bird strikes recorded since 1990 (FAA Wildlife Strike Database 2010). Two of those involved large birds (a red-tailed hawk in one case, ducks in the other).

Preliminary Wildlife Hazard Assessment The FAA requires a PWHA to evaluate potential wildlife hazards to aviation pursuant to FAA Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractions On or Near Airports. A PWHA was completed in 2007 for the City of South Lake Tahoe’s Upper Truckee River Restoration Project, Middle Reaches 3 and 4 (the Airport Reach Project) (CSLT 2007; 2008). Because the Proposed Project is similar to the Airport Reach Project, the Airport Manager did not see a need to complete a new PWHA for the Proposed Project (Miller 2009); the Airport Reach PWHA is incorporated herein by reference.

3.8.1.4 Mosquitoes The climate, topography, and plant communities of the Lake Tahoe Basin provide an abundant number and variety of larval mosquito habitats. Common mosquitoes in the Lake Tahoe Basin include species in the genus Aedes, which breed either in snow melt pools or shallow, grassy meadow pools; species in the genus Culiseta, which breed in ponds, basins, and human-made containers; and Culex tarsalis, the “encephalitis mosquito,” which are found in standing freshwater sources, and can transmit the encephalitis virus (an inflammation of the brain) to humans (EDCDEM 2010a).

4 NOTE: where the generalized guidelines conflict with the SEZ-specific guidelines, the latter take precedent. Furthermore, several generalized guidelines listed in the airport CLUP are not presented here either because they are trumped by the SEZ-specific guidelines or are not relevant to the Project, for example, “new residential development.”

ENTRIX, INC. 153 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

All mosquito species are potential vectors of organisms that can cause disease to pets, domestic animals, wildlife, or humans. Mosquito-borne diseases include encephalitis, malaria, and West Nile virus. Public concern regarding West Nile virus has increased since the virus was first detected in the United States in 1999. A mosquito first acquires West Nile virus by feeding on a bird with the virus, which can then be transmitted to humans through the bite of an infected mosquito. The first evidence of West Nile virus in California was in 2003 and in El Dorado County in 2004 .West Nile virus has recently been detected in two birds in El Dorado County – a Western Scrub-Jay found in the South Lake Tahoe area, and a Swainson’s hawk believed to have been brought into El Dorado County from Mono County. As of September 2, 2010, there have been 34 human cases of West Nile virus reported in California (EDCDEM 2010b).

3.8.2 Methodology For the purpose of the analysis the shortest construction period was assumed (four years). This scenario would result in longer working hours during the construction seasons for the Project and therefore represents the worst case scenario.

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project Alternative The No Action/No Project Alternative would not require the transport or use of hazardous materials and therefore would not risk an accident that would present a hazard to the public. The No Action/No Project Alternative would not affect buried hazardous waste and would not have effects on the adjacent airport. The No Action/No Project Alternative would not close roads or add substantial traffic, nor would it interfere with emergency response or planning. The No Action/No Project Alternative would have no effect on the risk of wildfires. Therefore, the No Action/No Project Alternative would have no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials.

3.8.4 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project

3.8.4.1 Hazardous Materials Construction of the Proposed Project would involve the short term use of hazardous materials, principally diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid and other materials necessary for operation and maintenance of construction equipment. Design features, construction controls and other BMPs have been incorporated into the Project to reduce the risk from hazardous materials during construction. These include implementation of spill prevention and clean-up measures in accordance with the LTBMU Spill Notification and Response Plan for LTBMU lands (HAZ-4), and implementation of the Spill Response section of the SWPPP and Health and Safety Plan (HASP) for any spill or contamination encountered on CTC lands (HAZ-2, HAZ-3, and HAZ-5). Construction vehicles would be serviced in specific upland areas or stabilized areas to prevent accidental spills from reaching unprotected soils or surface water (GHWQ-8). Once construction is completed, the Proposed Project’s operations will not involve the use, transport, disposal or accidental release of hazardous materials.

There are no known hazardous materials to have ever been treated, stored, disposed, spilled or leaked onto the construction site (EDR 2008, SWRCB 2010a, DTSC 2010, CalEPA 2010). Nevertheless, the Proposed Project has incorporated construction controls to address this contingency, if necessary (HAZ-1 through HAZ-10). In the event that undocumented hazardous materials are encountered on site soils or water during construction, standard construction BMPs contained in the SWPPP (HAZ-3) would reduce impacts to less than significant. Such construction controls include stopping work if suspected contamination is encountered to allow evaluation by the Project Engineer for appropriate action (HAZ-2). Any encountered contamination would be addressed, handled and removed in accordance with the SWPPP. Excavated soils deemed hazardous would not be used as backfill material (HAZ-4).

154 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

The Project proposes to excavate near the STPUD sewer line, and modify, the STPUD sewer backup treated effluent line and water lines. Although untreated sewage is not a “hazardous material” pursuant to the EPA’s Domestic Sewage Exclusion (40 CFR 261.4[a][1]), an accidental sewage release would be an issue for water quality (Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality) and public utilities (Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems). To avoid any potential release of sewage, all proposed work near the sewer, backup (containing treated effluent,) and water lines would first be coordinated with STPUD to determine exact location of utility lines prior to construction. Prior to altering the lines, they would be temporarily shut off and drained, capped, and relocated to a lower elevation beneath the new channel thalweg. This step would occur after Labor Day when deliveries and loads in the lines are minimal. In the event of an accidental water or sewer line utility break, the STPUD would be notified immediately and all emergency response procedures required by STPUD would be followed (UTIL-1, UTIL-2).

3.8.4.2 Airport Hazards The Project would not exceed the height restrictions of any of the airport’s Height Restriction Areas; however, some construction activities would occur inside the airport’s Safety Areas. CTC staff met with the City of South Lake Tahoe Airport Manager to discuss the Proposed Project in November 2009. The Airport Manager indicated that she did not see any significant issues in terms of airport operations or safety with the Proposed Project, and forwarded her opinion to FAA along with preliminary plans and a Form 7460-1 (Miller 2009). The Proposed Project would incorporate safety measures for construction activity in Safety Areas, including NOTAM procedures (HAZ-6 and TR-3).

The Proposed Project would change the vegetation in the vicinity of the airport by removing selected conifers in the path of the new channel or access routes, and through the planting of willows. This would not increase the potential for wildlife hazards to the airport from bird strikes as the Proposed Project would remove some tall conifers that could be used as roosts by raptors. The Proposed Project would not increase the risk of strikes from waterfowl because the design does not include increasing suitable waterfowl habitat (e.g. no standing bodies of water). Based on this analysis and observations in the PWHA (CDM 2007), the Proposed Project would not represent a significant airport hazard. For analysis of excessive noise exposure to Project personnel working near the airport, see Section 3.11, Noise.

3.8.4.3 Wildfire Risk Most of the Project Area is vegetated, and construction activity would introduce potential ignition sources. Although the Proposed Project would not build new structures, and there are no structures within the Project Area itself, there are structures immediately adjacent to the Project Area to the east (residential subdivision) and west (airport, businesses, residences). If a wildfire were to occur in the Project Area, the airport runway and roads on the west and south sides of the area would serve as firebreaks, protecting the structures on the west side. However, there are no natural or manmade features on the east and north sides to prevent the spread of fire in those directions. The vegetation between the Project Area and the residential area is continuous, and the residential area contains a dense mix of fuels, primarily houses and coniferous forest. Eliminating sparks and other sources of ignition during construction would be paramount.

The risk of ignition would be minimized by fitting heavy construction equipment and chainsaws with spark arresters (HAZ-7). The dry vegetation and other potential fire fuels shall be cleared, to the extent feasible, in and near work areas and project activities shall be in compliance with the project activity level designation for the implementation time period. Vehicles shall not travel over or park on vegetated areas (HAZ-1). Ignition sources unrelated to Project implementation (e.g. smoking, unless in designated areas, barbecues, stoves, campfires) shall be prohibited (HAZ-8). Post-construction, the Proposed Project would not significantly increase wildfire fuel, nor would it provide an ignition source for wildfires.

ENTRIX, INC. 155 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.8.4.4 Mosquito Hazards The Proposed Project involves construction and modifications to the river channel and floodplain surfaces, including the creation of floodplain features that could provide additional sources of larval mosquito habitats. However, the Proposed Project does not include the creation of new ponds or ponding features that would be suitable for developing larva. In addition the project will be designed with safe and sufficient access for inspection, maintenance, and/or vector control activities when needed. Further, foraging habitat for mosquito predators such as birds, bats, fish and invertebrates would also be enhanced as part of the Proposed Project, which would help to offset any increases in mosquito population. In addition, mosquito surveillance programs are in place throughout El Dorado County, including trapping and testing of mosquitoes, and reporting and testing dead birds and tree squirrels. The Health Services Department has also instituted human surveillance activities, and physicians are encouraged to routinely test human cases of viral meningitis and encephalitis for West Nile virus (ECDEM 2010b). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not significantly increase the potential for exposure of people to mosquito hazards, and impacts would be less than significant.

3.8.5 Effects Determination

3.8.5.1 National Environmental Policy Act Determination Construction of the Proposed Project would involve the short term use of hazardous materials. However, implementation of design features, construction controls and other BMPs (described in Section 2.4 and above) have been incorporated into the Project to reduce the risk from hazardous materials during construction including accidental spills or encountering unanticipated contamination. These measures include implementation of spill prevention and clean-up measures in accordance with LTBMU Spill Notification and Response Plan for LTBMU lands (HAZ-4). Given these preventive and response measures, effects from hazardous materials would not be expected to be adverse. In addition, to prevent release of sewage during construction and to ensure compliance with water quality regulations, the backup effluent export line and water lines that cross the site would be shut down temporarily, avoiding the potential for release of treated wastewater.

In compliance with FAA regulations, CTC staff met with the City of South Lake Tahoe Airport Manager. No significant issues with airport operation or safety were identified, and this information was forwarded to the FAA (Miller 2009).The Project would remove some tall trees, reducing the potential for large raptors in airport Safety Areas. Further, the Project would not create additional waterfowl habitat. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not adversely increase airport hazards.

156 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.8.5.2 California Environmental Quality Act Determination

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than Potentially Significant Impact Less than

Significant with Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine X transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials X into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, X substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a X significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project X result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety X hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response X plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where X residences are intermixed with wildlands?

a) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project would involve the short term use of hazardous materials, principally diesel fuel and hydraulic fluid. Measures have been incorporated into the Project that would reduce the risk from hazardous materials during construction, as described above in Section 3.8.3.1. These include preparation and implementation of a HASP to protect workers’ health during construction (HAZ-1), implementation of the Spill Response section of the SWPPP (HAZ-2, HAZ-5), and stopping work if suspected contamination is encountered to allow evaluation by the Project Engineer for appropriate action (HAZ-2). With implementation of these construction measures and BMPs, impacts from hazardous materials would not create significant hazards to the public or the environment. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

b) Less than Significant Impact. See response to letter ‘a’ above.

c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not create hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school is approximately 1.25 miles from the Proposed Project Area (CDE 2010). Therefore, there would be no impact.

d) No Impact. The Proposed Project is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites. Database searches of lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 found no records to indicate past releases or dump sites on the property. Therefore, no impacts would result from listed hazardous materials sites.

ENTRIX, INC. 157 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

e) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is located within a public airport land use plan. Portions of the Project would be within the Lake Tahoe Airport’s Safety Areas, but it would not result in a significant safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area (see 3.8.3.2 Airport Hazard for explanation). The Project impacts would be less than significant. f) No Impact. No private airports exist in the Project vicinity; therefore, no impacts would occur related to safety hazards at private airports.

g) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No formal plans exist for the Lake Tahoe Basin. However, because most of the Proposed Project’s activities would occur in a remote meadow, the Proposed Project would not result in significant truck trips or impair inspections that would be required to protect residents from wildfires or block major exit routes from the Tahoe Basin. h) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The airport runway and adjacent roads could serve as evacuation routes in the event of a wildfire on the construction site. Further, as part of the Proposed Project, a fire safety plan would be developed and implemented (HAZ-7), spark arresters would be used (HAZ-8), and potential ignition sources (i.e., smoking) would be prohibited (HAZ-9). Upon implementation of these preventive measures, risks from wildfires would be less than significant.

3.8.6 Cumulative Effects and Determination The cumulative effects analysis evaluates the impact of the Proposed Project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that are identified in Table 3.1-1.As the Proposed Project would have no impact (cumulative or otherwise) on the releases of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school, construction on a listed hazardous waste site, construction near a private airport, or impairment of an emergency response or evacuation plan, the cumulative analysis focuses on the potential cumulative effects resulting from the use or transport of hazardous materials, impacts to public airports, and wildfire risks.

The Proposed Project, along with other projects considered for cumulative effects, would likely use and transport hazardous materials and could result in accidental releases from construction equipment. The Proposed Project and projects listed in Table 3.1-1 would require the construction contractor (for the CTC lands) to prepare plans requiring regulatory approval, or the USFS (for NFS lands) would follow their procedures for emergency or non-emergency spill response. In addition, these activities are regulated by Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, and the Division of Industrial Safety. Consequently, as all projects would be required to comply with above regulatory requirements, which mandate the implementation of measures to prevent or respond to hazardous conditions, potential cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials and accidental releases would be less than significant.

As described above, the Proposed Project is located within a public airport land use plan, and when considered with other cumulative projects in the area, it would not result in a significant safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area. Since no significant issues in terms of airport operations or safety are associated with the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project’s contribution to airport safety hazards would not be cumulatively considerable. Potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Although the threat of wildfire exists within the Tahoe Basin, Iimplementation of the Proposed Project and other projects considered for cumulative effects, in the watershed would not likely be on the same schedule as the Proposed Project, reducing the probability of multiple fires. Furthermore, construction and operation of all cumulative projects would be subject to the requirements of the fire department and the California Public Resources Code (Sections 4442, 4428, 4427, 4431and 4291) which impose measures to prevent or respond to wildland fires. In addition fuel reduction programs on Federal lands are addressed by the LTBMU LRMP,

158 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT which guides natural resource management activities on NFS lands. The proposed LTBMU South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project (LTBMU 2009) would reduce hazardous fuel and improve forest health in the wildlandlife-urban intermix, thereby reducing the cumulative effects of wildfire. The CTC has a program for Fuel Hazard Reduction Management to reduce fuels and establish buffers for defensible space in order to minimize fire potential on their lands, conforming to California Public Resource Code Section 4291. In addition the TRPA Regional Plan and Plan Area Statement address TRPA’s goals of long- term preservation and restoration of SEZs, protection and maintenance of plant communities, and preservation and enhancement of wildlife habitats. Consequently, the Proposed Project in combination with the other projects identified in Table 3.1-1 would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with respect to wildland fires.

ENTRIX, INC. 159 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

This page intentionally left blank

160 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section addresses surface and groundwater hydrology, flooding, and groundwater and surface water quality. It describes the regional and local surface water and groundwater resources identified in the Project Area and provides an analysis of potential impacts resulting from the No Action/No Project Alternative and the Proposed Project.

3.9.1 Existing Conditions

3.9.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology The UTR is the principal hydrologic feature within the Project Area. The UTR streamflow has been measured since the 1970s at two USGS gages upstream and downstream of the Sunset Stables Project Area: (1) at Meyers, about ¼ mile downstream of the upper U.S. Hwy 50 crossing and about 3.1 river miles upstream of the Project Area, and (2) just downstream of the lower Highway U.S. 50 crossing at a pedestrian/bicycle bridge (CTC 2008b) and about 2.5 river miles downstream of the Project Area. Streamflow varies greatly over the years and across seasons in a pattern typical of unregulated snowmelt rivers in the Sierra Nevada. Peak runoff occurs between May and June (~200 to 500 cfs), while seasonal low flow takes place between July and November (<25 cfs) (Figures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2). Extremely high runoff can occur with rain-on-snow events, with flows ranging as high as 1,700 to 3,200 cfs.

The Project Area also receives surface runoff from surrounding lands. Drainage outfalls from Highway U.S. 50 to the west and low density housing area to the east direct water into the Project Area. Most drainage from the airport is controlled on-site and is discharged at the north end of the airport property, downstream of the Project Area.

3.9.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology Groundwater is defined as subsurface water that occurs in soils and geologic formations that are fully saturated. The shallow groundwater within the Project Area generally occurs within alluvial/fluvial sediments deposited along the UTR. Groundwater at the margins of the meadow occurs in unconsolidated sediments and weathered rock that lie above bedrock. Groundwater elevations generally parallel the topography within the Project Area, with flows from south to north (i.e., down the valley). In general, groundwater discharges from the bordering meadow into the UTR channel when flow levels drop in the river, and recharges during high flow events from river flows and wetlands (i.e., flooded meadow). However, this reach of the river is characterized (Rowe and Allander 2000) as ‘steady’ (i.e., neither a ‘gaining’ nor ‘losing’ reach) suggesting that the groundwater table and surface flow in the river are generally in balance.

Deepening, or incision, of the UTR channel has lowered the level of subsurface waters in the adjacent meadow areas. Measurement of groundwater levels within the Project Area (September 2005 to September 2009) indicate that late season groundwater levels typically occur at depths about five to seven feet from the ground surface in the meadow areas. This depth is generally below the rooting depth of meadow vegetation, making meadow species vulnerable to drying and early seasonal dormancy. Groundwater elevations were lowest in late summer and fall, rose rapidly in late November, and remained high through May. The seasonal response of the groundwater table reflects the overall recharge of groundwater by both the down valley flow of groundwater and from flow conditions within the river channel. The sub-basin east of the UTR maintains high groundwater levels, which serve as a primary source for domestic water use and public water supplies (CTC 2004a).

ENTRIX, INC. 161 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.9.1.3 Geomorphology Flooding is a function of river flows and channel form, or stream geomorphology. This section summarizes the geomorphology of the UTR in the Project Area, as described in several reports (USACE 2000, TRCD 2003, CTC 2004b and 2008c) and analyzed specifically for the channel design (CTC 2003, 2006, 2007e and 2008c).

The UTR through the Project Area is a single-thread channel, meandering across an alluvial valley floor through a grassy meadow and lodgepole pine forest. Analysis of aerial photographs dating back to the first available photo in 1940 indicates little planform (i.e., map view) change in the position of the river channel in the Sunset Stables area over the past 60-plus years. The existing channel has a low slope (approximately 0.001 percent) with moderate channel sinuosity (1.56), a pattern similar to that of the 1940 channel (sinuosity of 1.55) (USACE 2000 CTC 2004b, TRCD 2003, CTC 2008b). The channel planform in the Project Area has not been altered as radically as river reaches upstream (golf course) and downstream (Reaches 3 and 4 along the airport). However, the existing channel is deeper (incised) and wider than appropriate for the flow regime (CTC 2008c). This has reduced the frequency of overbanking and floodplain inundation. Additionally, incision of the channel has contributed to a significant decrease in groundwater levels in riparian and meadow habitats (SEZs), resulting in encroachment of upland vegetation into the meadow (CTC 2004a, 2005f).

In many alluvial rivers, the flow that appears to exert the greatest influence on channel cross-section size and shape — and thus on overall river geomorphology — is known as the bankfull discharge or channel-forming flow (Wolman and Miller 1960). The channel typically reaches maximum in-channel capacity (i.e. bankfull) and begins inundating the floodplain on average at a 1.5 year recurrence interval flow in natural, dynamically stable channels. The UTR in the Project Area has a 1.5 year recurrence flow of approximately 530 cfs, based on analysis of historic peak annual flows at USGS gages above and below the Sunset Stables reach. Effective discharge calculations based on recent sediment transport analysis were also used as a method of determining the channel-forming flow (CTC 2003, 2008b). The conclusion of these analyses is that the UTR’s channel- forming flow, and the Proposed Project’s design discharge, is approximately 450 cfs. A design flow of 450 cfs (1.4 year recurrence) was selected because it is near both the commonly used 1.5-year recurrence flow (530 cfs for the UTR) and the calculated effective discharge (400 cfs). Based on Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC)-River Analysis System (RAS) modeling of a 450 cfs flow in the existing channel through the Project Area, the mean channel top width is 65 ft, the mean hydraulic depth is 2.8 ft, mean boundary shear stress is 0.18 lb/ft, and the mean channel velocity is 2.5 ft/s (CTC 2008c).

Although the channel-forming flow analysis indicates that the channel should be sized to reach bankfull at about 450 cfs (1.4 -year event), it currently requires between 760 cfs and 1,660 cfs (2- to 5-year event) for floodplain inundation (CTC 2003, CTC 2008b). This condition implies that channel capacity of the UTR is greater than historic conditions, due to channel incision and subsequent bank widening. As a result, the UTR’s floodplain is rarely inundated in many areas, and increasingly hydrologically disconnected from the historic floodplain throughout the entire Project Area. Hydraulic modeling indicates that under existing conditions, only 26 percent (58 acres) of the 220-acre meadow is inundated at 760 cfs (approximately 2-year event flow) (CTC 2008b). Comparison of the existing top-of-bank profile in the Project reach indicates that the current top of bank ranges from 0.75 to 3 feet higher than the modeled 450 cfs existing water surface profile (CTC 2008c). Where the channel is incised 2.5 to 3 ft, a 1,660 cfs flow is required for floodplain inundation, which has a 5-year recurrence interval.

162 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Figure 3.9-1 Annual hydrograph of the Upper Truckee River (1972-2007).

ENTRIX, INC. 163 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Upper Truckee River @ South Lake Tahoe Gage #10336610 Mean Daily Streamflow Timeseries for Water Years 2001-2007

1,200 1,100 12/31/2005 1,000 flow of 2,250 cfs 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 Mean Daily Streamflow (cfs) Mean 200 100 0 Oct-2000 Oct-2001 Oct-2002 Oct-2003 Oct-2004 Oct-2005 Oct-2006

Figure 3.9-2 Annual hydrograph of the Upper Truckee River (2000-2007).

164 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

The existing conditions within the Project Area include the heightening and over-steepening of the UTR banks beyond a critical height for bank stability. The bank height within Reaches 5 and 6 will average from 5.5 to 5.7 feet, with one section averaging 6.5 feet. This change in bank morphology in conjunction with toe scour and undercutting causes gravitational forces to exceed the bank’s shear strength, increasing the risk for the mass failure of bank material. This results in diminished water quality due to increased delivery of fine- grained sediment to the channel and Lake Tahoe (Lake), and diminished aquatic habitat quality.

The deepening and widening of the river bed has also resulted in lowering the seasonal groundwater table. The river channel now has a greater carrying capacity and the occurrence of groundwater percolation in the floodplain from river flow events that overtop the existing river banks become less frequent because larger flows are required to overtop the banks. The lowered groundwater table creates drier meadow conditions and encourages establishment of upland plant communities in the meadows in and around the Project Area.

The rate of channel migration and bank erosion is affected by the underlying geology. Channel banks are stratified with fine-grained lacustrine sediment overlain by alluvial deposits (Simon et al. 2003, CTC 2008c). The banks are predominantly sand (53 percent), with silt (38 percent) and some clay (8 percent) (CTC 2008c). The fine-grained bank sediment increases erosion resistance, which is exhibited in limited natural channel migration since 1940. Typical of other stream channels in watersheds producing weathered granite (Parker, 2004), the channel substrate in Reaches 5 and 6 is transitional between sand and gravel, with the median bed surface grain size ranging from fine to medium gravel (4 millimeter [mm] to 16 mm). The bedload is a mix of sand and gravel, with coarse sand composing the greatest percentage of material transported.

3.9.1.4 Water Quality A key concern within the Lake Tahoe Basin is the long-term decline in lake clarity and increase in algal growth in Lake Tahoe that have been documented since the 1960s (Reuter and Miller 2000). One of the primary causes is nutrients and fine sediments in runoff from the surrounding watersheds. Channel restoration projects are an important element of the Lake Tahoe TMDL implementation plan. The Final Lake Tahoe TMDL Report identifies stream channel erosion as contributing roughly 3.5% of the basin-wide fine sediment particle load to Lake Tahoe, and the UTR is identified as the source of 60% of this contribution (SWRCB 2010b). Stream restoration actions in the 3 largest contributing streams, UTR, Blackwood Creek and Ward Creek, are estimated to reduce basin-wide fine sediment particle loads by roughly 2% within the first 15 years, and therefore are supported by the TMDL (SWRCB 2010b).

Review of past water quality data collected at the USGS stream gage below the Project Area indicates high levels of nitrogen during the winter months (TRCD 2003) and during non-precipitation periods (CSLT 2008). This suggests exfiltration of sanitary sewer lines that are located in and along the channel. Other nutrient sources in the watershed include urban landscapes and golf courses, grazing and wildlife feces, and organic debris such as vegetation and algae.

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project Alternative The No Action/No Project Alternative is the future condition without the Proposed Project. Under this alternative, no stream restoration work would be performed in the Project Area. Hydrology and water quality in the Project Area would remain similar to existing conditions described in Section 3.9.1 or potentially degrade as the existing incised channel conditions continue to worsen.

If the base level for the UTR in the Project Area remains unaltered, the future geomorphic evolution of the channel is likely to include local downcutting in some areas. Existing conditions include the heightening and over-steepening of the UTR banks beyond a critical height for bank stability, and a lowering seasonal groundwater table. This change in bank morphology in conjunction with toe scour and undercutting causes gravitational forces to exceed the bank’s shear strength, increasing the risk for further mass failure of bank

ENTRIX, INC. 165 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

material and the corresponding impact on water quality. In many areas channel bar growth in combination with cut-bank erosion will lead to continued incipient floodplain development at a lower elevation than the historic broad floodplain above (CTC 2008b). Further expansion of the incipient floodplain will lead to decreased hydrologic connectivity with the historic floodplain since it will require higher and higher flows to overtop the banks and inundate the historic floodplain. In addition to reducing the potential floodplain inundation area, growth of the incipient floodplain will continue to promote erosion of the steep channel banks and input of fine-grained sediment to the channel. Finally, groundwater levels may continue to drop in response to the lower water surface elevation, which will further dry the historic floodplain and result in loss of wet meadow vegetation and conversion to dry montane meadow and possibly sagebrush scrub community.

The No Action/No Project Alternative would not result in any restoration construction activities and would not generate any short-term hydrologic or water quality impacts. However, the No Action/No Project Alternative would result in the continuation of channel and bank erosion in the Project Area and associated increased sediment loads to Lake Tahoe. Therefore, long-term hydrology and water quality impacts would continue to occur as a result of the No Action/No Project Alternative. Nonetheless, the No Action/No Project Alternative would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulatively significant impacts to hydrology or water quality.

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project The evaluation of potential hydrology and water quality impacts generated by the Proposed Project considered both short-term construction-related effects as well as potential long-term effects after Project implementation. Short-term impact evaluation focused on the type and schedule of proposed construction activities and implementation of BMPs to ensure that any discharge from the Proposed Project’s construction site during and immediately following construction would not exceed permit requirements. This assessment qualitatively analyzes potential changes in the supply and discharge of sediment and nutrients with the Proposed Project as compared with current conditions and the potential for their release during construction and post-construction conditions.

Long-term Project-related impacts were evaluated using the results of HEC-RAS modeling of the alternatives (CTC 2008b). The HEC-RAS modeling evaluated important hydraulic variables, such as channel and floodplain shear stresses and velocities, flow widths and depths, and the amount of floodplain inundation expected for a given recurrence interval flow. It compared the alternatives in terms of potential long-term sediment erosion and transport effects.

3.9.3.1 Water Quality The Proposed Project involves grading and disturbance in floodplain areas and near the UTR channel, and there is an associated risk of water quality impacts during precipitation and flood events which may occur during the construction time period. Project construction would include large-scale excavation operations that would occur outside of the existing channel except during channel tie-ins which would occur only in localized areas during late summer. Project implementation would require between 4-8 10 years of seasonal construction (between June 1 and October 15), with winter closedowns, except for BMP maintenance and monitoring. Much of the disturbance areas and access routes would be within the 100-year floodplain. However, the Proposed Project has been specifically designed to avoid and reduce potential water quality impacts, as described below.

Temporary BMPs required by permitting agencies for incorporation into a future SWPPP (GHWQ-1) would be designed to prevent short-term impacts from construction by containing all onsite runoff and preventing this water from being discharged into surface waters. Erosion control measures (BMPs) and their performance standards would be specified in the SWPPP and may include the use of, but would not be limited to: construction fencing, silt fences, water filled berms, coir logs, vegetation protection, and hydromulching. Earthwork would be confined to designated construction areas (GHWQ-2) and any work within the channel

166 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT would take place during drier months (July-October) (GHWQ-3). Disturbed areas that exist at the end of each construction season would be exposed to winter conditions and could be vulnerable to runoff and erosion. Erosion from these sites would be avoided by stabilizing the disturbed areas at the end of each construction season until full restoration of these areas is possible at the end of project implementation (GHWQ-11). Stockpiled and transported materials would also be covered and/or kept moist to control stormwater runoff and dust emissions (GHWQ-7). Haul roads for transport of construction materials would be temporary, removed after each season of use, and restored to preconstruction conditions when they are no longer needed (GHWQ-4). Upon completion of construction, all disturbed areas to be restored as natural areas would be revegetated and irrigated as necessary (GHWQ-11). Multiple channel restoration projects have been completed in recent years utilizing standard BMPs and an approved SWPPP under oversight by the Regional Board. These projects have successfully avoided water quality impacts during construction.

Flood events are most likely to occur during intervening winters and outside of active construction periods, and are unlikely to result in water quality impacts because the newly constructed channel will be physically isolated from the active channel (GHWQ-10). Isolation would be provided with BMPs such as unexcavated earthen barriers, water filled berms, coir logs, and/or other methods. This channel isolation will reduce the chance velocity of overbank flood flows entering the project site and causing erosion in the newly constructed channel. All temporary stormwater controls and/or overwinter flood flow protections would be designed and sized to address reasonably foreseeable flood events (i.e. 20 year flood). The flood flows that make it onto the floodplain during the period of construction (approximately a 5 year event is required to overtop the banks of the existing channel) would have low velocities and therefore present a low risk for causing erosion because of the dispersion of energy over the entire flooded area. In addition, water elevations would most likely change gradually in the floodplain and new channel excavation areas, so the newly constructed channel segments would already be mostly filled in from the rising groundwater table by the time channel banks are overtopped. With BMPs in place for isolation and slowing flood waters as described above, low energy flood flows, existing floodplain vegetation, and water filling new channel segments, delivery of loose materials from the new channel to the existing UTR is very unlikely for a reasonably foreseeable flood event. The Proposed Project also involves various construction-related water management measures which are not associated with precipitation or flood events. Water encountered during excavation of the new channel will have elevated turbidity levels and therefore would be pumped from work areas during active excavation. This water will be spread or sprinkled onto the floodplain or upland dewatering areas (GHWQ-6) and volumes are expected to be low, and therefore it will not be discharged to surface waters and will not result in violations of regional water quality standards. The initiation of the new channel (described in section 2.4.3.6), will involve flushing and/or embedding the fine sediment prior to complete channel activation. Water used to flush the channel and turbid water resulting from the initiation/activation of the new channel will be pumped to areas on the floodplain and upland dewatering sites and spread or sprinkled in a similar fashion as the construction water described above. Upland dewatering sites would be surrounded with water filled berms or earthen berms on the surface to increase the capacity of the site without needing to remove vegetation or cause unnecessary soil disturbance. Dewatering activities will be monitored closely to ensure that surface flow and meadow saturation is avoided. Should the capacity of the identified dewatering sites be exceeded, UTR flows would be diverted around the new channel construction area until capacity is restored or other measures are introduced to handle the additional turbid water (e.g. Baker tanks, sediment bags, filtration system, etc.). Although flushing the new channel prior to connecting it to river flows will reduce the turbidity levels considerably, slightly elevated turbidity levels may still exist. The Proposed Project would be required to either meet the regional water quality standards or apply for an exemption to those requirements. In either case, the water quality prior to connecting the new channel to the active river flows would be adequate to protect beneficial uses (i.e. non-contact water recreation).

Disturbed construction areas would remain protected while vegetation planted in the new channel is irrigated and stabilized (i.e. channel is ‘seasoned’), until revegetation is successful (approximately 1-3 years) (GHWQ- 12). This “seasoning” period would allow channel bed and bank features to consolidate and allow vegetation to grow and stabilize the banks with their roots, which would reduce sediment inputs to the UTR once the

ENTRIX, INC. 167 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

channel is finally connected to flows. The construction controls, described more fully in section 2.4.3.11, would be monitored and maintained regularly during construction and intervening winter periods.

When channel tie-ins are constructed during the final stage of Reach 5 and 6 implementation, the UTR flow will be diverted around construction areas. Diverted water will be conveyed in pipes, fed by gravity at from an upstream diversion dam (e.g. coffer dam) to downstream areas below the area of disturbance. These channel segments will consist of more hardened features because constructed banks will not have a chance to season prior to connecting the channel to river flows. These channel segments will also be flushed prior to connection with flows to minimize the amount of loose sediment in the channel.

The use of motorized construction equipment would require the use of fuels, lubricants and other hazardous materials. These materials would be stored at staging areas (HAZ-1); however accidental release of these materials could potentially include discharge to adjacent meadow areas and the excavated channel during construction, potentially resulting in contamination of sediments and groundwater. To avoid potential release of contaminants or sediment during construction, equipment and vehicles would be serviced in designated upland areas (GHWQ-8) or other approved areas isolated from the meadow and channel, and cleaned prior to entering the site (GHWQ-9). In addition, spill response procedures will be detailed in the project SWPPP to isolate and contain discharges, and will include use of regional BMPs (HAZ-2, 3, and 5).

Up to three temporary stream crossings are anticipated for this project. These would consist of constructed temporary crossings with culverts, temporary bridges, and/or railcar bridges. Stream crossings would be installed to avoid direct disturbance to the existing channel during construction (GHWQ-5). Nonetheless, there is an increased risk to water quality during installation and removal of these stream crossings. In order to avoid water quality impacts, flow would be diverted around the crossing construction area during both installation and removal. In addition, water would be pumped from the area downstream of each crossing and spread on adjacent upland and meadow areas until the water turbidity meets permit requirements. Flow diversion details and BMPs intended for use during stream channel crossing installation will be included in the project SWPPP. For temporary bridge or railcar bridge installation and removal, active channel flows would be isolated from disturbance on the banks with silt curtains, silt fencing, and/or coir logs. These measures will be designed to protect the UTR channel and banks during crossing installation and use, and to prevent any associated water quality impacts.

The Proposed Project also involves an inherent risk to water quality during the period following active construction. During a period of approximately 3-5 years following construction or until a large flow event occurs, the new channel will be slightly more susceptible to erosion during high flow events as the vegetation is still becoming fully established. Due to this potential risk of erosion until vegetation on the banks is fully established, temporary bank stabilization measures (e.g. erosion control fabrics/blankets) will be used in some areas to protect against erosion during this short-term post-construction period. However, background turbidity levels are likely to be very high during these larger flow events, and non-contact water recreation use also tends to be low at times of high flows. Project related effects to beneficial uses, including non-contact water recreation, were used as measurement indicators for this analysis, as described below. Any turbidity increase resulting from this post-construction period is very unlikely to be visible to the naked eye due to the naturally elevated turbidity levels, and therefore it will not affect non-contact recreation beneficial uses. In addition, this risk is not expected to result in violations of the numeric turbidity standard during high flow events since the background turbidity levels are such that measurable changes caused by the Project Area would not likely exceed 10 percent above the background conditions. Finally, these elevated turbidity levels will subside quickly once the high flow event is over.

A project completed in 2006 on LTBMU lands in the headwaters of the UTR has released an interim monitoring report including the first 4 years of monitoring results after project completion. The results from the Interim Monitoring Report for the Big Meadow Creak in Cookhouse Meadow Restoration Project (Norman, et al., 2009) indicate that after several years the restored channel continues to maintain horizontal

168 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT and vertical stability, and desired fish habitat channel features (pool, riffles, and runs) continue to develop. Overbank flow frequency has increased dramatically in Cookhouse Meadow, and increases in groundwater elevation after the project has contributed to reversing the trend toward drier site riparian plant species and channel instability. Finally, due to careful construction techniques, irrigation throughout construction, and restoration of natural hydrologic processes stabilizing vegetation planted or salvaged during the project (sod harvesting, willow mats, willow staking) has experienced an approximately 90% survival rate (Norman, et al., 2009). Based on recent research conducted along the UTR, fine sediment particle retention occurs on floodplains when overbanking flood events occur, and this may provide significant fine sediment load reductions during overbank flow events (2NDNATURE, 2011).Since one of the project objectives is to increase the duration and frequency of overbank flood events in this project area, long term reductions in fine sediment concentrations leaving this section of the river can be expected to result from the Proposed Project.

To further reduce the potential for water quality effects during the 3-5 year post-project time period, adaptive management will be conducted by the Proposed Project proponents for the multiple UTR restoration projects. This will involve project area inspections after high flow events and spring runoff periods to identify any areas of erosion or other resource concerns. A plan for how to address these problem areas will be determined under consultation with agency stakeholders and regulatory agencies to ensure that the problem will not become a chronic or recurring water quality impact. Risk of water quality impacts during flood events after this 3-5 year period will be very low as vegetation will be fully established and will provide sufficient stabilization.

Lastly, hydraulic analyses conducted for the Proposed Project indicate that coarse sediment would be mobilized more often, not less, in the new, narrower channel (CTC 2008b). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not contribute to the long-term decrease in coarse sediment delivery downstream.

3.9.3.2 Groundwater The Proposed Project would likely raise the groundwater elevation in the Project Area; specifically, in the areas adjacent to the channel. Construction of the new channel would not adversely impact or interfere with groundwater recharge, or cause a net deficit in aquifer volume or lower the local groundwater table. Construction activities in the short term would not directly affect groundwater levels. There would be no permanent or long-term increase in the area of impervious surfaces (e.g. pavement) that could interfere with water infiltration for groundwater recharge. Operation of the Proposed Project would likely raise groundwater table levels along the channel in the long term once the new shallower channel is connected to the UTR.

3.9.3.3 Surface Hydrology and Drainage Patterns The Proposed Project would alter the river course by constructing a new channel in a different location across the floodplain (altered planform). The new channel is designed to have a smaller capacity (shallower and narrower), approximately the same slope (0.001 percent), and slightly increased degree of meander (existing sinuosity 1.56, design sinuosity 1.63). This would result in altered hydraulic conditions once the channel is connected to active river flows, and thus alter existing patterns of bank erosion and flooding. However, the Proposed Project’s new channel has been specifically designed with a geometric form and sinuosity appropriate for a meandering channel in a gently sloping valley that will be in equilibrium with the prevailing hydrologic and sediment regimes (CTC 2008b). As demonstrated in the HEC-RAS modeling (CTC 2008b), flows in the UTR would overtop the banks of the new channel at lower flows and more frequently, resulting in reduced velocities in the channel and therefore reduced streambed incision and reduced bank erosion (CTC 2008b, 2008c). The reduction of bank height would reduce the potential for erosion of streambanks compared to existing conditions. With increased frequency of overbanking, flows that historically have been discharged directly to the lake would be spread across the floodplain and filtered on the meadow, resulting in reduced siltation in natural drainages on and off site compared to existing conditions. In addition, construction controls and stormwater BMPs (discussed above in Section 3.9.3.1) that have been incorporated into the Proposed Project would avoid short-term direct impacts from construction activity (e.g.

ENTRIX, INC. 169 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

implement the SWPPP , install water filled berm, filter fencing and/or coir rolls around construction areas [GHWQ-1), stabilize and contain stored soil materials [GHWQ-7], and revegetate disturbed areas following construction [GHWQ-11]) and long-term impacts during operations (e.g. install native riparian vegetation and more hardened bank protection measures where needed to stabilize banks [GHWQ-12]). Incorporation of these design features would avoid impacts of increased bank erosion and channel siltation. The Proposed Project would create additional floodplain flow with higher floodplain velocities, but these velocities would not result in increased floodplain erosion compared to the existing condition due to the well- vegetated condition of the floodplain in the Project Area and the limits to floodplain disturbance proposed with this project (CTC 2008c). The maximum permissible velocity before the onset of erosion depends on the type of ground surface and ground cover (USACE 1994). For the type of grassy meadow vegetation, soil conditions, and valley slopes found in the Project Area, the maximum permissible velocities are 6 to 7 feet per second (USACE 1994). Even at the highest modeled flow of 7,650 cfs (100-year event); floodplain velocities remain below 4 feet per second for the Proposed Project. Floodplain velocity spikes occurred where floodplain flow at the downstream end of Reach 5 was funneled from the relatively broad meadow into the confined unrestored Airport Reach (UTR Reach 4). This condition would change (improve) once the recently restored Airport Reach (UTR Reaches 3 and 4) channel is connected to flows (anticipated in 2011, prior to completion of the Proposed Project). To further reduce the risk of floodplain erosion from altered drainage, any disturbed areas on the floodplain would be restored and revegetated with native riparian vegetation (GHWQ-11) and streambanks would be treated with native vegetation and other methods following construction (GHWQ-12). Overflow features existing on the floodplain, such as old meander scrolls would be reconnected where feasible to further dissipate the energy of flood flows. With incorporation of these design features, operation of the Proposed Project would not have an adverse long-term direct impact on floodplain erosion.

3.9.3.4 Drainage Patterns and Flooding The Proposed Project’s new channel is designed to overtop its banks and inundate the floodplain on a more regular basis, consistent with natural hydrology for the UTR. The Project Area (Reaches 5 and 6) floodplain meadow is approximately 220 acres. HEC-RAS modeling was performed for the Proposed Project based on a preliminary design (35% design plans), in which the upstream end of the new channel was near the Highway U.S. 50 bridge (CTC 2008b). HEC-RAS hydraulic modeling showed that the reduction in Proposed Project’s channel capacity would result in up to a 0.4 ft increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-yr flood event (CTC 2008b). Most of the increase would occur in Reach 6. In response to concerns about reduced flood conveyance at the Highway U.S. 50 bridge at the upstream end of the Project Area and backwatering effects in the State Parks golf course reach, the upstream starting location of the proposed new channel was moved approximately 1,600 feet downstream from the Highway U.S. 50 bridge for the 50% design plan. By doing so, water surface elevations would not exceed the existing condition at the bridge or in the golf course reach. With incorporation of this design feature, the Proposed Project would have no impact on flooding upstream.

As summarized in Table 3.9-1, under the Proposed Project, the occurrence and extent of floodplain inundation would increase at low magnitude, high frequency flow events, but would not be significantly different for the 100-year flood event (CTC 2008b). The new channel would start inundating the floodplain at approximately 450 cfs (1.4 year flow event) instead of at 760-1,660 cfs (approximate 2-5 year event) in the existing channel. Under existing conditions, approximately 58 acres are inundated by the 2-year recurrence interval flow (760 cfs) and approximately 132 acres are inundated by the 5-year flow (1,660 cfs). With the proposed new channel, between 99-129 acres floodplain would be inundated at 760 cfs and between 140-173 acres at 1,660 cfs5. Increasing inundation within the meadow floodplain would be consistent with historical conditions and

5 The inundation results are based on HEC-RAS modeling conducted during the development and evaluation of conceptual channel design alternatives (CTC 2008b, CTC 2008c in PR Doc #B-3), prior to refinements in channel alignment made for the 50% design (July 2008, Appendix D). The actual inundation area for the Proposed Project would be between the estimate for Alternative 3 (proposed new channel in Reach 6 extended closer to Hwy 50 bridge) and the estimate for Alternative 4 (new channel constructed only for Reach 5, with some grade controls in Reach 6).

170 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT within the hydrologic requirements of the desired wet meadow and riparian community (restoration of SEZ habitat is a goal of the Project proponents and TRPA). At the 100-year flow (7,650 cfs), the inundation area under the Proposed Project would be nearly identical to the existing condition. The potential for increased inundation area is constrained by the narrow downstream constriction formed by steep valley walls (CTC 2008b).

Table 3.9-1 Existing vs. Proposed Floodplain Inundation.

Flow Rates (cfs) Current Floodplain Inundation (acres) Proposed Project’s Floodplain Inundation (acres) 760 58 99-129 1,660 132 140-173 7,650 ~262 ~262

The Proposed Project would install grade control structures, such as boulder weirs or gravel/cobble riffles, in the UTR channel at the downstream end of Reach 5 to provide a stable hydraulic transition area into Reach 4, but these structures would not impede or redirect flood flows. The Proposed Project would also plant willows in certain areas of the Project Area floodplain, which would increase the floodplain roughness and slow floodplain flows, but would not impede or redirect flows. The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to increased flooding risk, due in part to the fact that residential areas are located above the floodplain. No structures would be constructed on the floodplain in the 100-year flood hazard area that would impede flood flows., except for the temporary structures and BMPs potentially installed at the Elks Club staging area. The Proposed Project would not redirect or retain enough water to cause significant loss, injury or death by flooding. Short-term construction activities would not create or contribute runoff water exceeding stormwater drainage systems because ground surfaces would remain pervious during construction, allowing for localized percolation of stormwater. If Sunset Stables is paved or otherwise covered, drainage BMPs would be installed until the coverage is removed and the site restored after project completion.

3.9.4 Effects Determination

3.9.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act Determination One of the purposes of the Proposed Project is to improve water quality in the UTR by constructing a more natural channel form that will restore hydrological processes of floodplain inundation and by implementing measures to minimize bank erosion. Restoration actions would have a beneficial effect on water quality indirectly by creating new hydraulic conditions which would decrease erosion, increase sediment deposition potential, increase vegetative growth, and increase filtering and uptake of soluble nutrients in the water column. Restoration actions would also result in reduced velocities in the stream channel, which would decrease channel and vertical cut-bank erosion, increase sediment deposition on stream banks and floodplains, and preserve existing alluvial soils. Restoring a more naturally functioning UTR channel and wetland system would indirectly reduce the delivery of fine sediment to Lake Tahoe. The ability of the Proposed Project to reduce nutrient and fine sediment delivery to downstream reaches and ultimately to Lake Tahoe will depend largely on the amount and extent of overbank flow in combination with a reduction of streambed incision and bank erosion (CTC 2008b and 2008c). In addition, restoration actions would likely raise the water table and increase water retention potential, which would increase the availability of water for vegetation and stream flow later in the season.

Proper implementation of the construction controls and BMPs described above will result in less than significant water quality impacts resulting from precipitation or flood events during the new channel construction period. The construction-related flows will not be discharged to surface waters, and therefore they will not violate the receiving water standard or effect beneficial uses. The highest risk for water quality effects from the Proposed Project is during channel initiation and connection with UTR flows. However, the

ENTRIX, INC. 171 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

channel would be flushed and seasoned prior to channel initiation, and the flows would be required to meet pre-determined water quality standards with regard to the magnitude and duration of elevated turbidity levels. The potential discharges from the Proposed Project are expected to be short in duration and magnitude and will not affect beneficial uses; therefore, water quality impacts would be less than significant.

Turbidity increases resulting from the post-construction period are very unlikely to be visible to the naked eye due to the naturally elevated turbidity levels during high flow events, and therefore they will not impact non- contact related beneficial uses. This post-construction impact will not become a chronic source of turbidity because of the adaptive management process that has been established for UTR projects, and it will not be of significant magnitude or duration and will not impact beneficial uses. Therefore it will be a less than significant impact.

In the long-term, the Proposed Project would benefit water quality in the UTR and would not significantly increase flood risk from high magnitude, low frequency (100-year flood) flood events. The combined effects of the project design, including the new channel, grade control structures and plantings, would reduce the potential impact from high magnitude flooding to less than significant.

3.9.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act Determination

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less than Potentially Significant Impact Less than

Significant with Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table X level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation X on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a X manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned X stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard X Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including X flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X

CEQA Analysis Methods

The impact analysis required for CEQA examines the short-term, long-term, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Project for each of the CEQA criteria found in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and presented above. Of particular interest for the Proposed Project is the first CEQA water quality significance criterion, which will be used in this analysis to determine the significance of water quality impacts, but impacts will also be evaluated with an additional criterion as outlined below. Several water quality numeric standards found in the Lahontan Basin Plan apply to this Project, but the most important standard for this analysis is the

172 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Upper Truckee receiving water standard, which states that discharges must not cause receiving waters to exceed 10 percent above background levels of turbidity. Some impacts, due to their specific nature and duration, may be found to be less than significant even if they result in minor violations of regional water quality standards.

The California courts have specifically stated that there is no “gold standard” for determining whether a given impact may be significant, and such a determination may vary widely based on where a particular activity is taking place (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency, 116 Cal.App.4th 1099 [2004]). A threshold of significance should specifically address the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by the project (Ibid). Id. As long as there is substantial evidence establishing that reliance on such a threshold shows that impacts will be less than significant, an agency may determine that a particular activity is less than significant even where it violates a regional regulation or standard. The Regional Board, along with lead implementing agencies of Tahoe basin restoration projects, have made such determinations that specific water quality impacts may not be significant due to do their nature and the site conditions that exist, even though they may violate basin plan standards. In such cases, at the approval of the Regional Board, another significance threshold (described below) may be applied and an exemption to the Basin Plan may be granted.

A violation of water quality standards would constitute a potential impact and require preventative measures, but a violation does not necessarily constitute a significant impact and may or may not be used as a threshold of significance under CEQA for these particular projects. Alternate thresholds for determining the significance of water quality impacts could be used but additional information and designs would be needed to determine what criteria applied. The alternate threshold of significance that could be used in CEQA analysis for the UTR projects is the standard for beneficial uses with a focus on aesthetics since that would be the first and potentially most significantly impacted beneficial use:

 A significant impact to water quality would result if: “The Project/Action would result in an alteration of the quality of waters of the state by waste to a degree which unreasonably affects either of the following: (1) The waters for beneficial uses; or (2) facilities which serve these beneficial uses.”

 Potential impacts to all beneficial uses need to be considered, but the non-contact water recreation beneficial use associated with aesthetic values would be the first beneficial use affected by a turbidity or pollutant violation from this project. Impacts to aesthetics, such as a visible sediment plume leaving the Project Area, will therefore generally be the threshold for determining if an action fails to protect one or more beneficial uses. The project proponent shall consider the magnitude and duration of the discharge as well as the definition for “nuisance” and “pollution” as defined in section 13050 of the Sate Water code, to determine if the impact is significant under CEQA.

Because certain types of water quality violations may not be detectable as a visible sediment plume exiting the Project Area (for example, <20 NTU is barely visible to the naked eye and therefore a plume of less than 20 NTU would not impact the visual qualities of the water), the beneficial use related to aesthetics may not be unreasonably affected and certain impacts of this nature may be found to be less than significant under CEQA. The analysis for this project considers impacts to beneficial uses and violations of water quality standards in determining the magnitude and significance of water quality impacts. Certain impacts may violate water quality standards without substantially impacting beneficial uses, and the supporting information related to the magnitude and duration of these impacts will be described for this project to the level where the impacts can be fully supported as less than significant. a) Less than Significant Impact. Section 3.9.3.1 provides a detailed analysis of all water quality effects of the Proposed Project. Design features and required stormwater BMPs including erosion control and stabilization measures would avoid water quality violations and impacts to beneficial uses during precipitation and flood events during construction periods. Construction water resulting from excavation and

ENTRIX, INC. 173 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT channel flushing activities would be infiltrated onsite and not discharged back to the river, and therefore these flows will not violate the receiving water turbidity standard. When the new channels are activated and connected to the main channel, they may be in slight violation of the numeric standard and require a Regional Board exemption, but these flows will be at very low turbidity values and would not be visible to the naked eye. In addition, there may be a period of 3-5 years following construction where a flood event or channel adjustments may cause minor elevations of turbidity. However, due to the specifics outlined in section 3.9.3.1 above, these turbidity increases will not impact beneficial uses and will be of low magnitude and short duration. Although these two specific water quality impacts may result in minor violations of the Basin Plan standards, they are less than significant because they will not impact beneficial uses. Other water quality impacts of the Proposed Project, as discussed in section 3.9.3.1, will not violate water quality standards and, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) No Impact. Section 3.9.3.2 provides detailed analysis of the Proposed Project’s impacts to groundwater. The Proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The new channel would promote overbanking and would likely raise groundwater elevations. No wells would be affected adversely. The Proposed Project would have no significant adverse effects on groundwater. c) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would alter the existing degraded drainage pattern of the site or area, but the change in course of the river would not result in substantial erosion or siltation. Sections 3.9.3.1 and 3.9.3.4 provide details concerning the erosion risks and the alterations to drainage patterns. This analysis demonstrates that the modifications to the drainage pattern will not result in substantial erosion or siltation. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s alterations to drainage patterns would not result in a significant impact to erosion or siltation. d) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, but these changes would not result in adverse impacts to flooding, as discussed in Section 3.9.3.4. Because no impervious surfaces would be created, the Proposed Project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. The frequency and pattern of floodplain inundation would increase; however, only the river’s historical floodplain would be affected. Therefore, there would be no changes in flooding on- or off- site and this impact would be less than significant. e) No Impact. The Project Area does not have a storm sewer system, nor is any stormwater collection system planned in the UTR corridor. Any stormwater generated due to construction activities would be collected and infiltrated onsite. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of an existing or planned stormwater drainage system. No residential, commercial or other developments are proposed; therefore, the Proposed Project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. f) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above (CEQA Question a), the Proposed Project has been designed with appropriate construction controls and BMPs to reduce the potential risk of water quality impacts to less than significant. No other water quality impacts besides those described above are anticipated. g) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not place housing or any other structure within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, or that would impede or redirect flood flows. There would be no impact resulting from structures in flood hazard areas. h) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would construct a new channel that would overtop and flood more frequently at low-magnitude floods, but there would be no difference in flood extent during the 100-year event. The Proposed Project would install grade control structures and plant additional woody riparian vegetation along new banks and the floodplain, but these measures would not significantly impede flood flows. Therefore this impact would be less than significant.

174 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT i) No Impact. The Proposed Project does not involve any occupied or unoccupied structures and would not be located downstream of any dam or levee. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. j) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not place or remove protective structures such as dams, headwalls or riprap. Therefore, the proposed features would not cause inundation by a seiche. The Project Area is not subject to mudflow or tsunami. The Proposed Project would have no impact related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

3.9.5 Cumulative Effects and Determination Known past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects with the potential to affect hydrology and water quality in the UTR are listed in Table 3.1-1. The reasonably foreseeable future stream restoration projects along the UTR are in contiguous reaches upstream and downstream of the Project Area. Because rivers are dynamic and continuous, work performed within one restoration project reach may affect other reaches upstream or downstream. All construction projects within the watershed listed in Table 3.1-1, particularly those close to the river channel, present the potential for short-term cumulative effects (e.g., vegetation removal and disturbed soils) that could increase sediment discharges to the river. There could be active construction concurrently for some projects starting in 20121 and exposure to high flows during intervening winters. The design features and construction controls for the Proposed Project described in Section 2.4.3.11 have been structured to minimize erosion and sedimentation. The Proposed Project and all other projects in the watershed would implement similar erosion and runoff control measures to meet permit requirements. In addition, managers and design teams representing each restoration project have and would continue to maintain very close coordination regarding monitoring, planning and implementation to avoid scheduling conflicts and the potential for overlapping construction impacts. These projects will also include the design and implementation of on-site, project-specific construction controls to protect water quality. These measures to reduce the potential risk of short-term water quality degradation would likely include restricting the area and duration of construction disturbance to the minimum necessary, installation of temporary BMPs to protect disturbed areas and minimize soil erosion during the period of construction, isolating the construction area from surface waters to prevent surface runoff interaction with disturbed surfaces, and limiting the potential for release of sediment, nutrients, or otherwise contaminated water from entering water bodies outside the construction disturbance zone.

There is also a risk of water quality degradation during winter and spring flood events, as multiple restoration projects may be in some stage of construction during the same intervening seasons. As described above, all restoration projects will be subject to similar water quality requirements and would be expected to utilize many of the same temporary BMPs to prevent sediment discharge to the river during precipitation events, and provide erosion and sediment control during construction. A large flood event would have naturally high background turbidity levels, and therefore any potential turbidity increases would be unlikely to affect non- contact aesthetic beneficial uses. In addition, construction controls and BMPs will be implemented in all projects that will protect against flood damage.

Following construction, some of the projects listed in section 3.1.3, such as restoration or EIP projects, may undergo post-construction natural channel adjustments, and could include channel, bank, and/or floodplain treatments that may not reach full resistance within the first couple of years. During this time period, the vegetation may not be completely established for providing full stabilization of the channel banks. Although construction of these projects would be phased reducing this risk, it is possible that several UTR restoration projects could be in similar stages of post-construction during the same time period. The projects would all be located along the same unregulated river and if a large flood occurred within the first few years after construction, it could affect multiple project reaches. If a large overbank flood event were to occur during this time period, several projects could contribute to an exceedance of the numeric turbidity standard. However, the potential for this water quality impact is reduced because of project design features incorporated into the

ENTRIX, INC. 175 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Proposed Project, such as sizing the new channel appropriately to the expected hydrologic regime to minimize channel adjustments and concomitant erosion, revegetation and stabilization of the new channel, and allowing the channel to “season” for one or two more years before introducing flow to the new channel sections. In addition, although this water quality standard may be violated, the cumulative impact that could occur would not be noticeable to the naked eye as the flood flows will have highly elevated background turbidity levels. Overall, the potential for water quality degradation during a large flood event under the restored condition on multiple project reaches would likely be less than the flood effect on the existing degraded channel of the No Project/No Action Alternatives. This is primarily attributed to the lowered bank heights and reduced channel slopes expected for the restored condition compared the existing degraded channel. Therefore it is unclear whether this impact would be any worse than the existing condition as flood flows currently cause significant erosion and turbidity increases. This potential water quality impact would only last for the duration of the flood event, and the magnitude of the impact will be small in comparison to the overall turbidity levels of the flood flows. Finally, all restoration project proponents participate in a coordinated adaptive management group, as discussed above, which will work to ensure that no cumulative long-term impacts would result from floods or other damage to the UTR projects, or to correct any impacts that occur in a timely manner.

Construction-related water quality impacts not associated with precipitation or flood events may also occur that have the potential to violate water quality standards for short periods of time. These impacts could result from the channel initiation stage of each restoration project, where the newly constructed channel is connected to the river flows. Although water quality thresholds could be exceeded for a short period of time, permit requirements designed to protect beneficial uses would specify acceptable water quality conditions prior to full connection with the river. In addition, implementing agencies will coordinate with one another to ensure that these connections do not occur during the same time periods. For example, the CTC and LTBMU will not conduct channel initiation for the Proposed Project concurrently with the State Parks connecting their new UTR channel segment. This coordination will ensure that flows from channel initiation will not be additive to other such water quality impacts.

The long-term effect of the Proposed Project when added together with the projects listed in Table 3.1-1 would result in a reduction of cumulative water quality impacts on Lake Tahoe and its tributaries. Although not all of these projects are restoration or EIP projects, the majority of them are designed to provide some type of watershed restoration benefits, including water quality improvements and a reduction in sediment inputs to the Lake. Therefore the majority of these projects are expected to have long-term cumulative benefits because they would stabilize the streambanks and restore the river to its previous natural function. Once the Proposed Project and other restoration projects have been constructed, and natural fluvial processes and hydraulic conditions are restored along the UTR, existing conditions that adversely affect water quality (e.g., channel instability, bank failure, reduced overbank flow, and reduced floodplain inundation) would be improved. This return to more natural fluvial processes would improve water quality conditions by reducing erosion and other sources of sediment. Increased overbanking frequency would result in increased sediment deposition on the floodplain, thereby reducing sediment transport to Lake Tahoe. Therefore, the cumulative long-term effect of the projects listed in Table 3.3-1 would be to reduce cumulative water quality impacts to Lake Tahoe and its tributaries. Consequently, the Proposed Project would not have a cumulatively considerable effect on hydrology and in combination with other planned restoration projects would have a long-term beneficial cumulative effect on water quality within the Basin.

176 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.10 NOISE This section addresses potential noise impacts on humans within the Project Area and surrounding area from the No Action/No Project Alternative and the Proposed Project. Impacts on wildlife are addressed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources. The noise impacts would be considered significant if construction activities would expose people to noise or vibration levels in excess of established standards, or substantially increase ambient noise levels.

Noise impacts may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise impacts are usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. Several noise measurement scales are used to describe noise in a particular location. The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). A dB is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) de-emphasizes the low and high end frequencies and emphasizes those frequencies the human ear is able to hear. It is widely accepted that most human sound perception can barely detect a change in sound level of 3 dBA. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10-dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average Equivalent energy level (Leq), with the addition of five dBA to sound levels from 7:00 am. – 10:00 pm. and the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels from 10:00 pm. – 7:00 am.

3.10.1 Existing Conditions The Proposed Project activities would occur primarily in rural meadow and forested areas, and near wooded residential areas. Noise sources in rural areas are predominantly from natural sources, including insects, birds, wind, and weather. Accordingly, existing ambient noise levels near most of the construction area are low. Background noise levels in wilderness and rural areas typically range between 35 and 45 dBA day-night average level (Ldn) (USEPA 1978). Land uses adjacent to the Project Area include residential areas to the east, and the airport and Highway U.S. 50 to the west. The primary source of noise in the residential areas is roadway traffic. Background noise levels in typical wooded (low density) residential areas are approximately 51 dBA (USEPA 1978).The major sources of noise in the Project Area are from airport aircraft and motor vehicle traffic on U.S. Highway 50. Additional noise sources include construction activities and ambient residential noise such as barking dogs and loud music.

Some land uses are regarded as more sensitive to noise than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Single- or multiple-family residences, schools, hospitals, churches, and public libraries are typically considered to be noise-sensitive receptors. The noise-sensitive receptors within the Project Area include areas where people reside and participate in recreational activities that can be disrupted by unwanted noise. Several potential staging areas in the southern portion of the Project Area would be within 200 feet of several residences on Bel Aire Circle and Cherry Hills Circle. The main construction site in the UTR meadow is located over 700 feet from the residential area, downslope, and shielded by forest. In addition, people use the UTR meadow and river corridor for recreational activities such as hiking and boating.

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project Alternative Under the No Action /No Project Alternative, no construction would take place and therefore, no construction noise impacts would occur. The No Action/No Project Alternative would not result in any direct, indirect, or cumulative noise impacts.

ENTRIX, INC. 177 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project

3.10.3.1 Methodology For the purpose of the analysis the shortest construction period was assumed (four years). This scenario would result in the longer working hours during the construction each construction season for the Project and therefore represents the worst case scenario.

3.10.3.2 Construction-Related Noise Construction of the Proposed Project would result in a temporary increase in noise. Construction-related noise between 87:00 am – 6:30 pm is exempt from TRPA noise standards (Chapter 23.8 of code of ordinances). The Project Area is located near sensitive receptors (residential dwellings) that could be subject to noise, particularly from equipment traffic on access roads and activities at staging areas. Construction would require the use of heavy equipment such as excavators, loaders and trucks. Construction worker, delivery, and visitor traffic would be an additional, but smaller, source of noise. Noise levels produced by construction equipment would vary throughout the day.

During the busiest construction periods, maximum noise levels of 72-92 dBA at 100 feet (without controls) could be generated, although peak noise levels would be intermittent. Table 3.10-1 lists typical maximum noise levels for construction equipment and sound attenuation over distance (USEPA 1971). Average construction noise levels over a full construction work day would be considerably lower than the maximum levels in the table. Approximately 15 residential properties are located within 200 feet from the staging and construction areas. These receptors would experience maximum sound levels (with control measures such as mufflers) of 69-74 dBA at 100 feet, 57-62 dBA at 500 feet, and 51-56 dBA at 1,000 feet (Table 3.10-2).

The TRPA Code of Ordinances regulates construction-related noise in portions of El Dorado County within the Lake Tahoe region. Chapter 23.8 of the Code exempts construction-related noise provided such activities are limited to the hours between 8:00 am and 6:30 pm. Outside of those hours, construction noise would be subject to TRPA community noise level standards. TRPA’s noise level standards for the land uses in and around the Project Area are 50 dBA for low density residential and rural outdoor recreation areas, 60 dBA for the Lake Tahoe Airport (areas affected by approved flight paths), and 65 dBA for within 300 feet of Highway U.S. 50 (Table 3.10-2). The airport is limited to Stage 3 aircraft that meet single event noise standards. These aircraft may operate from 8 am to 8 pm (Lake Tahoe Airport 2009). Only aircraft able to operate under the nighttime (8 pm to 8 am) single event noise standard of 77.1 dBA (Lmax) may operate at night (TRPA 2006). Noise associated with this project is not expected to violate these standards.

Part of the Proposed Project study area for noise is within unincorporated El Dorado County. El Dorado County has established non-transportation noise standards based on time of day and land use sensitivity. Residential areas are considered the most noise–sensitive land use and have the strictest noise standards. The county has established maximum allowable exterior one-hour noise limits for both daytime and nighttime hours (Table 3.10-3).

The Proposed Project’s maximum construction noise levels would be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 6:30 pm, unless approved otherwise from TRPA (NOI-1). If construction activities must run past these hours, the following construction control would be implemented to reduce impacts (NOI-3). If complaints are received regarding noise impacts to any nearby sensitive receptors (i.e. residents less than 500 feet from activities) the CTC or LTBMU shall prepare a plan demonstrating appropriate noise reducing measures. The plan shall be submitted to TRPA for review and approval, and shall be implemented during all construction activities occurring outside of TRPA’s exempted hours (NOI-3). Before initiating construction activities during exempted hours, the CTC or LTBMU shall prepare a plan demonstrating appropriate noise-reducing measures. The plan shall be submitted to TRPA for review and approval, and shall be implemented during all construction activities occurring outside of TRPA’s exempted hours. Any nearby sensitive receptors (less than

178 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

500 feet from activities) must be given at least 48 hours notice of such activities.

ENTRIX, INC. 179 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.10-1 Construction Operations, Equipment Type, and Their Noise Levels

Noise Level at 100 Feet (dBA) Noise Level at 500 Feet (dBA) Noise Level at 1,000 Feet (dBA)

Equipment Without Controls With Controlsa Without Controls With Controlsa Without Controls With Controls Front Loaders 73 69 61 57 55 51 Backhoes 79 69 73 57 67 51 Dozers 74 69 62 57 46 51 Tractors 74 69 62 57 46 51 Graders 79 69 67 57 61 51 Dump Trucks 85 69 73 57 67 51 Concrete Mixers 79 69 67 57 60 51 Pumps 70 69 58 57 52 51 Generators 72 69 60 57 54 51 Compressors 75 69 63 57 67 51 Rock Drills 92 74 80 62 74 56 Jack Hammers 82 69 70 57 64 51 Pneumatic Tools 80 74 68 62 62 56 Saws 72 69 60 57 54 51 Vibrators 70 69 58 57 52 51 aEstimated levels can be obtained by selecting quieter procedures or machines and implementing noise control features that do not require major redesign or high cost (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, and use of silencers, shields, shrouds, ducts, and engine enclosures). Source: USEPA 1971.

Table 3.10-2 TRPA Noise Level Standards

Land Uses in Project Area Average Noise Level or CNEL Range Low density residential 50 dBA Land Use Category Rural outdoor recreation areas 50 dBA Hwy U.S. 50 (within 300 feet) 65 dBA Transportation Corridor Lake Tahoe Airport 60 dBA

Source: TRPA 2006 Threshold Evaluation

180 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.10-3 El Dorado County Non-Transportation Noise Standards (dBA)

Noise Element Maximum Allowable Exterior Noise Levels Jurisdiction/Land Daytime Evening Nighttime Use Category 7 am-7 pm 7 pm-10 pm 10 pm -7am Hourly Hourly Hourly El Dorado County1 Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Residential Areas (Community Areas) 55 75 50 65 45 60 Residential Areas (Rural Regions) 50 60 45 55 40 50 Commercial Areas (Community 70 90 65 75 65 75 Areas) Commercial Areas (Rural Regions) 65 75 60 70 60 70 Open Space, Natural Resource 65 75 60 70 60 70 (Rural Regions)

Notes: 1Non-transportation construction noise standards. Source: El Dorado County General Plan, Public Health, Safety and Noise Element (July 2004)

3.10.3.3 Off-Site Construction Traffic El Dorado County also has noise standards for transportation sources as shown in Table 3.10-4. Since no offsite truck hauling is proposed except for the import of road bed, staging area and river materials, the main transportation-related noise sources associated with the Proposed Project would be construction worker vehicles, visitors, and deliveries.

Table 3.10-4 El Dorado County Transportation Noise Standards (dBA)

Maximum Allowable Noise Levels Land Use Category Exterior Ldn/CNEL Interior Ldn/CNEL

El Dorado County1 Residential Areas 60 45 Commercial Areas -- -- Other Sensitive Areas – Parks 70 -- Other Sensitive Areas – hospitals, nursing homes, churches, transient lodging 60 45

Notes:

1Non-transportation construction noise standards. Source: El Dorado County General Plan, Public Health, Safety and Noise Element (July 2004 amended March 2009)

Transportation-related noise impacts of the Proposed Project were evaluated based on the environmental analysis conducted for the CSLT’s Airport Reach Project (CSLT 2008), which was constructed under similar conditions and location. The estimated total number of worker vehicle trips for the Airport Project was 100 60 per day (Section 3.12, Traffic and Circulation, CSLT 2008), which are assumed to be similar to those for the Proposed Project. According to the traffic analysis for the Airport Reach Project EA/IS (CSLT 2008), the volume of traffic generated by the estimated 100 60 trips per day would be very low in relation to existing traffic volumes. In addition, the estimated total number of haul truck trips associated with importing fill materials for the Proposed Project (specifically, gravel and cobble substrate for the new channel, boulders for the lateral and grade control structures, fill for the encapsulated roads and backfilling the old channel, and material for BMPs at the staging area) is 1,300 round trips spread over the 2 – 4 year construction window within the 4 – 10 year restoration period (i.e., a maximum of 1,300 trips over four years). Over the approximate 120-day construction season, assuming work only on weekdays (~34 days), this could result in 86 days of construction, which equates to 8.7 average trips per day or about eight to nine round trips per day.

ENTRIX, INC. 181 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

However, the noise generated by the Sunset Stables Reach Project would be short-term and the low volume of construction-related traffic would likely increase noise levels no more than 1 dBA. In general, increasing the level of steady, continuous noise by 3 dBA may be noticeable to most people with good hearing, assuming that the noise maintains the same character. A noise increase of 5 dBA is normally noticeable to most people, and an increase of 8 to 10 dBA is often perceived as a doubling of the noise (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2008).

3.10.3.4 Vibration Vibration caused by construction is transmitted via waves in the ground and dissipates with distance from the vibration source (e.g., heavy equipment operation). Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and is used to assess the potential for damage to buildings and structures and is expressed in inches per second (in/sec); vibration for evaluating human response can also be expressed using the PPV metric. People are less aware of short-duration vibration events than those of a longer duration. Vibration lasting thirty seconds or less is barely perceptible at 0.03 in/sec PPV, whereas vibrations of 0.13 in/sec PPV are distinctly perceptible (Dowding 1996).

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard S2.71-1983 [R2006] (formerly ANSI S3.29) (ANSI 1983) defines the limit for human disturbance from continuous vibration in buildings at 0.022-0.064 in/sec PPV during daytime and evening hours (7 am to 10 pm), and 0.016-0.022 in/sec PPV during the nighttime (10 pm to 7 am). To protect houses with plastered walls and ceilings, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) California Department of Transportation, guidelines for continuous ground-borne vibration from construction suggest a limit of 0.2 in/sec PPV (AASHTO Jones & Stokes 2004)6.

The following analysis evaluates temporary impacts during construction from ground-borne vibration by evaluating the types of construction equipment and the distances between the construction area and potential receptors. To provide a conservative analysis, the nighttime criterion of 0.016 in/sec PPV was used. This criterion would address early morning construction and residents that sleep during the day (TRPA 2006).

Construction of the channel would require ground clearing and excavation by excavators, backhoes and loaders. The primary sources of vibration would include excavators and haul trucks. Table 3.10-5 presents estimated vibration at distances of 25 feet from various construction vibration sources. As discussed above, levels of 0.2 in/sec PPV for continuous vibration sources were applied as significance thresholds for daytime construction vibration analysis. Vibration levels reduce at a rate proportional to (1/D)1.5, where D is the distance from the vibration source (FTA 2006). Table 3.10-6 presents the distances within which the criteria of 0.2 in/sec for structural damage and 0.016 in/sec, the most sensitive human criterion may be exceeded.

Table 3.10-5 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment at 25 Feet. Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) (in/sec) Equipment 1 At 25 Feet Pile Driver (Sonic or Vibratory) Upper Range 0.734 Typical 0.170 Vibratory Roller 0.210 Large Bulldozer 0.089 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozer 0.003 1 Except as noted below, vibration amplitudes for construction equipment at 25 feet are provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as obtained near various

6 There are many potential causes of cosmetic cracking including naturally occurring changes to the building materials from moisture, age, temperature, door slams, earthquakes, and from the differential settlement of the building foundation.

182 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

types of equipment and assume normal propagation conditions. 2 WIA 2007 Source: FTA 2006, Dowding 1996 and WIA 2007

Table 3.10-6 Vibration Criterion Distances. Vibration at 25 ft (in/sec Distance to Reach 0.2 Distance to Reach 0.016 Activity Equipment PPV) in/sec PPV in/sec PPV* Excavation Jackhammer 0.035 <10 ft 42 Vibratory Roller 0.210 26 ft 135 ft Dozer 0.089 15 ft 78 ft Soldier Piles Augering 0.017 < 10 ft 25 ft (limited areas) Sheet pile Vibratory “Typical” 0.17 23 ft 120 ft Sheet pile Vibratory “Upper Range” 0.734 60 ft 318 ft Trucking and Hauling Loaded Trucks 0.076 13 ft 68 ft * Does not include vibration adjustments inside building due to uncertainty. Therefore, this level is to be considered at grade.

Excavators and vibratory equipment used in backfilling would generate vibrations of 0.21 in/sec PPV at 25 feet. Therefore to reach the threshold of damage for structures (0.2 in/sec PPB for cracking of paint or plaster), vibratory rollers would have to be used within 26 feet of a home. In comparison, excavators would not result in significant impacts on structures at a distance of 25 feet. Vibration from excavation would not exceed the most conservative criterion (nighttime construction – 0.016 PPV) for human disturbance at a distance of 135 feet.

Trucking of excavated material to the staging areas or imported fill on haul trucks would be infrequent and short term. Deliveries and hauling would occur only during the day. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (2006) lists vibration from loaded (construction) trucks as 0.076 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet. This vibration is well below the criterion for cosmetic structural damage (0.2 in/sec PPV). Vibration from trucking would not exceed the most conservative criterion (nighttime construction – 0.016 PPV) for human disturbance at a distance of 68 feet. However, the homes closest to the excavation areas are greater than 700 feet away. This analysis is conservative because construction would occur during the day.

3.10.3.5 Ambient Noise Levels The Proposed Project would result in a temporary increase in noise levels from construction; however, since there is no permanent operational component, the Proposed Project would not result in a permanent increase in noise levels.

3.10.3.6 Exposure of People to Excessive Noise Levels from a Public Airport The Project Area is located within the vicinity of the South Lake Tahoe Airport, a public airport. No private airports exist in the Project Area. Aircraft-related noise is closely regulated by the South Lake Tahoe Airport. Noise restrictions and regulations are covered under the Master Plan Settlement Agreement and Access Plan, adopted in 1992, as recorded and binding by the Federal District Court (Brand & French 2007).

Noise contours for the Airport were prepared by Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc., as a part of the 1992 Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan. Annual updates have been prepared each year since 1993. Estimated CNEL contours for the year 2010 indicate that the noise from the airport in the Project Area would not be above 60dBA (Brand & French 2007), which is within the maximum noise levels of the daytime El Dorado County Non-Transportation Noise Standards. Therefore, noise from the airport would not expose workers to excessive noise levels.

Further, because the maximum construction and transportation noise levels would comply with the applicable standards and the average construction and transportation noise levels would be lower than current average

ENTRIX, INC. 183 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

daytime noise levels, the noise caused by the Proposed Project would not expose airport workers to excessive noise levels.

3.10.4 Effects Determination

3.10.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act Determination Construction of the Proposed Project would result in a temporary increase in noise from construction. However, noise levels would be below applicable standards. Similarly, vibration from excavation and hauling of soil would meet the strictest standards (those established for nighttime construction). Therefore, neither noise nor vibration would have a significant effect on the adjacent community. Furthermore, best management practices and Construction Control Measures NOI-1 (limit construction activities to 7:00 am- 6:30 pm) and NOI-2 (notifying the community) would be employed.

Because of the short term nature and low volume of traffic expected during implementation of the Proposed Project, the noise-related impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. In addition, since the homes closest to the excavation areas are greater than 700 feet away and project-related trucking would be infrequent and short-term and would only occur during the day, no significant vibration impacts would result from the Proposed Project.

184 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.10.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act Determination

NOISE Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project result in: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other X agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project X expose people residing or working in the Project Area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the Project Area to excessive noise levels? X

a) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project would result in a temporary increase in noise from construction. However, noise levels would be below applicable standards and this impact would be less than significant. The TRPA Code of Ordinances regulates construction-related noise in portions of El Dorado County within the Lake Tahoe region. Chapter 23.8 of the Code exempts construction-related noise provided such activities are limited to the hours between 8:00 am and 6:30 pm. The Proposed Project’s construction activities would occur between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:30 pm, upon permit approval or exemption from TRPA (NOI-1). If construction activities must run past these hours, the CTC or LTBMU would obtain approval from TRPA for all construction activities occurring outside of TRPA’s exempted hours (NOI-3). b) Less Than Significant Impact. Transportation-related noise sources which could generate ground borne vibration or noise would be limited to construction worker vehicles, visitor vehicles, and deliveries. According to that traffic analysis (CSLT 2008), the volume of traffic generated by these sources would be very low in relation to existing traffic volumes therefore, traffic related noise would be less than significant. c) No Impact. Construction activities are temporary and ambient noise levels would return to preconstruction levels once activities are completed. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Overall, the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial temporary, periodic or permanent increase in ambient noise levels given compliance with noise standards and implementation of BMPs and construction controls NOI-1 and NOI-2. Similarly, vibration from excavation and hauling of soil would meet the strictest standards (those established for nighttime construction) and any impacts from vibration would be less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. Although the Proposed Project is located within two miles of a public airport, people residing or working in the Project Area would not be exposed to excessive noise levels. f) No Impact. Because no private airstrips exist in the Project Area, there would be no impact from private airports.

ENTRIX, INC. 185 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.10.5 Cumulative Effects and Determination Construction of the Proposed Project could overlap to some degree with the construction of other projects described in Section 3.1.3 including restoration projects, trail projects, erosion control and other construction projects. As these projects are located at substantial distances from the Proposed Project and nearby sensitive receptors, any increase in ambient noise would be imperceptibly higher at distance. Because of the distance between the projects listed in Table 3.1-1, and that individual projects would comply with applicable noise standards, the combined effects of these projects would result in no significant cumulative impacts from noise or vibration.

As noise levels for the airport are within the maximum allowed by El Dorado County Non-Transportation Noise Standards and that individual projects listed in Table 3.1-1would comply with applicable noise standards, the combined effects of these projects with the noise and vibration generated from the airport would not result in significant cumulative noise impacts as it would not expose people residing or working in the Project Area to excessive cumulative noise levels

186 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.11 RECREATION This section presents an analysis of potential recreational impacts resulting from the No Action/No Project Alternative and the Proposed Project. Impacts were considered significant if they would increase the use of existing recreational facilities resulting in their substantial deterioration, or require expansion of existing recreational facilities, causing an adverse environmental effect. Impacts were also considered significant if they resulted in a decrease in either the quality of recreation experience, or access to recreation opportunities.

3.11.1 Existing Conditions Located in the Sierra Nevada mountain range, the Lake Tahoe region provides numerous outdoor recreational opportunities for visitors and residents. Recreational users of this region primarily originate from the states of California and Nevada, and participate in a wide variety of summer activities such as hiking, camping, golfing, rock climbing, fishing, beach activities, boating, rafting/kayaking, as well as winter activities such as downhill skiing, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and snowmobiling.

Dispersed recreation activities occur within the Project Area, as surveyed in 2004 (CTC 2004a, 2005g). Developed recreational uses surrounding the Project Area include the Tahoe Valley Campground, located to the west of the Project Area, and the Lake Tahoe Golf Course, located southwest of the Project Area. The Tahoe Valley Campground is located on privately owned land, just south of Barton Memorial Hospital. The campground is open year-round and some of the amenities include: full hook-up RV sites and tent sites, satellite TV, heated pool, tennis court, sports court, playground, recreation room, general store, and meeting facilities. The Lake Tahoe Golf Course is open from spring through fall for golfing, and the area is used for snowmobiling in the winter.

Reaches 5 and 6 of the UTR run parallel to the Washoan subdivision in the Tahoe Paradise residential area. This subdivision is characterized by small lots with medium to high density residential housing. Along Highway U.S. 50 frontage, commercial uses and the airport are adjacent to the roadway. User-created trails for walking and mountain biking exist in the Project Area (CTC 2004a; PR Doc #K-7). The trails are not designated by any agency in the Tahoe Basin (including the CTC and LTBMU) as recreation areas. Residents of the Washoan subdivision gain access to these trails primarily by entering across several undeveloped lots within the subdivision and from adjacent public lands. Some public urban lots have well-defined access routes. The major public access point at the south end is located along Elks Club Drive at the site of the former Elks Club building. There are also access points toward the north near the Sierra Tract. North-south bicycle traffic traverses the eastern side of the Project Area.

Informal field surveys were conducted in the summer and fall of 2004 to characterize recreational access, quality, and usage within the Project Area (CTC 2005g). These surveys indicate the trails receive moderate use by locals on both weekdays and weekends. Typical recreation activities observed on these trails include hiking, dog walking, mountain biking, and some limited horseback riding. Winter activities in the area include snowmobiling, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing.

Water-based uses along the river are also popular, including seasonal rafting/kayaking, swimming at several sand bars, and fishing. The beds of lakes, streams, and other navigable waterways are held in trust by the State of California, whose residents are afforded rights of access. The most popular raft “put in” location is at Elks Club and Highway U.S. 50, with “take out” either at Highway U.S. 50 at the Sierra Tract subdivision, or more typically, further downstream along Venice Drive. A second river access point exists just south of the airport. The late spring/early summer rafting season on the UTR is relatively short due to cool air and water temperatures and the need for adequate flow, although it has become increasingly popular. Peak flow occurs between May and June (~200 to 500 cfs). Seasonal low flow occurs between July and November (< 25 cfs). Boating opportunities are substantially reduced during low flow conditions.

ENTRIX, INC. 187 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Recreational use in the Project Area has contributed to impacts on natural resources (CTC 2004a, 2005g). The banks of the UTR are eroded where concentrated use occurs and where heavily used trails access the river (CTC 2005g). Boating may contribute to bank erosion and riparian degradation, specifically at resting and portage or take out sites. Snowmobilers have created jumps in the past by using parts of the incised UTR as a “half-pipe” during winter. In some cases, trail use in wet areas has caused incised trail segments to form, although these incised areas are not connected to the channel flow. An informal field survey in July 2008, however, found that trail use patterns have changed, resulting in an overall reduction in disturbance on many trail segments, particularly in the upland forest along the eastern Project Area. Figure 3.11-1 shows the known extent of the trail network as of July 2008.

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences / Environmental Impacts of the No Action / No Project Alternative The No Action/No Project Alternative would not involve any construction actions and therefore no recreation impacts would occur. The recreation opportunities in the Project Area are expected to remain similar to existing conditions. Other projects in the region listed in Table 3.1-1 would occur, and may have effects on recreation. One possible alignment for a future extension of the Greenway Bike Trail could be located east of the restored channel. If this alignment is chosen and other adjacent projects upstream and downstream of the Project Area are completed, they would offer a convenient transportation alternative and high quality recreation experience. This could increase recreation potential in the Project Area. There may be short-term construction-related recreation impacts as these projects are being constructed; however, overall, the No Action/No Project Alternative is expected to have less than significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on recreation in the Project Area.

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences / Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project Alternative

3.11.3.1 Access to Meadow and River Recreation Construction of the new channel would take place from mid-summer to fall when flows are low, and would not limit river use. Rafters and kayakers would experience some temporary closures and perhaps sites that would need to be portaged at the location of the temporary crossings/bridges. Land access would be closed where it enters the construction area for safety reasons. During construction, access to some existing trails would be limited at certain times. Recreation users would be provided informational signage at the Elks Club area, and other access points into the Project Area (REC-1). This signage would include information about construction activities and timelines, with a map showing the areas where access will be limited during construction. Several existing user-created trails along the UTR would be fenced off during construction, and river-based recreation, such as fishing and boating activities, through Reaches 5 and 6, would be affected (REC-2). However, this impact would be temporary and would be limited in extent because recreational users would still have the opportunity to walk or bike to the river, or through the meadow outside of the active construction areas. Rafters and kayakers would still be allowed to float down the river, but may have to portage around some road crossings. Access would be maintained for trail users in some areas for both hiking and mountain biking (REC-3).

Boating on the river through the Project Area would be affected at the locations where in-channel work is being performed. Restrictions would occur during construction of channel tie-ins (in-channel work lasting several days) when the new channel is connected with the old channel in the final year of construction for both Reaches 5 and 6. This step in the construction phasing would be done late in the summer or early fall when the water level is low and less conducive to river boating. Boaters would be allowed to portage around these construction sections.

188 ENTRIX, INC. E

m

e AP-18 AP-13

r

a

l

d

Lake B a

Tahoe y 15000 R 14000

d

.

AP-12

N E C V A A L D IF A O A

R R N I

IA B

A T 16000 AP-11

AP-10 T

R

O

P

R I 18000 17000 A I N K E A A O O A W OM H G A K H S H A O S I A U A T W M T N

O

E N

N K O A 19000 L

KA NSA

20000

T SEMA AP-1

Y A M W INGW AP-9 A E

T

21000 T

O

N

A M O C A

AP-8 A C N O P 22000

N HEKPA AP-19 E R O B

23000 50

S E L G 24000 A E Y N E E L L L G A V l i E a N I r T P r e e n o i P 25000 AP-7

AP-5 AP-6 AP-3 BLA-1 AP-4

CHE S

RR

E Y

26000 H L

I

L G

L A S

E E

R 27000 AP-2 I N E BLA-2 A L

L D G E R BI B R E D N U

H

T E N I L Y K Y L S R E V E 28000 A LKS CLUB W

Project Boundary Recreational Access Point

Upper Truckee River Existing User-Created Trails as of Summer 2006* Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restor ation Project 1000-foot River Station Trail Paths Parcel Boundary Figure 3.11-1 Alignment Based on 50% Design Plans Recreational Access in the Project Area Potential Storage/Staging and/or Dewatering Area 500 250 0 500 Potential Haul Route Feet Projection: California Stateplane, Zone 2 * Data obtained from CTC, June 2008 Datum: NAD 83 3/25/11

Z:\GIS\Entrix\3089102_SunsetStables\map\mxd\EA\SS_RecAccess_11i17i.mxd FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Construction and operation of the new channel would remove some existing user-created trail segments; however these segments would likely be replaced with new user-created trails. Some sections of existing trails would be cut off by the new channel, but other previously inaccessible regions of the meadow would become accessible. Although particular trail segments may be closed, overall recreational access within the Project Area would be restored after construction (REC-4). New trail segments would likely be reestablished by recreational users, just as the existing trail network was established. Potential impacts from the creation of user trails would be monitored for the first two years after implementation, and issues would be addressed under the CTC or LTBMU’s existing programs.

Following construction, operation of the new channel would slightly change trail use. In most years, the new, smaller channel would increase the number of days in spring that the meadow is flooded and thus would temporarily limit land-based recreation in a portion of the Project Area. The number of days overbanking flows occur per year is approximately 3-7 days under existing conditions, and would increase to approximately 12-20 days (CTC 2008b). Currently, 58 acres are inundated at the 2-year flow (760 cfs) and 132 acres are inundated at the 5-year flow (1,660 cfs) (CTC 2008b, summarized in Section 3.9.3.4). Under the Proposed Project, the inundated area would increase to approximately 99-129 acres (2-year flow) and 140-173 acres (5-year flow). However, the additional duration of this inundation would be a matter of days, and north- south trail access would still be available along the eastern portion of the Project Area in the uplands.

The boating experience would also be changed following restoration of flows to the new channel. The new river channel will be smaller and narrower, and sustain a greater depth of flow into the summer. Lateral grade control structures, located in the banks where the new channel crosses or transitions into the existing channel would be designed and installed so they would not interfere with rafting or kayaking. The new banks eventually would be lined with riparian vegetation and some wood structures that may overhang the channel and/or extend into the channel below or at the flow level. These would be designed to allow for continued boat access down the river. In addition, the improved depth of flow would provide more days that could support rafting and kayaking in the channel. Improved aquatic habitat conditions could also improve recreational fishing. Therefore, the Proposed Project would likely change the times that some portions of the Project Area are suitable for hiking and biking, would prolong the period when the river is suitable for watercraft, and provide an overall better quality experience at the restored river.

3.11.3.2 Effects on Other Recreational Facilities While there would be a short-term loss of recreational access that would potentially affect use patterns within the Project Area, recreational users would still have opportunities to walk to the river or through the meadow in the Project Area. The new channel would not be constructed in Reaches 5 and 6 at the same time, leaving portions of the Project Area open to the public. The Proposed Project has incorporated design features and construction controls that would reduce impacts, as described in Section 2.4.1.11. Trail access would be provided to trail users in areas outside of the active construction area, where it is safe for the public (REC-3). Informational signage would be posted in the vicinity of the Elks Club, where boaters are likely to access the river (REC-1). This signage would inform visitors about construction activities, and that river access could be limited or closed along various stretches. Except for the placement of temporary crossings/bridges, construction in the active river channel would only occur in late summer and fall at the final stage of each of the Proposed Project phases (i.e. Reach 5 and Reach 6) when water is low and less attractive to boaters.

The typical recreational user in the Project Area likely chooses to use the same recreation areas because of proximity to their neighborhood. Nearby recreation areas would likely receive more use during the construction period. However recreational use in the Project Area is moderate, and displaced recreational use would not result in the substantial physical deterioration of another dispersed recreation area.

ENTRIX, INC. 191 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.11.4 Effects Determination

3.11.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act Determination Construction of the new channel would temporarily limit trail access and restrict river access. During construction, trail access would be limited due to public safety concerns while construction activities are proceeding. Construction and operation of the new channel would result in abandonment of some existing trail segments. However, each trail along the old channel that is abandoned may result in a new trail being created again by users along the new channel segment. Any diminished access would be short term because the same level of access would be restored after construction by removing fences and allowing users to utilize the Project Area (REC-4). Structures added for bank protection and grade control would not inhibit access or become an endangerment for boaters because they would be designed to allow for unobstructed boat access down the river; therefore, the effects on recreational access would be short term and less than significant.

Construction and operation of the new channel would change the experience for rafting and kayaking. The river channel will be narrower and the water would be deeper and the channel eventually would be lined with more riparian vegetation. However, the Proposed Project would not materially change the amount of channel available for boating. Further, the impact to boating would occur during the time of the year when the river flow is low and boating opportunities are already diminished. The river will likely overflow its banks more often in spring, but should allow the same level of access during summer and fall. Overall, this change would result in only minor changes to recreational access. It would reduce access for boating during construction in the channel for a few days each construction season, but could lengthen the season for suitable boating conditions once the project is completed and create a more natural setting.

3.11.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act Determination

RECREATION Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project: Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility X would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the X environment?

a) Less Than Significant Impact. Recreational use of the Project Area is moderate, and the Proposed Project would not displace recreational use to other areas to the extent that those facilities would deteriorate. While short-term impacts to recreational access would occur in the Project Area, users would still have the opportunity to access the river and trails in the vicinity of the Project. Further, construction controls REC-1 through REC-4 would be implemented. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

b) No Impact. The Proposed Project does not include construction of or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact.

3.11.5 Cumulative Effects and Determination The Proposed Project in combination with the Projects listed in Table 3.1-1 would result in temporary impacts on recreation due to diminished access to the river and trails. The Proposed Project construction would begin in 2011 and take 4 to 10 8 years to complete and, would not inhibit access to the trails; thus, the Proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable recreation impact. The USFS South Shore Fuels

192 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Reduction project would likely occur concurrently; however, the vegetation treatments associated with this project would be phased over a four-year time period, and as with most of the other listed cumulative projects it is not anticipated that this project will adversely affect recreational resources because it would not: 1) remove or damage existing recreational resources directly, 2) disrupt access to existing recreation facilities, or 3) cause environmental impacts (such as air quality or noise effects) that would result in deterioration of the quality of the recreational experience, since they would be located sufficiently far enough away from recreational resources to avoid affecting them either temporarily or permanently.

Several other river restoration projects are in the planning and implementation stages. The Airport Reach is expected to go through the final construction phase late in the summer of 2011. Reaches 1 and 2, downstream of the Airport Reach are in the design stages, but the primary action for these reaches will be to direct all the flow into one of the two channels in these two reaches. The UTR Marsh is still in the planning stages and will not go to construction soon. The Golf Course Reach is also in the planning stages. Construction of these projects would be phased with no two projects being connected to the UTR flow in a single year. The Proposed Project would not displace recreation to other areas to the extent that those facilities would deteriorate. Other projects would not adversely impact recreational resources because they would not remove recreational facilities, disrupt access significantly, or cause significant air or noise impacts. Other restoration projects in the area would maintain access to the extent practicable.

CBecause construction of the restoration projects in the UTR watershed would be phased such that no two projects are being connected to the UTR flows in a single year. Therefore as described above, any cumulative impacts to boating in the river would be less than significant. Cumulative effects on recreation from the projects considered for this analysis would be less than significant because existing recreational resources and opportunities would be largely maintained, access would be maintained to the extent practicable, and recreation facilities would not be substantially adversely affected such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s contribution to any cumulative impact from displaced recreation and deterioration of other facilities would be less than cumulatively considerable and cumulative effects would not be significant.

ENTRIX, INC. 193 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

This page intentionally left blank

194 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.12 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This section describes the existing traffic conditions in the study area and analyzes potential impacts to traffic and transportation in the study area during construction of the Proposed Project. The traffic analysis conducted for the Airport Reach Project (CSLT 2008) was used as a guide to determine the traffic and circulation impacts of the Proposed Project. This analysis was used because the construction activities of the Proposed Project would be very similar to those of the Airport Reach Project and the Airport Reach project is on an immediately adjacent parcel.

The study area encompasses all roads and highways that would be used to access the Project site as well as the Lake Tahoe Airport. The main corridor to the Project site is U.S. Highway 50/State Route 89. The main residential streets utilized would be Elks Club Drive. The unnamed entrance driveway and road off Highway U.S. 50 located to the east of the intersection of Jewel Road and Highway U.S. 50 would also be used to access the former Sunset Stables property.

3.12.1 Existing Conditions

3.12.1.1 Roadway Characteristics U.S. Highway 50 East joins State Route 89 North (CA 89) in Meyers; the highway is also designated as Emerald Bay Road. North of the Lake Tahoe Airport, CA 89 continues north, and Highway U.S. 50 turns to the East as Lake Tahoe Boulevard. Highway U.S. 50 is the main corridor traveling along the south shore of Lake Tahoe, and continues to the Stateline Corridor. From the Airport entrance to Pioneer Trail to the south, U.S. 50/CA 89 is a two-lane highway with a posted speed limit ranging between 45 to 55 miles per hour (mph). At F Street in South Lake Tahoe, approximately 0.6 miles north of the Airport entrance, the highway continues north as a four-lane highway with a center turn lane and a speed limit of 40 mph.

Elks Club Drive is a two-lane residential street that is located to the south of the Project Area. It intersects with Highway U.S. 50 to the west and Pioneer Trail to the east. Washoan Boulevard is a two-lane residential street that is located to the east of the Project Area. It intersects with Tabira Court to the north and Pioneer Trail to the south. There is an unnamed dirt road located to the east of the intersection of Jewel Road and Highway U.S. 50 that would be used to access the former Sunset Stables property at the former building site.

3.12.1.2 Existing Traffic Volumes Table 3.12-1 presents the average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume in number of vehicles per day, and the peak hour volume (number of vehicles during “rush hour”) at points along Highway U.S. 50 adjacent to the Project Area (Caltrans 2009a).

ENTRIX, INC. 195 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Table 3.12-1 Traffic Volumes on U.S. Highway 50 segments (2008)

Roadway Segment Average Annual Daily Traffic Volume Peak Hour Volume7 (AADT)

U.S. 50 North/East of location South/West of location North/East of location South/West of location (vehicles per day) (vehicles per day) (vehicles per hour) (vehicles per day) Meyers, Pioneer Trail Road 13,000 13,000 1,850 1,750 Sawmill Road (near Elks Club Blvd.) 12,900 13,100 1,550 1,850 South Lake Tahoe, H Street 19,000 12,900 2,400 1,550 Source: Caltrans 2009a.

3.12.1.3 Level of Service A measure called “Level of Service” (LOS) is used to measure traffic conditions. Progressively worsening traffic conditions are given letter grades A through F. While most motorists consider an A, B, or C LOS satisfactory, LOS D is considered marginally acceptable. Congestion and delay are considered unacceptable to most motorists and given an LOS E or F ratings. The LOS of an intersection is determined by the methodology set forth in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2000).

The portion of Highway U.S. 50 adjacent to the Project Area (Segment 17, south junction with SR 89 in Meyers to north junction with SR 89 in South Lake Tahoe) has a rating LOS E (Caltrans 2009b). This rating means operating conditions are at or near roadway capacity. During Sunday-peak and seasonal congestion, westbound traffic sometimes backs up from Echo Summit into South Lake Tahoe at the Wye (“Y”), where SR 89 continues north and Highway U.S. 50 turns east (Caltrans 2009b). Based on a volume-to-capacity calculation, the segment of Highway U.S. 50 at H Street is currently operating at LOS F and the segment at Sawmill Road (near Elks Club Blvd.) is currently operating at LOS C (see Table 3.12-3 below).

3.12.1.4 Lake Tahoe Airport Operations The Lake Tahoe Airport operates as a Class B3 Airport and serves general aviation (private, corporate, and business jets), military, and emergency aircraft. There is one helicopter tour that operates out of the Airport. There are no scheduled commercial flights, and therefore the air traffic control tower has not been in operation since 2004. The Airport serves approximately 25,000 operations per year (takeoffs and landings counted separately). The single runway is about 8,500 feet long by 100 feet wide.

3.12.1.5 Walking and Bicycling Trails User-created trails for walking and mountain biking exist in the Project Area (CTC 2004a). However, since the original assessment of existing conditions (CTC 2004a), an informal field survey in July 2008 found that many trail segments that were documented have been abandoned and are becoming revegetated, particularly in the forest along the eastern portion of the Project Area. Figure 3.11-1 shows the known extent of the trail network as of July 2008, including those that have been abandoned and are revegetating.

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project Alternative Under the No Action/No project Alternative, traffic volumes and the LOS would essentially continue at existing levels. The No Action/No Project Alternative would not result in direct, indirect or cumulative effects to transportation and traffic.

7 Although Caltrans provides an estimate of the "peak hour" traffic at all points on the state highway system, peak hour for the roads around the Project Area is approximately 11 am –12 pm and 4 pm – 5 pm (CSLT 2008)

196 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.12.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the Project Impacts were considered significant if the Proposed Project would cause a substantial increase in airport traffic, exceed county-designated levels of congestion (Table 3.12-2), result in a change to air traffic patterns, substantially increase hazards, result in inadequate emergency access, conflict with adopted policies or plans (e.g., TRPA or Caltrans), or cause a change in parking demand. Short-term traffic impacts from construction could occur along Highway U.S. 50 and Elks Club Drive near the entrances to the site. In the long-term (following construction activities), the Proposed Project would not affect transportation, traffic, and circulation because no new residences, commercial or other uses are proposed that would induce additional vehicle trips.

Table 3.12-2 Percent Increase to Traffic Volumes on Local Roadways associated with the Proposed Project, an Impact Comparison.

Meyers, Pioneer Trail Road Sawmill Road (near Elks Club Blvd.) South Lake Tahoe, H Street Existing AADT 13,000 12,900 19,000 Existing Maximum Traffic During 1,850 1,850 2,400 Project Peak Hour Project Number of Daily Vehicle 60 60 60 Trips Percent Increase in AADT 0.5 percent 0.5 percent 0.3 percent Volume Percent Increase during Project 3.24 Peak Hour Exceed El Dorado County traffic No no No mitigation threshold1 Exceed TRPA significance No no No criteria2 Exceed Caltrans significance No no no criteria3 Notes: 1: Per El Dorado County Department of Transportation, there are no thresholds for traffic due to temporary construction 2; 100 trips per day 3: Within the study area, Caltrans has jurisdiction over Highway U.S. 50. In this region of Highway U.S. 50, Caltrans enforces the TRPA traffic threshold of LOS D, or LOS E for a period of four hours or less. Source Caltrans 2009a and b

3.12.3.1 Traffic Volumes The Proposed Project would result in a temporary increase in traffic during the summer construction months due to movement of heavy equipment accessing the site and daily construction worker traffic. An average of 20 worker vehicles would enter and exit the site Monday through Friday during the approximate 120-day construction season specified in the project description. The peak number of workers would be approximately 30. Vehicles would park at the former Sunset Stables property and/or at the former Elks Club property. Each vehicle would make two vehicle trips per day, one between 6:00 and 8:00 a.m. and one between 5:00 and 7:00 pm. Although these trips may overlap with peak hour times along Highway U.S. 50 and Elks Club Drive, as stipulated by the El Dorado County Department of Transportation, there are no thresholds for traffic due to temporary construction (El Dorado County DOT consultation, as referenced in CSLT 2008). Therefore, there would be no exceedance of an El Dorado County traffic impact threshold.

The number of project vehicle trips including workers and deliveries was estimated to be similar to that for the Airport Project (CSLT 2008). Based on that project, the estimated total project vehicle trips including workers and deliveries would be below 60 per day and therefore are considered not significant in accordance

ENTRIX, INC. 197 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

with the TRPA Code of Ordinances (Chapter 93). Although the code was adopted to mitigate indirect air pollution from new development, and is not directly applicable to the Proposed Project, it provides a reasonable guideline for determining significant impacts.

Table 3.12-3 shows the general roadway capacity for segments in the Project Area and their maximum roadway capacity by volume (Caltrans 2009a). Using this data, the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio was calculated with the resulting LOS per segment by adding the expected trips that would result from implementation of the Proposed Project. This trip analysis is based on a detailed traffic analysis prepared for an adjacent, similar UTR restoration project (Upper Truckee River Restoration Project, Middle Reaches 3 and 4. This project assumed an average of 40 to a maximum of 60 project-related vehicle trips per day. Included in this number are 1,500 haul truck trips associated with importing fill materials for the Proposed Project (specifically, gravel and cobble substrate for the new channel and boulders for the lateral and grade control structures, road base for the encapsulated roads, and additional fill for the old channel) and aggregate base material for the temporary paving of the Sunset Stables storage area. Imported fill is assumed to come from outside the Basin, but there is a potential that fill could be moved locally from a project site near Bijou Creek within the Basin. These 1,500 round trips will be spread over the 2 – 4 year construction window within the 4 – 10 year restoration period (i.e., a maximum of 375 trips per year over four years). Over the approximate 120-day construction season, assuming no work on weekends (~34 days), this could result in 86 days of construction, which equates to 8.7 average trips per day or about eight to nine round trips per day. Consequently, the worst case scenario of 60 trips per day includes the additional eight to nine round-trip haul truck trips. However, as this is a conservative estimate, it is possible there could be fewer truck trips than analyzed. As detailed in Table 3.12-3, the Proposed Project construction trips would result in no change in LOS for the roadway segments with the addition of Project construction traffic during peak hour.

Construction would avoid weekend traffic hours, when Highway U.S. 50 is particularly congested (Caltrans 2009b). However, no change in roadway segment LOS would occur with maximum construction trips (see Table 3.12-3). Additionally, to avoid traffic impacts on local roads, excavated material for the new river channel would be managed within the confines of the site (stockpiled and then used for backfill of the old channel) and would not result in truck trips on Highway U.S. 50. Some materials may be brought onto the site to construct portions of the temporary encapsulated road and to supplement for necessary river materials, which would result in additional truck trips throughout the construction period.

Although construction equipment on Highway U.S. 50 would not have a significant impact on traffic, the trucks that enter and exit from Highway U.S. 50 could be large and slow moving, and traffic control measures during deliveries by large trucks could slow traffic. To avoid short-term impacts from construction traffic entering and exiting the site, traffic control will be provided as needed on the specific days of transport of heavy equipment to prevent congestion and safety hazards and traffic control services will also be provided as needed during deliveries of supplies and equipment to prevent congestion and safety hazards at the intersection of Highway U.S. 50 and Elks Club Drive and/or at the intersection of Highway U.S. 50 and the Sunset Stables access road (construction control TR-1).

3.12.3.2 Level of Service To analyze the project’s traffic impacts, maximum peak hour construction trips were added to the existing traffic volumes (Caltrans 2009a) to calculate the change in the v/c ratio and the corresponding change in LOS, if any. Using the v/c ratio, the following roadway segment LOS criteria were used in this analysis:

198 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

 A < 0.60  B= 0.61-0.70  C = 0.71-0.80  D =0 .81-0.90  E = 0.91-1.00  F > 1.0

Table 3.12-3 Roadway Volumes and Level of Service with Project.

Roadway Segment Existing Conditions Existing Plus Construction Peak Hour3 Peak Hour

U.S. 50 Maximum Capacity1 Volume v/c ratio LOS Volume2 v/c ratio LOS (vehicles per hour) (vehicles per hour) (vehicles per hour) Meyers, Pioneer Trail Road 2,000 1,850 0.92 E 1,910 0.95 E Sawmill Road (near Elks Club 2,000 1,550 0.78 C 1,610 0.80 C Blvd.) South Lake Tahoe, H Street 2,000 2,400 1.2 F 2,460 1.2 F Notes: v/c: volume to capacity ratio 1. assumes maximum capacity of 500 vehicles per lane per hour 2. assumes no more than 60 construction vehicles per day Source Caltrans 2009a

3.12.3.3 Parking Capacity During construction, temporary parking would be provided for construction workers at the former Sunset Stables property and/or at the former Elks Club property, and possibly at the northeast end of the Project Area (construction control TR-2). If parking is provided at the northeast end of the Project Area, a stabilized area would be used for temporary parking and this area would be removed and restored to preconstruction conditions. After construction is complete, a portion of the former Elks Club property may be will be permanently converted to parking. for recreational users. The Proposed Project would not permanently remove or displace existing legal parking areas and therefore would not result in inadequate parking.

3.12.3.4 Airport Operations The Proposed Project does not involve construction of above ground structures or construction within airport zones that could affect air traffic patterns. However, the movement of heavy equipment near the airport may affect air traffic and create safety concerns. In order to reduce this potential impact, the contractor and/or LTBMU would communicate with airport staff to specify the timing of operations (TR-3). This traffic control measure would reduce or eliminate potential safety concerns at the Lake Tahoe Airport.

3.12.4 Effects Determination

3.12.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act Determination The Proposed Project would result in a temporary increase in traffic during the 120-day summer construction window. However, the impacts would be short-term (86 days of construction [120 minus weekends] for 4-8

ENTRIX, INC. 199 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

10 years) and would be reduced by providing traffic control as needed during equipment and material delivery to the site (TR-1). The Proposed Project would not change road geometry and no project-related road improvements (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) are proposed. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially increase roadway hazards.

The Proposed Project would not result in any road closures. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Because the Proposed Project would not construct new permanent roadways or remove existing roadways, it would have no impact on public transit, bicycle or pedestrian planning. And finally, the Proposed Project would not result in additional vehicle trips outside of the implementation period, so no significant long-term traffic impacts would result once construction is completed.

3.12.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act Determination

Transportation/Traffic Less than Potentially Significant Impact Less than Would the project: Significant with Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant X components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards X established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or X a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or X dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or X pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

a) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would result in a temporary increase in traffic during the summer construction months for 4 to 6 years out of the 4 to 10 8 year project schedule. Excavated material would be managed within the confines of the site and traffic would not exceed the thresholds outlined by El Dorado County and would not be significant under the TRPA Code of Ordinances (Table 3.12-2). In addition, the Proposed Project would implement measures to address the trucks that would enter and exit from the Project margin along Highway U.S. 50 that could be large and slow moving, as described above. The measures would require preparing a traffic control plan (TR-1) (Section 2.4.1.11). With implementation of the traffic control plan, any impacts on consistency with traffic planning and local ordinances would be less than significant. b) No Impact. The Proposed Project does not include any residential or commercial developments that would permanently increase traffic volumes. The El Dorado County DOT does not list thresholds for traffic due to temporary construction, which would be the only traffic-related impacts from the proposed project (Table 3.12-2). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or exceed the County’s designated level of congestion, and there would be no impact.

200 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT c) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project does not involve construction of above ground structures or construction within airport zones that could affect air traffic patterns. However, the movement of heavy equipment near the airport may affect air traffic and create safety concerns. In order to reduce this potential impact, the Proposed Project would communicate with airport staff to specify the timing of operations as described in Section 2.4.1.11 (design measure TR-3). This traffic control measure would reduce or eliminate potential safety concerns at the Lake Tahoe Airport, and impacts would be less than significant. d) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not change road geometry and no project-related road improvements are proposed (Table 3.12-2). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially increase roadway hazards because of a design feature, and there would be no impact. e) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in any road closures. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access, and there would be no impact. f) No Impact. The Proposed Project is not a transportation project and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation because the local roads used for construction would not be subject to closures. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not interfere with or discourage alternate transportation, and there would be no impact.

3.12.5 Cumulative Effects and Determination The Proposed Project would result in a temporary increase in traffic during the summer construction months. However, the impacts would be short term and would be reduced with implementation of a traffic construction plan. Traffic and circulation impacts from simultaneous projects in the Project Area have the potential to cause cumulative impacts. However, these projects would all occur at distances from the Proposed Project such that the combined traffic and circulation impacts would be imperceptibly higher than from the Proposed Project alone. In addition, the Proposed Project and other cumulative projects would implement measures to address truck and other traffic (i.e., preparing a traffic control plan). Together, these projects would comply with applicable traffic and circulation standards and would not be significant in terms of the traffic and circulation impact significance criteria.

The Proposed Project does not include any residential or commercial developments that would permanently increase traffic volumes. The County’s Congestion Management plan, if it existed, would only consider long- term changes in traffic volumes and is not applicable to short-term construction impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulative effect on the County’s designated level of congestion. The Proposed Project does not involve construction of above ground structures or construction within airport zones that could affect air traffic patterns. However, the movement of heavy equipment near the airport may affect air traffic and create safety concerns. To reduce this potential impact, the Proposed Project would communicate with airport staff to specify the timing of operations. Adjacent projects would implement the same measure as needed, reducing any cumulative impacts on airport safety to less than significant.

The Proposed Project would not change road geometry, improve roadways, close roads, interfere with emergency access, or conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to roadway hazards or conflicts with transportation planning.

ENTRIX, INC. 201 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

This page intentionally left blank

202 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.13 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS This section analyzes the effects of the No Action/No Project Alternative and the Proposed Project on utilities and service systems within the Project Area and surrounding uses.

3.13.1 Existing Conditions The local utility providers are: STPUD for water and sewer, Southwest Gas Company for natural gas, Sierra Pacific Power Company for electricity, South Tahoe Refuse and Recycling (STRR) for solid waste, AT&T for telephone, and Charter Communications for cable TV. The Project site sits atop existing underground utilities consisting of sanitary sewer, potable water, and backup treated effluent export pipelines belonging to the STPUD. There are no other utility systems within the Project Area.

The STPUD holds easements for location and access to its sanitary sewer collector lines (gravity-fed), water line (pressurized line), and back-up effluent export line (also called “force main export line”) in the Project Area. The main collector line and the back-up effluent export line run along the eastern side of the meadow, and cross the river where the river channel runs east across the meadow. The water line and several gravity sewer lines from adjacent parcels also cross the river channel. There are four places where sewer and water lines cross the existing UTR channel. These utilities are of major importance to the STPUD system. The gravity sewer line is the major trunk line carrying sewage from the Meyers area to the treatment plant. The backup effluent export line serves to provide redundancy to the STPUD treated effluent line export system in the event of a disruption of service of the main export line. Maintaining the backup export line was mandated by Lahontan as a condition of approval of the new export line at the time it was approved for construction. STPUD has subsequently determined that the line continues to have value as a backup system and needs to keep it in place for that purpose. The expected life of the existing lines is at least 50 more years. Due to the importance of these utility lines and the services they provide, the large costs associated with relocating them, and the limited additional ecological benefit that moving these lines would provide (AEM PR Doc #B-3), these utilities need to be retained in their current location, and protected in place.

Solid waste collection/disposal service for the Project Area is provided by STRR. STRR’s transfer station, located on Ruth Avenue in South Lake Tahoe, is the closest waste handling facility to the Project Area (STRR 2010). The transfer station accepts solid waste (including hazardous and non-hazardous construction waste) for disposal. The facility is large enough to dispose of day-to-day municipal trash or solid waste, but not large quantities of waste. If quantities do exceed the maximum allowable for the STRR, the waste would be taken to the Waste Management Lockwood Landfill, located just outside Reno, Nevada, which also accepts solid waste (Waste Management, Inc. 2010). Additionally, the Lockwood Landfill is licensed to accept soil with petroleum hydrocarbon contamination for treatment and disposal, if needed.

3.13.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project Alternative The No Action/No Project Alternative would not involve excavation or relocation of utilities or other construction. Therefore, the No Action/No Project Alternative would have no direct, indirect or cumulative impact on utilities or service systems.

3.13.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project The Project would not create demand for, or require construction or expansion of, new utilities or service systems. No additional water, wastewater, or stormwater would be required from, or added to, existing treatment facilities, and substantial quantities of solid waste would not be generated by the Proposed Project.

ENTRIX, INC. 203 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.13.3.1 Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment The Proposed Project does not involve homes, businesses or industrial uses that would require a long-term potable water supply or wastewater treatment services. During construction, the Proposed Project would only produce small quantities of wastewater from on-site sanitation and pipeline dewatering and would not require new wastewater treatment services. Sanitary facilities would be limited to temporary portable toilets used on- site by construction crews. The construction contractor or USFS would provide all water supplies required for construction (i.e., dust control via water truck). No new or expanded entitlements would be needed; therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on water supplies, or on the Regional Board’s requirements for wastewater treatment.

The alignment of the proposed river channel is designed to largely avoid existing water, sewer and effluent export pipelines, except for three crossings in Reach 5. The sewer line crossing will not require changes to the pipeline, however, during one of the construction years for Reach 5, water service would be interrupted for a brief period (less than day) to allow construction crews to lower the water line and backup effluent export pipelines where the new channel will cross them (Section 2.4.3.2). This will occur after Labor Day weekend (as per STPUD requirement), which would reduce or avoid impacts to utility uses. While this could temporarily inconvenience some customers, it would not create a need for new or expanded facilities. Effluent export line relocation would require draining the backup export line. This small volume of treated wastewater would either be transferred into the STPUD gravity sewer line adjacent to the Project Area or trucked to an existing facility for treatment and disposal. In areas where existing utility lines would be near the new channel, protection measures such as buried rock protections, or other suitable protection measure approved by STPUD, would be installed.

Prior to excavation, known utility lines would be vertically located to ensure existing utilities are not damaged (UTIL-1) and coordination with STPUD would occur (UTIL-2).

Potential impacts from accidental water or sewer line breaks would be avoided, provided the control measures/ BMPs in the SWPPP are properly implemented (GHWQ-1, Section 3.9.3.1 Water Quality). Any accidental pipeline damage would be repaired immediately, and the Project would not create a need for new or expanded facilities.

3.13.3.2 Stormwater The Proposed Project does not propose new development involving addition of impervious surfaces, which would increase the volume and flashiness of stormwater runoff, except for possibly temporarily paving the Sunset Stables site. If Sunset Stables is paved, drainage BMPs would be installed until the pavement is removed and the site restored after project implementation is complete. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not require new or expanded stormwater facilities and would have no related impacts. During construction, implementation of a SWPPP (GHWQ-1) and associated BMPs would avoid and reduce potential impacts from stormwater runoff and dewatering discharges during construction, as addressed in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

3.13.3.3 Solid Waste The Proposed Project would not generate substantial quantities of solid waste. Most solid waste generated during construction (e.g. trash, scraps of plastic, fabric, concrete and asphalt) would be taken to STRR or the Waste Management Lockwood Landfill. Both landfill facilities have sufficient permitted capacity to accept the expected volumes of solid waste from this project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on landfill capacity.

The Proposed Project would comply with the Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), which mandates that communities reduce the amount of solid waste being disposed of in landfills. Jurisdictions were required

204 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT to meet diversion goals of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000, compared to a baseline of 1990. AB 939 also established an integrated framework for program implementation, solid waste planning, and solid waste facility and landfill compliance. Therefore, the Proposed Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to management of solid waste and would not conflict with solid waste regulations.

3.13.4 Effects Determination

3.13.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act Determination The proposed alteration of the water line and backup effluent export line crossing the Project Area will not affect utilities or service systems. The pipelines would be dewatered, and the treated wastewater discharged into the gravity sewer line or trucked to a wastewater treatment facility. Disturbed staging and access areas would be restored to pre-construction conditions. Any solid waste would be taken to STRR or the Waste Management Lockwood Landfill. Therefore, waste generated by the Proposed Project would not adversely affect NFS lands.

No new or expanded entitlements would be needed; therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on water supplies, or on the Regional Board’s requirements for wastewater treatment. The Proposed Project would not require new or expanded stormwater facilities and would have no related impacts.

3.13.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act Determination

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less than Potentially Significant Impact Less than

Significant with Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality X Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant X environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant X environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements X and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in X addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s X solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X

ENTRIX, INC. 205 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not involve the construction of homes, business or other activities that would contribute to generation of waste requiring treatment at sanitary waste treatment facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on the Regional Board’s wastewater treatment requirements. b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project would briefly affect STPUD’s water line and backup effluent export pipeline to allow lowering of the pipelines, but the interruption would be of short duration during a period of low use, and impacts would be less than significant. c) No Impact. Because the Proposed Project does not propose new development or other land use that would permanently add impervious surfaces that would generate stormwater. It would not result in construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities and thus would have no impact.

d) No Impact. The Proposed Project does not create demand for any new water service connections, and therefore would have no impact on water supplies from existing entitlements and resources. Existing surface water is available for dust control and revegetation needs. e) No Impact. The Proposed Project does not create demand for any new wastewater connections and therefore would have no impact on wastewater treatment capacity or the wastewater treatment provider’s existing commitments. f) No Impact. The Project Area is served by two landfills with sufficient permitted capacity for the small volume of solid waste that would be generated by the Proposed Project; therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on solid waste disposal as it will be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Proposed Project’s solid waste disposal needs. g) No Impact. Because nearly all solid waste would be reused on-site, the Proposed Project would comply with solid waste regulations and would have no impact.

3.13.5 Cumulative Effects and Determination Several projects in the vicinity of the Project Area are scheduled for construction at the same time as the Proposed Project. However, none of these projects, or other projects considered as part of the cumulative analysis (identified in Table 3.1-1), would result in temporary utility interruptions. Therefore, the combined effects of the Proposed Project with the projects listed in Table 3.1-1 would not result in cumulative impacts. Under CEQA, the Proposed Project would have no impacts on solid waste and would not contribute to any cumulative impacts.

206 ENTRIX, INC. FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

3.14 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines states, “A lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an Environmental Impact Report to be prepared for the project where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the following conditions may occur:”

Less than Potentially Significant Impact Less than Mandatory Findings of Significance Significant with Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the X disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a X project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse X effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

a) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not degrade the quality of the environment. Impacts on biological resources are analyzed in Section 3.4. The purpose and objective of the proposed new river channel is to improve the quality of the environment. Plant communities along the UTR in the Project Area are in poor condition, including riparian scrub areas and meadow. With the Proposed Project, the meadow would experience more frequent flood inundation from the restored channel. The higher bed elevation of the new channel would result in a better connection between the seasonal low groundwater elevation and the meadow. Collectively, these factors would combine to improve the health of obligate and facultative wetland plants that occupy the wet montane meadow, increase overtopping of the channel, and improve the meadow’s capacity to remove sediment from floodwaters. The existing conditions of aquatic habitats in the Project Area are fair to poor due to homogenous channel conditions (i.e. too few pools and riffles), lack of riparian vegetation, limited substrate quality, lack of cover (e.g., overhanging willows along well vegetated banks), actively eroding banks, and limited depth during the summer low flow period. The Proposed Project would not further degrade or reduce aquatic habitats.

The Proposed Project would not have a substantial direct adverse effect on any special-status or candidate species, and therefore would not eliminate a plant or animal community or cause a population of fish or wildlife species to drop below self-sustaining levels. The special-status species with the potential to occur in the area have either not been observed in the Project Area, or their required habitat is not present. Construction of the new river channel would have short-term effects on river and meadow habitat, but would not reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

The Proposed Project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The six known historic sites in the Project Area are not significant; however, measures would be taken to avoid these six historic sites, including fencing, flagging and worker education. The Proposed Project would not affect the three known prehistoric sites in the Project Area. Site 58/fs-05-19- 1206 would be stabilized as part of the Proposed Project, but would not adversely affect the site. The

ENTRIX, INC. 207 FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT

Proposed Project also incorporates measures to protect unidentified prehistoric sites and isolated artifacts and features, including inspection by an archaeologist to determine significance. In this way, the Proposed Project has been designed to avoid known historic and cultural resources and to prevent effects on resources discovered inadvertently during construction. Therefore, there would be no effects on examples of major periods of California history or prehistory.

b) No Impact. The purpose and objective of the Proposed Project is to improve the environmental quality of the Sunset Stables Reach, which applies to both the short and long term goals of the UTR and Lake Tahoe. Improvements to the geomorphic and floodplain functions of the UTR, and associated improved water quality and aquatic and terrestrial habitat are anticipated to occur over the short and long term, and no compromising of long-term goals for the achievement of short-term goals would occur. c) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not have impacts that would be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. All construction-related impacts of the new river channel (see Sections 3.2 through 3.13) would be avoided or reduced substantially by project design features, construction controls, and BMPs such as reuse of excavated material and vegetation on-site, erosion control, and restoration projects on the UTR would be staggered so as not to connect new channel segments from any two projects in the same year. By incorporating these measures, the Proposed Project’s incremental effects would be reduced and would not contribute to a cumulative effect or would not be cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with past, present, and future projects. d) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Potential impacts to human beings include effects such as noise exposure, exposure to hazardous materials, utility disruption, removal of recreational facilities, or traffic delays. However, as described in Chapter 3, any impacts on humans would be construction-related and would be addressed through design features and construction controls such as implementing spill prevention measures, allowing recreational access to portions of the site during construction, and implementing a traffic control plan. The analyses presented herein demonstrate that upon implementation of design features, the Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts, and would not cause substantial adverse direct or indirect effects on human beings.

208 ENTRIX, INC.