Donner Summit Public Utilities District Wastewater Treatment Plant and Irrigation Disposal Upgrade and Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) CEQA Document Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
PUBLIC DRAFT
A p r i l 2 011
Prepared for: Donner Summit Public Utilities District
Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 3875 Atherton Road Rocklin, California 95765 One Team. Infinite Solutions.
Donner Summit Public Utility District Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Project Public Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) CEQA Document
April 2011
Prepared for Donner Summit Utility District 53823 Sherritt Lane Soda Springs, CA 95728 Tel: (530) 426-3456 Fax: (530) 426-3460 http://www.dspud.com
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. in association with
Dr. Susan Lindstrom, Cultural Resources & Karen Callahan, Botanical Services
Donner Summit Public Utility District - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Distribution List Three (3) Copies to: One (1) copy to: Donner Summit Public Utility District Gregory J. Diaz, Nevada County Clerk 53823 Sherritt Lane Nevada County Recorder Office Soda Springs, CA 95728 950 Maidu Avenue, Suite 210 Tel: (530) 426-3456 Nevada City, CA 95959 Fax: (530) 426-3460 Tel: (530) 265-1221 http://www.dspud.com Fax: (530) 265-9842 Three (3) Copies to: Sierra Lakes County Water District One (1) copy to: P.O. Box 1039 Placer County Community Development Soda Springs, CA 95728 Agency 3091 County Center Drive One (1) copy to: Auburn CA 95603 Nevada County Tel: (530) 745-3197 Nevada County Community Development Agency One (1) copy to: Nevada County Government Center Placer County Government Center 950 Maidu Ave. DeWitt Center Nevada City, CA 95959 2970 Richardson Drive Tel: (530) 265-1222 Auburn, CA 95603 (530) 889-4160
One (1) copy to: Jim McCauley, County Clerk-Recorder- Registrar of Voters 2954 Richardson Drive Auburn, CA 95603 Tel: (530) 886-5610
Copies of this document are available for public review on the project website (www.dspud.com), at the Donner Summit Public Utility District’s Administrative Offices, the Serene Lakes County Water District Administrative Offices and the Nevada and Placer County Clerk’s office.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 WWTP Upgrade Project
Donner Summit Public Utility District - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Team
Donner Summit Public Utility District Representatives Tom Skjelstad - District Manager
Stantec Representatives Project Engineers Robert Emerick, Ph.D. - Principal-in-Charge Jeff Houser - Project Engineer Dave Price - Project Manager
List of Authors Greg Matuzak - CEQA Project Manager/Sr. Wildlife Biologist Bernadette Bezy - CEQA Assistant PM/Sr. Aquatic Biologist Meagan O’Deegan - Environmental Specialist/Anthropologist James Witty, - Soil Scientist, CPSS Rich Stowell, PhD. - Water Quality Scientist, P.E. Mariska Chuse - Environmental Engineer/Planner Amy Croft - Junior Biologist Mike Maddox - Graphics Lori Baccus - Editing and Formatting Jon Walker - GIS Specialist Davina Gonzalez - GIS Specialist
With Support from:
Karen Callahan, Project Botanist Dr. Susan Lindstrom, Project Archeologist
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 WWTP Upgrade Project
Donner Summit Public Utility District - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contents
PROJECT SUMMARY INFORMATION ...... A-1
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Project Purpose and NEED ...... 1-1 1.2 CEQA Process ...... 1-6 1.3 Agency Coordination ...... 1-7 1.4 Scope of this Study ...... 1-7
SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 2-1 2.1 Overview ...... 2-1 2.2 Project Location and Background ...... 2-1 2.2.1 Project Location ...... 2-1 2.3 Existing Facilities ...... 2-5 2.4 Proposed Upgrades (The Project) ...... 2-9 2.5 Proposed Construction Activities and schedule ...... 2-21 2.6 Operation ...... 2-25 2.7 Environmental Commitments/Best Standard Practices ...... 2-25 2.8 Potential Agency Approvals ...... 2-26
SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ...... 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Setting ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Regulatory Setting ...... 3-5 3.1.3 Impact Analysis ...... 3-7 3.1.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 3-10 3.2 Agricultural Resources ...... 3-11 3.2.1 Setting ...... 3-11 3.2.2 Regulatory Setting ...... 3-11 3.2.3 Impact Analysis ...... 3-15 3.3 Air Quality ...... 3-19 3.3.1 Setting ...... 3-19 3.3.2 Regulatory Setting ...... 3-19 3.3.3 Impact Analysis ...... 3-25 3.3.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 3-30 3.4 Biological Resources ...... 3-32 3.4.1 Setting & Impact Analysis Scope ...... 3-32 3.4.2 Methodology ...... 3-32 3.4.3 Regulatory Setting ...... 3-33 3.4.4 Study Area Definitions ...... 3-40 3.4.5 Regional Setting ...... 3-42 3.4.6 Project –Specific Biological Communities (Vegetative Communities and Wildlife Habitats) ...... 3-46 3.4.7 Special-Status Species ...... 3-49 3.4.8 Impact Analysis ...... 3-63 3.4.9 Mitigation Measures ...... 3-73
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 i WWTP Upgrades
Contents
3.5 Cultural Resources ...... 3-77 3.5.1 Methodology ...... 3-77 3.5.2 Setting ...... 3-80 3.5.3 Impact Analysis ...... 3-84 3.5.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 3-85 3.6 Geology and Soils ...... 3-87 3.6.1 Setting ...... 3-87 3.6.2 Regulatory Setting ...... 3-92 3.6.3 Impact Analysis ...... 3-95 3.6.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 3-98 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 3-100 3.7.1 Setting ...... 3-100 3.7.2 Regulatory Setting ...... 3-104 3.7.3 Impact Analysis ...... 3-108 3.7.4 Mitigation Measure ...... 3-110 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 3-112 3.8.1 Setting ...... 3-112 3.8.2 Regulatory Setting ...... 3-114 3.8.3 Impact Analysis ...... 3-116 3.8.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 3-120 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 3-122 3.9.1 Setting ...... 3-122 3.9.2 Regulatory Setting ...... 3-127 3.9.3 Impact Analysis ...... 3-131 3.8.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 3-137 3.10 Land Use Planning ...... 3-140 3.10.1 Setting ...... 3-140 3.10.2 Regulatory Framework ...... 3-142 3.10.3 Impact Analysis ...... 3-143 3.11 Mineral Resources ...... 3-145 3.11.1 Setting ...... 3-145 3.11.2 Regulatory Setting ...... 3-145 3.11.3 Impact Analysis ...... 3-146 3.12 Noise ...... 3-147 3.12.1 Setting ...... 3-147 3.12.2 Regulatory Setting ...... 3-150 3.12.3 Impact Analysis ...... 3-157 3.12.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 3-161 3.13 Population and Housing ...... 3-163 3.13.1 Setting ...... 3-163 3.13.2 Regulatory Setting ...... 3-163 3.13.3 Impact Analysis ...... 3-164 3.14 Public Services ...... 3-167 3.14.1 Setting ...... 3-167 3.14.2 Regulatory Setting ...... 3-168 3.14.3 Impact Analysis ...... 3-168 3.15 Recreation ...... 3-171 3.15.1 Setting ...... 3-171 3.15.2 Regulatory setting ...... 3-171
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 ii WWTP Upgrade Project Contents
3.15.3 Impact Analysis ...... 3-171 3.16 Transportation and traffic ...... 3-173 3.16.1 Setting ...... 3-173 3.16.2 Regulatory Setting ...... 3-175 3.16.3 Impact Analysis ...... 3-175 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 3-180 3.17.1 Physical Setting ...... 3-180 3.17.2 Regulatory Setting ...... 3-181 3.17.3 Impact Analysis ...... 3-182 3.18 Mandatory Findings Of Significance ...... 3-187 3.18.1 Impact Analysis ...... 3-187
SECTION 4 REFERENCES CITED ...... 4-1
Tables
Table 2-1 Current and Growth Accommodating Estimated Equivalent Dwelling Units to be Served by the DSPUD WWTP ...... 2-10 Table 2-2. Summary of Proposed Donner Summit Public Utility District WWTP Actions ...... 2-20 Table 2-3 DSPUD WWTP Upgrade Project Overview and Proposed Schedule ...... 2-23 Table 3-1 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Impacts to Aesthetic Resources ...... 3-7 Table 3-2 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project Specific Potential Impacts to Agricultural Resources ...... 3-15 Table 3-3.1 Nevada County Area Designations for State and National Ambient Air Quality ...... 3-20 Table 3-3.2 DSPUD WWTP Upgrade Project Overview and Proposed Schedule ...... 3-21 Table 3-3.3 DSPUD WWTP Upgrade Project URBEMIS Air Emissions Model ...... 3-26 Table 3-3.4 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Impacts to Air Quality ...... 3-27 Table 3-4 Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species That Are Known to Occur or Have Potential in the Region around the Project Site (CNDDB/USFWS/CNPS, 2009) ...... 3-51 Table 3-4.1 Biological Communities Found Within the Project Areas ...... 3-60 Table 3-4.2 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Biological Resources Impacts ...... 3-64 Table 3-5 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Cultural Resources Impacts ...... 3-84 Table 3-6 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Impacts to Soils and the Potential for Geologic Impacts to the Project ...... 3-95 Table 3-7 DSPUD WWTP Upgrade Project URBEMIS Carbon Dioxide Emissions Estimates ...... 3-104 Table 3-7.1 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts ...... 3-108 Table 3-8 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project Specific Potential Impacts Relative to Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 3-116
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 iii WWTP Upgrade Project Contents
Table 3-9.1 Constituents with Reasonable Potential to Exceed Final Effluent Limitations and Interim Effluent Limitations for the Donner Summit PUD WWTP Discharge to the South Yuba River as Determined and Prescribed in the WDR and CDO ...... 3-130 Table 3-10 Checklist for Assessing Project Specific Potential Impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 3-131 Table 3-11 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Impacts to Land Use Planning ...... 3-143 Table 3-12 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Impacts to Mineral Resources ...... 3-146 Table 3-12.1 DSPUD WWTP Upgrade Project Overview and Proposed Schedule ...... 3-149 Table 3-12.2 Exterior Noise Limits ...... 3-150 Table 3-12.3 Typical Environmental Noise Levels ...... 3-151 Table 3-12.4 Noise Emission Levels ...... 3-152 Table 3-12.5 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Noise Impacts ...... 3-157 Table 3-13 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Population and Housing Impacts ...... 3-164 Table 3-14 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Impacts to Public Services ...... 3-169 Table 3-15 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Impacts to Recreation ...... 3-172 Table 3-16.1 Summary of increased traffic during construction ...... 3-174 Table 3-16.2 Potential Impacts to Transportation and Traffic ...... 3-176 Table 3-17 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Impacts to Utilities and Public Services ...... 3-183 Table 3-18 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 3-187
Figures
Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity ...... 1-3 Figure 1-2 Service Area Boundaries ...... 1-4 Figure 2-1 Project Vicinity ...... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Project Area - WWTP Site ...... 2-4 Figure 2-3 Location Map for DSPUD Facilities ...... 2-6 Figure 2-4 Overall Plant Layout Depicting Existing and Proposed New Facilities ...... 2-7 Figure 2-5 Existing and Proposed Irrigation Disposal Areas at Soda Springs Ski Area ...... 2-8 Figure 2-6 Proposed Irrigation Area Expansion ...... 2-11 Figure 3-1 Nevada County Farmland Designations ...... 3-13 Figure 3-2 Nevada County Williamson Act Lands ...... 3-14 Figure 3-3 Biological Field Survey Areas ...... 3-411 Figure 3-4 Special-Status Species (Fauna) Known to Occur in the Project Region (CNDDB, 2009) ...... 3-43 Figure 3-5 Special-Status Species (Flora) Known to Occur in the Project Region (CNDDB, 2009) ...... 3-44 Figure 3-5.1 Project Location Map ...... 3-78 Figure 3-5.2 Heritage Resource Inventory ...... 3-79
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 iv WWTP Upgrade Project Contents
Figure 3-6 Existing and Proposed Irrigation Disposal Areas at Soda Springs Ski Area ...... 3-45 Figure 3-7 Benthic Macroinvertebrate (BMI) Species Richness below the WWTP Site (Plavada Monitoring Site) ...... 3-46 Figure 3-8 Average Algae Biomass above and below the DSPUD WWTP (2009) ...... 3-66 Figure 3-9 Sierra Watch Recommended Conservation Priority Sites for Donner Summit ...... 3-73 Figure 3-6.1 Harwood (1980) Geologic Map ...... 3-88 Figure 3-6.2 Hudson (1951) Geologic Map ...... 3-89 Figure 3-6.3 Soil Map of the Donner Summit PUD WWTP and Irrigation Area, Soil Survey, 1994 ...... 3-90 Figure 3.6-4 Soil Survey Map of Irrigation Expansion Area, 2010 ...... 3-94 Figure 3-9.1 Location Map for DSPUD Facilities ...... 3-125 Figure 3-9.2 100-year Floodplain per Flood Insurance Rate Map ...... 3-126 Figure 3-10.1 Land Use Designation ...... 3-141
Appendices (located on CD)
Appendix A Heritage Resource Inventory, US Forect Service Report, by Susan Lindstrom, dated September 23, 2010
Appendix B Groundwater Monitoring Study, by ECO:LOGIC, dated January 2010
Appendix C Soil Characterization for Expansion of the Irrigation Disposal Area, by Stantec, dated January 2011
Appendix D Botanical Survey Report, by Karen Callahan, dated February 2011
Appendix E Geotechnical Pre-design Report, by Blackburn Consulting, dated March 2011
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 v WWTP Upgrade Project
Project Summary Information
Project Title
Donner Summit Public Utility Wastewater Treatment Upgrade and Expansion Project
Lead Agency Name and Address
Donner Summit Public Utility District 53823 Sherritt Lane Soda Springs, CA 95728 Tel: (530) 426-3456 Fax: (530) 426-3460 http://www.dspud.com
Contact Person and Phone Number
Name: Tom Skjelstad, District Manager Phone: (530) 426-3456
Project Location
Existing Donner Summit Public Utility District Wastewater Treatment Plant Site 53823 Sherritt Lane Soda Springs, CA 95728
And
Existing Dry Spray Irrigation Soda Springs Ski Resort Property 10244 Soda Springs Road Soda Springs, CA 95728
Nevada County General Plan Land Use Designations
WWTP Site = Public (PUB), Potential Irrigation Expansion Site = Forest (FOR)
Description of Project
Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) proposes upgrades to their existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to: (A) meet their National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit stipulations and waste discharge requirements (WDRs), and (B) provide sufficient treatment for effluent flows up to their currently permitted average dry weather flow (ADWF) of 0.52 million gallons per day (mgd). DSPUD completed a Wastewater Facilities Plan (the Facilities Plan) in May 2010 that details upgrades to their Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to bring it into compliance with (NPDES) Permit No. CA0081621. In general, there are two primary components to the proposed upgrades:
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 A-1 WWTP Upgrade Project
Project Summary Information
1) Upgrades to the existing WWTP on United States Forest Land and 2) Upgrades and expansion of the existing dry season land application/effluent disposal site at and adjacent to the Soda Springs Ski Area
With the exception of improved effluent water quality, the project does not entail any work at the outfall or diffuser in the South Yuba River. It also does not entail proposed increases in capacity over the currently permitted 0.52 mgd.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) is proposing upgrades and improvements to its wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and spray irrigation disposal system. The proposed project is located in Soda Springs in Nevada County. Project activities are planned on two separate parcels. The ten-acre WWTP site, which is partly developed, is situated on land under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service south of the South Yuba River and north of Interstate 80. Much of this parcel is covered by the existing WWTP along with forest and boulders. The DSPUD plans to upgrade its facilities in order to bring the WWTP into compliance with its NPDES permit. The WWTP site is designated by the 1995 Nevada County General Plan as “Public” land use.
The irrigation expansion site is a 25-acre parcel located on land south of Interstate 80 and owned by Boreal Ski Corporation. The area within this parcel for spray irrigation expansion includes up to three acres within this parcel. It is bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad on the north and the Nevada-Placer County line on the south. Improvements on this parcel involve the expansion of the existing effluent spray disposal system. The spray irrigation expansion site is designated a “Forest” land use by the Nevada County General Plan. A Nevada County land use map of both project sites can be found in Figure 3.9-1 (Land Use, Nevada County General Plan, 1995).
Other Public Agencies Approvals that are required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement)
Very few permits or approvals may be needed for the project; however, the Project could require the following permits:
SWRCB NPDES Permit General Order for construction activities (> 1 acre) SWRCB SRF funding environmental compliance approvals Nevada County Grading Permit CDFG Code Section 1600 et seq Streambed Alteration Agreement Regional Water Quality Control Board Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification US Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation and Concurrence
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 A-2 WWTP Upgrade Project Project Summary Information
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utility/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination: (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
______Signature Date
Printed Name For
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 A-3 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 1 Introduction
1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) proposes upgrades to their existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in Soda Springs, CA (Figure 1-1) to: (A) meet their National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit stipulations and waste discharge requirements (WDRs), and (B) provide sufficient treatment for effluent flows up to their currently permitted average dry weather flow (ADWF) of 0.52 million gallons per day (mgd). DSPUD completed a Wastewater Facilities Plan (the Facilities Photo 1-1 DSPUD Wastewater Treatment Plant Plan) in May 2010 that details upgrades to their Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to bring it into compliance with (NPDES) Permit No. CA0081621.
The DSPUD WWTP serves their district and the Sierra Lakes County Water District (SLCWD) (Figure 1-2); therefore, both agencies share in the cost of planning and upgrading the WWTP. However, DSPUD owns, operates the WWTP and holds the NPDES permit in its name; therefore, it is considered the primary project sponsor. Since the existing WWTP is located on U.S. Forest Service Land (Tahoe National Forest), DSPUD operates and maintains the WWTP under a special-use permit with the United States Forest Service (USFS). The upgrades to the WWTP will require an updated special-use permit from the USFS to construct, operate, and maintain the upgrades and WWTP.
In general, there are two primary components to the proposed upgrades: 1) Upgrades and expansion to the existing WWTP; and 2) Upgrades and expansion of the existing dry season land application/effluent disposal site at Soda Springs Ski Area National Discharge Elimination System With the exception of improved effluent water quality, the project does (NPDES) Permits and not entail any work at the outfall or within the South Yuba River. It waste discharge also does not entail proposed increases in capacity over the currently requirements (WDRs) permitted 0.52 mgd. are adopted by the Central Valley Regional Water The impetus for the proposed upgrades is the Central Valley Regional Quality Control Board Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) newly adopted waste and must be renewed discharge requirements for DSPUD’s facilities. WDRs Order No. R5- every 5 years. 2009-0034 was adopted on April 24, 2009 concurrent with the
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 1-1 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 1 Introduction
CVRWQCB adopted Cease and Desist Order (CDO) No. R5-2009-0035, which provided a new schedule to achieve compliance with the WWTP effluent limitations on a number of chemical constituents, including ammonia and nitrate.
The current CDO acknowledges that DSPUD made significant efforts to come into compliance with the ammonia and nitrate effluent limitations. There are two biological treatment units in the DSPUD WWTP system, Plant 1 and Plant 2. In 2005, DSPUD authorized the integrated fixed- film activated sludge (IFAS) equipment vendor to install six additional biological filtration “webs” resulting in a complete retro-fit of Plant 2. In 2007, DSPUD authorized the installation of fourteen webs in Plant 1. The IFAS system was tested through two years with mid-course corrections to the WWTP Plant 2 process and limited success. During the course of testing and implementing the IFAS system, DSPUD worked with the vendor in an effort to bring the WWTP into compliance with DSPUD’s previous discharge permit. Also during this time additional process upgrades intended to improve the function of the IFAS system relative to ammonia and nitrate removal were identified and implemented, including the addition of the following: an ammonia system, a soda ash feed system (to control pH), a soda ash silo, and other monitoring equipment.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 1-2 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 1 Introduction
Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 1-3 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 1 Introduction
Figure 1-2
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 1-4 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 1 Introduction
The primary complication for DSPUD in reliably removing ammonia and nitrate in its WWTP is the fact that industry standard processes involving biological removal of these compounds are very sensitive to variations in the quantity, strength, and temperature of influent wastewater coming into the WWTP. DSPUD sees influent wastewater flows and loads during non-peak months (late spring through fall) that are much lower than they are during the peak period ski season and during rain and snow weather events. Higher flows and loads occur on the weekends and lower flows and loads occur on the week days.
It is a challenge to effectively remove ammonia when ambient influent wastewater temperatures are low and flows are highly variable. A sufficient microbiological population must be built up to treat or “consume” and degrade specific wastewater constituents, including ammonia. This is difficult with flows and loads dropping during weekdays because the influent sewage is the “food” needed to keep a sufficient biological population present and active and ready to treat the higher loads on the weekends. Despite recent efforts, the WWTP remains unable to reliably comply with the nitrate and ammonia effluent limitations in their current WDRs.
DSPUD has also faced concerns with nuisance algal growths in the vicinity of their effluent discharge to the South Yuba River. An event in 2008 created significant interest in DSPUD’s discharge, but is the only recorded such nuisance event in the vicinity of the effluent outfall since the commencement of surface discharges in the 1980s. The Facilities Plan identifies potential mitigation measures (i.e. additional storage reservoirs) to reduce the potential contribution of DSPUD effluent to these nuisance biostimulation events. However, it is currently unclear whether or not the presence of highly treated effluent in the South Yuba River presents an ongoing risk of contributing to nuisance biostimulation events because subsequent monitoring of the river in the vicinity of the effluent diffuser in the spring and summer of 2009 did not reveal any nuisance biostimulation, although algal growths were observed both above the discharge point and several miles downstream. Follow-up monitoring during spring and summer 2010 also resulted in an absence of nuisance biostimulation. The general climatic and WWTP effluent conditions at Donner Summit were similar in 2008 and 2009, which makes the correlation between nuisance algal growths and DSPUD’s effluent unclear. Climatic conditions in 2008 were also similar to those in 2010, although the peak spring snow melt runoff occurred some weeks later in 2010 due to cooler, wetter conditions. Therefore, additional storage reservoirs could be considered in the future if algal events such as occurred in 2008 occur in the future and a correlation between DSPUD’s discharge and algal growth at the outfall is found. Thus storage reservoirs are not included in the proposed project. DSPUD, per the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s direction will continue to monitor for any further algal growths and will report any occurrences to the State.
A further concern with DSPUD’s discharge to the South Yuba River includes by-products of the disinfection process. These compounds are formed as a result of reactions between organic compounds found in domestic wastewater and chlorine used by DSPUD to disinfect their effluent prior to discharge. While there is significant dilution of the effluent in the South Yuba River prior to any subsequent use of the water for potable purposes, these compounds can be human
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 1-5 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 1 Introduction
carcinogens. Therefore, the proposed project includes the installation of a new system of disinfection, ultraviolet (UV) treatment to deal with disinfection byproduct issues and the potential impact to public safety and aquatic organisms. The use of chlorine during the disinfection process would be discontinued and the level of disinfection byproducts discharged to the South Yuba River would be greatly reduced bringing the WWTP into compliance with its discharge permit. The project does not entail any activities at the existing outfall site.
1.2 CEQA PROCESS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was established to ensure state, local, and other agencies evaluate and disclose the environmental implications of their actions. Furthermore, its purpose is to prevent or minimize the environmental effects of agency actions by requiring agencies to avoid or reduce, when feasible, the significant environmental impacts of their actions.
This Initial Study Mitigated (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) will be distributed to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse (SCH) for distribution to state agencies and to applicable county, federal and other participating agencies to review and comment on this proposed project.
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse (SCH) receives and distributes IS/MND and other types of environmental documents and coordinates the environmental review process for state agencies under CEQA. The SCH circulates CEQA documents for review among state agencies likely to have expertise or regulatory authority over the projects and receives and transmits comments from those state agencies to the agencies responsible for preparing the CEQA documents. SCH maintains a database of all projects it receives for state agency review. Notice of the public review period and Notice of Intent to adopt the document at a specified public meeting/hearing is concurrently provided to the general public (published in the local newspaper) and to applicable local and federal agencies, districts, Utility and others.
When a project is subject to the requirements of CEQA, an Initial Study (IS) is prepared to identify the potential environmental effects of a project. If any project activities are determined to have potentially significant environmental effects, the Lead Agency will generally either revise the project to incorporate features that would lessen the environmental effects below a level of significance or develop mitigation measures to avoid or reduce these effects to less-than- significant levels and prepare a Draft IS/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for public review. The public review period is 30 days when a state agency review is required and for this project a state agency review is required (See Section 2.7 for “Agency Approvals”).
For this proposed DSPUD WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Project, the DSPUD is the Lead Agency under CEQA for the preparation of this IS/MND. Comments received during the 30-day public review period will be considered by the DSPUD Board of Directors at a public meeting which will be advertised in the notice of public review and intent to adopt. Prior to approving the
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 1-6 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 1 Introduction
project, the DSPUD must consider the Draft IS/MND together with any comments received during the public review process. The DPSUD Board must then find that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the CEQA document reflects the DSPUD’s independent judgment and analysis.
1.3 AGENCY COORDINATION The CEQA Lead Agency is DSPUD because the proposed discretionary action of the project approval requires CEQA compliance. DSPUD is a California Utility District and therefore the proposed project requires CEQA compliance due to the discretionary action of said Utility District is operating in the State of California. Possible CEQA Responsible Agencies include SLCWD, Nevada County, Placer County, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, The California Air Board, California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Health Services, Native American Heritage Commission, Office of Historic Preservation.
Currently, DSPUD WWTP operates under a special use permit issued by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Tahoe National Forest. However, the current special use permit has expired. The USFS is planning to reissue the authorization of the special-use permit for the existing facilities. The proposed project is therefore under review by the USFS and subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The USFS Tahoe District is the Lead Agency for NEPA compliance.
The proposed project will also likely be federally funded, either through the USDA Rural Development Program or the Environmental Protection Agency’s State Revolving Fund administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Financial Assistance (DFA). The proposed project does not entail any work in the South Yuba River, which runs adjacent to the WWTP. However, there are several small drainages within the irrigation expansion area. Agencies such as the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the State Historic Preservation Office, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Fish and Game will also review the project for compliance with State and Federal environmental regulations.
1.4 SCOPE OF THIS STUDY A Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Facilities Plan was completed in May 2010. In general this CEQA document covers the preferred alternatives in the Facilities Plan. This project- specific CEQA IS/MND was prepared to ensure detailed project-specific coverage and public disclosure under CEQA and to facilitate the federal funding environmental compliance process.
This study focuses on the environmental issues identified as possibly significant on the CEQA checklist and by CEQA guidelines. A complete project description is included in Section 2 of this document. All subject areas of concern relevant to the DSPUD WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Project are analyzed in Section 3. The project is being implemented to comply with state water
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 1-7 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 1 Introduction
quality regulations and to ensure public health is protected. Particular areas of concern, such as water quality, sensitive plant and animal species, and cultural resources are examined in greater depth.
Field surveys to support the analyses presented in this CEQA document were conducted on both the DSPUD WWTP site (10 acres) and the irrigation disposal expansion site (25 acres). Soils, wetlands, and terrestrial and aquatic biological surveys were conducted by a Stantec Senior Soil Scientist, Senior Wildlife Biologist, Senior Wetlands Ecologist, and Senior Aquatic Biologist on the following dates: June 16, June 29, July 8, July 12, July 20, August 11, August 20, September 14, September 21, September 29, and September 30, 2010. Botanical surveys were conducted by a local botanist Karen Callahan, an approved USFS botanist, and Cyndi Brinkhurst on the following dates: June 29, July 8, July 20, and August 20, 2010. Cultural resources and archeological surveys were conducted by Dr. Susan Lindstrom, an approved USFS archaeologist, and Stantec anthropologist Meagan O’Deagan on August 3 and 11, 2010. Surveys were conducted to map water resources (drainages, creeks, and wetlands), vegetation (including sensitive plant communities and species), wildlife habitats (including habitats for sensitive animal species), and potential cultural resources. The proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) summarizes the mitigation proposed in this IS/MND and is a stand- alone document to this CEQA compliance document.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 1-8 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 2 Project Description
2.1 OVERVIEW This document was prepared by Stantec, on behalf of the Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) for the proposed upgrade and expansion of an existing wastewater treatment project (WWTP), located in Nevada County, California. The project entails upgrading and expanding the existing WWTP to bring the plant into compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and provide service to property owners. This Chapter details the project description in support of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project.
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND 2.2.1 Project Location The Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) is proposing upgrades and improvements on its wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and spray irrigation disposal system on and adjacent to the Soda Springs Ski Area. The proposed project is located in Soda Springs, CA in Nevada County (Figure 2-1 & 2-2). Project activities are planned on two separate parcels. The approximate elevation of the project parcels is 6,700 feet.
The ten-acre WWTP site, which is partly developed, is situated on land under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service south of the Yuba River and north of Interstate 80. Much of this parcel is covered by the existing WWTP. DSPUD plans to upgrade its facilities in order to bring the WWTP into compliance with its NPDES permit. Major proposed improvements to the WWTP include the following:
Increased capacity for flow equalization storage,
Headworks upgrades,
Ammonia feed system,
Micro-C feed system,
Boiler and recirculation pumps to heat the influent during certain times of the year,
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) filters,
Ultra-violet (UV) disinfection systems, and
Expansion of the spray irrigation system, among other upgrades described below.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-1 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 2 Project Description
The WWTP project site is within the Soda Springs USGS 7.5” Quadrangle at approximately 39 o 19’ 36” N Latitude and 120o 23’ 35” W Longitude and in Township 17N, Range 14E, Section 22.
The second site is a 25-acre parcel located on land south of Interstate 80 and owned by Boreal Ski Corporation. It is bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad on the north, the Nevada-Placer County line on the south, the existing irrigation disposal site and Soda Springs Ski Area to the east, and a U.S. Forest Service parcel to the west. Improvements on this parcel involve the expansion of the existing effluent spray field, which will include the extension of a water main, a possible pump station, and new sprinkler system. The spray irrigation project site is within the Soda Springs USGS 7.5” Quadrangle at approximately 39 o 19’ 8” N Latitude and 120o 22’ 57” W Longitude and in Township 17N, Range 14E, Section 22.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-2 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 2 Project Description
Figure 2-1 Project Vicinity
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-3 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
Figure 2-2 Project Area - WWTP Site
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-4 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
2.3 EXISTING FACILITIES The existing DSPUD Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is considered an advanced secondary treatment plant. The existing WWTP includes flow equalization, influent screening, integrated fixed film activated sludge (IFAS) biological treatment, filtration, and disinfection with chlorine gas.
Effluent is discharged to the South Yuba River during the wet season and used to irrigate the Soda Springs Ski Area during the dry season. The current permitted Photo 2-1 Existing Chlorine Contact Basins discharge (average dry weather flow – ADWF) as (Proposed project will entail UV disinfection) described in the current NPDES permit is intended to represent the daily average flow when groundwater is at or near normal and runoff is not occurring. The current permitted ADWF discharge is 0.52 mgd. The actual ADWF discharge discharge is less than 0.3 mgd. The peak daily wastewater flows are 0.97 mgd, which is equivalent to a 1.5 cfs discharge to the South Yuba River at the outfall site. The peak daily flows typically coincide with peak storm events. The current spray irrigation site at the Soda Springs Ski Area is 45 acres; however, due to the presence of wet soils the current usable area for existing irrigation disposal is approximately 34 acres. Waste activated sludge is stored during the wet season and processed on drying beds prior to landfill disposal in the summer.
The project vicinity map, location of the existing WWTP, discharge point, and spray irrigation area are depicted in Figures 2-1 through 2-3. The overall plant layout depicting existing and proposed new facilities are depicted in Figure 2-4. The proposed and existing irrigation disposal areas are depicted in Figure 2-5. The overall irrigation disposal upgrade layout and proposed new facilities are depicted in Figure 2-6.
In general the facilities have the following: .Influent Flow Measurement, Sampling, and Equalization Storage .Headworks .Biological Treatment .Effluent Filtration .Effluent Disinfection .Emergency Storage and Pumping System
.Chemical Feed Systems Photo 2-2 .Outfall to South Yuba River Existing Outfall Site – no proposed .Effluent Irrigation Facilities construction on the South Yuba River .Solids Handling Facilities DSPUD does not propose any construction or physical changes to the existing outfall site within the South Yuba River.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-5 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
Figure 2-3 Location Map for DSPUD Facilities
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-6 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
Figure 2-4 Overall Plant Layout Depicting Existing and Proposed New Facilities
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-7 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
Figure 2-5 Existing and Proposed Irrigation Disposal Areas at Soda Springs Ski Area
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-8 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
2.4 PROPOSED UPGRADES (THE PROJECT) The requirements of the CDO and the current WDRs were taken into consideration in the development of DSPUD’s Facilities Plan. As a result of the conclusions of the Facilities Plan, DSPUD proposes to implement several improvements to the existing WWTP in order to comply with WDR and CDO requirements. The proposed improvements are expected to bring the WWTP into compliance with final effluent limitations for ammonia, nitrate, metals and disinfection by-products within the ordered time schedule in the CDO and current WDRs. The upgrades would not increase the regulated flow of effluent from the WWTP to the South Yuba River above the 0.52 mgd (0.804 cfs) ADWF limit adopted by the CVRWQCB in the current WDRs. Due to the upgrade and expansion of existing WWTP facilities, peak discharges will not exceed 0.97 mgd (1.5 cfs), which typically coincides with peak storm events.
The proposed WWTP improvements would provide upgraded treatment to meet new discharge requirements and increased capacity to accommodate moderate growth within the area DSPUD serves.
DSPUD treats wastewater effluent from Sierra Lakes County Water District (SLCWD) through an Interim Service Agreement between DSPUD and SLCWD, which was entered into on April 26, 2003. DSPUD owns and operates the existing WWTP; however, DSPUD and SLCWD share in the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the WWTP. One-half of the O&M costs are proportioned on the basis of DSPUD’s and SLCWD’s total annual flow. The remaining half of the O&M costs are apportioned on the basis of DSPUD’s and SLCWD’s allocation of capacity, at this time DSPUD =56% and SLCWD=44%. Once the proposed project is completed, the Interim Service Agreement will be amended into a long-term Service Agreement.
Additionally, the 56/44 split is used for cost allocation of capital improvement projects. Capital improvements that result in additional capacity to the plant are shared on a proportional basis.
Currently, DSPUD serves 818.5 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs), while SLCWD serves 796 residential EDU connections and four commercial connections (equivalent to 22 EDUs) for a total of 818 EDUs. It is anticipated that as many as 471 and 200 additional EDUs could connect in DSPUD and SLCWD, respectively. The 471 additional EDUs for DSPUD include 109 that have already paid connection fees, but have yet to be connected to the WWTP (See Table 2-1). The actual number of future EDUs to be served by DSPUD and SLCWD may change depending on the willingness of property owners to participate in the project and fund their fair share of project costs. However, the size and function of the proposed upgrades to the WWTP are based on additional flows related to the high end of additional potential EDUs and therefore, the exact size and function of each upgrade component in the final design would not be greater than what has been identified within this Project Description/Proposed Action. The table below summarizes the estimated planned growth.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-9 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
Table 2-1: Current and Maximum Addition of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) to be Served by the DSPUD WWTP District Current Addition Total DSPUD 818.5 471 1,289.5 SLCWD 818 260 1,078 Total 1,635 731 2,366
The proposed WWTP upgrades and expansion would occur on National Forest System (NFS) lands within the existing area permitted to DSPUD under a special-use permit by the U.S. Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest. The project also includes the proposed expansion of the existing effluent irrigation disposal on a parcel owned by Boreal Ridge Corporation, which lies adjacent to the west of the Soda Springs Ski Area.
As part of this project, DSPUD proposes to implement the following:
Upgrade and reconfigure the existing operations of the WWTP in order to come into compliance with final effluent limitations for ammonia, nitrate, metals, and disinfection by- products in their current WDRs.
Expand the current capacity of the WWTP (not beyond the permitted 0.52 mgd). The WWTP is at or near capacity which prohibits the ability of DSPUD and SLCWD to issue sewer permits to property owners who desire service.
Expand effluent disposal to land (with the addition of up to 3 acres of land area) on a parcel owned by Boreal Ridge Corporation, which lies adjacent to the current effluent disposal parcel (Soda Springs Ski Area).
DSPUD proposes to construct a new Membrane Bio Reactor (MBR) biological treatment system as the preferred and primary upgrade to bring the WWTP into compliance. DSPUD also proposes additional flow equalization and the heating of influent wastewater. Continued use of chlorine (the WWTP currently operates using chlorine as a disinfection agent and this creates disinfection byproducts that are regulated) may not be practical because it may not be possible to maintain compliance with final effluent limitations for continued discharge of disinfection byproducts to the South Yuba River. Consequently, DSPUD proposes to discontinue the use of chlorine and sulfur dioxide during the disinfection process and install an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system. UV disinfection systems disinfect with ultraviolet light, not chemicals, which would eliminate the discharge of disinfection byproducts to waterways. UV disinfection systems are also proven to sufficiently disinfect wastewater to meet the effluent limitations required by CVRWQCB for DSPUD’s WWTP discharges to the South Yuba River.
The proposed WWTP upgrades/new facilities are depicted in Figure 2-2 and the proposed spray irrigation area expansion is depicted in Figure 2-6. Each proposed upgrade is described in detail in the section below and summarized in Table 2-2.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-10 WWTP Upgrade Project Area for Potential Runoff Collection Trench Extension and Irrigation Main Extension V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_irr_concept_design.ai 3-2-2011 mlm Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_irr_concept_design.ai 3-2-2011 V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner Legend Existing Sprinkler Existing Drainage Ditch Irrigation Area (Potential 5.3 Acres) Existing Runoff Collection Trench Soil Profile Potential Irrigation Main Putt Variant fine sandy loam, 9% to 16% slopes Potential lateral Location Putt Variant fine sandy loam, 16% to 20% slopes Potential Runoff Collection Trench Putt Variant fine sandy loam, 20% to 25% slopes Wetland to Avoid Gefo Variant loamy fine sand, 9% to 16% slopes Possible Pump Station Toem Variant loamy fine sand, 16% to 25% slopes
Figure 2-6 Conceptual Design of Irrigation Expansion Project Section 2 Project Description
Specifically the Donner Summit Public Utility District proposes the following (see Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-4 for details):
I. Influent Flow Equalization – Modification of Existing Equalization Tank DSPUD proposes to modify the existing Equalization Storage Tank 1 (EST1) with new mixing and aeration systems. DSPUD proposes to modify the existing 200,000 gallon EST1, which covers approximately 1,500 square feet. The proposed modification would improve mixing to prevent solids settling and would improve aeration to prevent odors without adding excess dissolved oxygen that is detrimental to treatment. As part of the modification, a new building is being proposed to house the new and upgraded mixing and aeration equipment, which would include mixing pumps and blowers. The new building would be up to 500 square feet and would be located near the existing EST1.
II. Influent Flow Equalization – Development of Additional Equalization Tank DSPUD proposes to develop a new 500,000 to 700,000 gallon Equalization Storage Tank 2 (EST2) and an associated Equalization Return Pump Station. Both are currently planned to be located generally north and west of the existing Operations Building (original firehouse), with a new access road included.
The ability to equalize and manage influent flows is a well understood benefit to process control, allowing for improved plant performance and stability. This is of particular importance to DSPUD’s plant due to significant fluctuations in flows and loads caused by the area ski resorts, transient population, and rain and snow weather events. Currently the plant has 200,000 gallons of flow equalization storage capacity. The Facilities Plan estimates a maximum increase of 700,000 gallons of additional equalization storage which would provide up to 900,000 gallons of total equalization storage at the DSPUD WWTP. The preliminary design process currently in process would determine the proper amount of storage needed to provide optimal equalization to stabilize plant performance. This option would also require up to 5,000 square feet of land disturbance to be constructed, maintained, and operated.
EST2 would be slightly taller than existing Equalization Storage Tank 1 (EST1). It is proposed that the top water surface elevation in EST2 be slightly lower than in EST1 to allow gravity filling of EST2 from an overflow from EST1 if it is desired to fill the tanks in that order. Alternatively, both tanks could be filled simultaneously through interconnecting piping or independently if either tank is out of service.
Just as the two tanks can be filled simultaneously, they can be drained simultaneously with flow going back from EST2 to EST1 before being metered into the treatment system. However, the lower portion of EST2 that cannot be drained to EST1 or to the headworks (described in Section III below) by gravity would have to be pumped through the proposed new Equalization Return Pump Station to be located near EST2.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-12 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
Both EST1 and EST2 would be fitted with new jet aeration systems that allow independent control of mixing and aeration. Additionally, both tanks would have overflows that would be routed to the existing Emergency Storage Tank.
The return flow from the existing Emergency Storage Tank can be connected to EST2 as well as EST1 to allow EST2 to be used for additional emergency storage capacity instead of being used for equalization as desired. For example, in the spring, both the Emergency Storage Tank and EST2 could be used to provide some irrigation storage capacity or allow DSPUD to discontinue river discharge earlier than normal if an algal bloom appears imminent.
Additionally, DSPUD proposes to construct a new building near EST 2, which will encompass up to 600 square feet. The proposed new building will house return pumps and possible mixing pumps and aeration blowers near EST 2.
III. New Headworks Facility As part of the biological treatment process discussed in Section IV below, a new headworks facility with fine screens needed to protect the MBR treatment process would be constructed just to the north and west of the existing Operations Building. This would require relocating the existing propane tanks that are currently in that location. The new location of the propane tanks would be determined during preliminary design. Due to excessive head loss concerns, it will probably be necessary to abandon the existing headworks and use only the new headworks. Up to 1,500 square feet of area would be needed to construct, maintain, and operate the new headworks.
IV. Biological Treatment Process Improvements The current WWTP biological process is unreliable and at present there is no way of judging its ability to treat existing and future flows and loads. DSPUD proposes that this process be abandoned in favor of a more reliable and upgradeable system.
A number of different biological treatment processes were evaluated in DSPUD’s Facilities Plan, including a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) system of which there are many proven installations and an Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) system. DSPUD selected the installation of an MBR system over the IFAS system based upon history, experience, and potential flexibility with anticipated future NPDES orders.
There are also other advantages to the MBR process beyond reliability, including: 1. Current plant clarifiers would no longer be needed thus allowing those areas to be used as increased aerobic and anaerobic zones, which allows for more effective ammonia and nitrate removal. 2. Currently an aluminum based polymer has to be fed at the clarifiers to ensure good quality secondary effluent. With the use of the MBR system this would no longer be necessary. This could have a positive effect on the plant’s current discharge of aluminum and help it to meet
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-13 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
its new permit limitations. This would eliminate the need for costly studies and other treatment processes. 3. The current filtration system would no longer be needed, which would free up space to be used for much needed shop and equipment space.
DSPUD proposes to develop a new MBR system that would be configured using the existing treatment system (Existing Treatment Unit #1 and #2) for biological reactor basins. The new MBR system would require up to 5,000 square feet of space and would be housed within a new Membrane and Equipment Building No 1, which is described in Section V below. The proposed biological treatment upgrades would require supplemental ammonia to be fed during low-load periods (late summer) to develop and maintain an adequate population of nitrifying bacteria (which convert ammonia in the influent to nitrate and nitrite). The population needs to be maintained at a sufficient level to handle peak loads during the winter ski season. A supplemental carbon source (called Micro- C glycerin) addition would also be required to assure adequate denitrification (nitrogen removal).
Specifically, ammonia is fed in the fall to build up the nitrifiers population so that there is enough inventory when peak loads hit during holiday weekends. The added ammonia is then oxidized to nitrate. A carbon source is needed because the influent wastewater does not have enough carbon to denitrify the entire nitrate. The higher the anhydrous ammonia supplied, the higher the Micro C needed.
As opposed to Methanol, a flammable carbon source, Micro-C glycerin is an alternative non-toxic, non-flammable carbon source. Micro-C glycerin has been selected as the carbon source to support denitrification during the biological treatment process partially due to its non-flammable nature, which would reduce potential hazards on site. All Micro-C fed during the denitrification process is consumed during the process and is not discharged to the South Yuba River.
It is anticipated that the first major work component will be the building housing the MBR units. It is expected the contractor will construct this building in the summer of the first construction season (2012) to a level sufficient to allow work on the MBR units and improvements internal to the building to continue through the first winter. The next summer, the second construction season (2013), the existing treatment units would be taken offline one at a time, and improved. As the first unit is upgraded, it will be brought on-line as an integral part of the new MBR system and the second unit would be taken offline and upgraded similarly. This will be an extremely time sensitive operation as it should only occur during dry periods, preferably when the DSPUD is delivering effluent to the irrigation area at Soda Springs.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-14 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
V. Construction of Membrane and Equipment Building No. 1 and No. 2 New membrane basins and associated pumps, blowers, electrical and other equipment would be located in a new Membrane and Equipment Building No. 1. The specific layout of the building would depend on the requirements of the membrane equipment supplier to be selected for this project; however, the total building area is estimated to be approximately 8,000 square feet, which includes the square footage for both the Membrane and Equipment Building No. 1 and No. 2 combined.
It has been documented that the wastewater coming into the WWTP is very cold with influent temperatures between 4 and 5 °C. This is mainly due to two factors: ambient cold weather conditions and the fact that DSPUD’s and SLCWD’s fresh water source is surface water. As previously stated, this complicates maintaining a good biological process during the winter months. Warming of the biological process increases process activity and overall plant performance.
Therefore, in addition to the equipment specifically associated with the MBR system, the new Membrane and Equipment Building No. 1 would be used to house a new boiler and heat exchanger system recommended to maintain a minimum temperature of 7 °C in the reactor basins. Recirculation pumps would be used to circulate mixed liquor through the heat exchangers. Two 1.0 million Btu/hr systems are proposed.
The specific layout of the buildings would depend on the requirements of the membrane equipment supplier to be selected for this project. The exact building sizes would depend on the ancillary facilities associated with supplemental carbon source storage and feed, the boiler/heat exchanger, UV disinfection equipment selected (section VI) and chemical storage and feed for alkalinity adjustment. Some of these facilities may be located in Membrane and Equipment Building No. 2.
VI. Disinfection System Improvements – Addition of Ultraviolet (UV) System Currently the plant uses chlorine to disinfect its effluent and sulfur dioxide to react with and remove the chlorine before release to the receiving waters (South Yuba River). Chlorine disinfection causes the production of byproducts that are known to be potential human carcinogens. DSPUD’s current WDRs restrict the amount of disinfection byproducts as discussed previously. Currently there are two ways of addressing this compliance problem; 1) receiving dilution credits from the CVRWQCB or 2) the use of alternative disinfection processes. Due to the sensitivity of the area, including the South Yuba River, DSPUD is not currently seeking dilution credits for aquatic life criteria. Therefore, DSPUD would apply an approach to compliance that has been proven effective at meeting current WDRs while also eliminating the need to use chlorine and sulfur dioxide during the disinfection process. Discontinuing the use of chlorine and sulfur dioxide during the disinfection process would allow for the current space used to store gaseous chlorine, sulfur dioxide, and monitoring equipment to be converted to laboratory and/or office space. Though not flammable, both chlorine and sulfur dioxide are toxic chemicals that would no longer be stored on site or used during the disinfection
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-15 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
treatment process, which would be a major environmental benefit to the South Yuba River and would lessen potential hazards on the site.
DSPUD proposes to discontinue the use of chlorine and sulfur dioxide during the disinfection process, which will end the formation of disinfection byproducts during the disinfection process. Instead of using chlorine to disinfect wastewater effluent, DSPUD proposes to install an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system. In UV disinfection, the wastewater effluent is brought into close proximity with submerged UV lamps under controlled hydraulic conditions. The time of exposure and the intensity of UV radiation being transmitted through the water determine the level of disinfection. The use of UV light affects the DNA of pathogens by forming new double DNA bonds that prevents pathogen reproduction. Pathogens have short life spans, thus without an ability to reproduce, the pathogens die off. The use of UV disinfection systems are proven to end the discharge of disinfection byproducts to waterways through the elimination of chlorine and are proven to disinfect wastewater sufficient to meet the effluent limitations required by CVRWQCB for DSPUD’s WWTP discharges to the South Yuba River. The UV system will require approximately 500 square feet of space and will be located within the Membrane and Equipment Building No.1 or No 2.
VII. Solids Handling Process Improvements DSPUD proposes to modify the existing 600,000 gallon sludge storage tank that is approximately 3,000 square feet in size with a new mixing and aeration system and a new decanter and/or sludge thickening equipment. It is possible that the pumps and blowers associated with this system could be located in either the new Membrane and Equipment Building No. 1 or No. 2. Alternatively, a small building (approximately 1,500 square feet) could be provided adjacent to the sludge storage tank. The most cost-effective configuration would be selected during preliminary design. The new equipment is needed to remove excess water from the tank in order to thicken it and therefore, increase the effective capacity of the existing sludge storage tank without increasing its size.
VIII. New Sludge Thickening Tank DSPUD proposes to construct up to a new 50,000 gallon sludge storage tank that will be up to 800 square feet in size. The new equipment may be needed for gravity thickening of sludge prior to storage within the existing sludge storage tank. Thickening of the sludge prior to storage as explained in Section VII would effectively increase the capacity of the existing sludge storage tank without increasing its size.
IX. New Sludge Drying Bed (Sludge Drying Bed #5) DSPUD proposes to construct a new sludge drying bed adjacent to existing sludge drying bed No. 4. The addition of an additional sludge drying bed would be necessary to accommodate increased loads processed at the WWTP once the upgrade and expansion are completed. The new sludge drying bed (sludge drying bed No. 5) would be 2,400 square feet in size, the same size as the other 4 existing sludge drying beds.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-16 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
X. Expansion of Existing Effluent Disposal to Land DSPUD currently operates a 45-acre irrigation disposal system at the Soda Springs Ski Area, which is a parcel of land not owned or managed by the United States Forest Service. This property is owned by Boreal Ski Corporation and leased to DSPUD for effluent disposal during the summer months. Portions of the area typically have moist soils even without sprinkler application of effluent. The net effective existing irrigation area is estimated to be approximately 34 acres. DSPUD proposes to modify and/or expand the spray irrigation disposal system to accommodate additional effluent generated by growth within DSPUD and SLCWD. This additional land disposal area is needed because the proposed WWTP expansion will generate more effluent than can be applied to the existing effluent disposal site. Additional growth within DSPUD and SLCWD will require additional effluent disposal, which will require an expansion of the existing sprinkler application of effluent within the parcel owned by Boreal Ski Corporation located to the west and adjacent to the existing effluent disposal site (Soda Springs Ski Area).
In order to accommodate the additional flows, the DSPUD proposes a three (3) acre expansion of the existing spray irrigation facilities within the parcel directly adjacent and west of the Soda Photo 2-3 Soda Springs Ski Area - Summer Spray Irrigation Site Springs Ski Area. The three acres are located within the five (5) acre area depicted in Figure 2-4. The proposed 5 acre irrigation expansion area was selected based upon soil conditions and avoidance of sensitive resources (i.e. wetlands on the property). Up to 3 acres of trees within the 5 acre irrigation expansion area will be selectively removed to allow for land application and efficient evapotranspiration of effluent disposed.
The additional spray irrigation area will be designed, constructed and will operate similar to the existing site. Piping and sprinklers will be installed and connected to the current storage basin. Water pumped during the dry season to that storage basin will be spray irrigated on land. The irrigation site size is based on a soil study and is defined based on the expected flows and the soil’s water absorption capacity. Therefore, runoff is not expected or permitted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As an assurance to additionally protect against run-off, DSPUD proposes to install a ditch-berm system to collect any run-off and relay it back to the storage pond for re-application to land. The ditch berm system will include temporary barriers where it crosses the two small drainages on site. Those barriers will be in place during summer irrigation and removed to allow for natural drainage patterns when irrigation is shut off (during the wet season). DSPUD estimates that the site clearing and irrigation facility installation will take 6 months to complete.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-17 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
XI. Conversion of Existing Effluent Filtration and Disinfection Systems to Shop Space and Equipment Storage DSPUD proposes to modify 1,250 square feet of building space within the existing Advanced Treatment Building (currently housing the effluent filtration system at the WWTP site) to shop space and equipment storage. The filtration system would have to be removed and improved ventilation, lighting, and other features added to meet its new intended function. Demolition of existing facilities may be required, which would be followed by upgrades needed for the intended use. Shop space is required for treatment equipment storage, maintenance, and repair.
XII. Conversion of Existing Chlorine and Sulfur Dioxide Storage and Feeding Systems to DSPUD Office Space DSPUD proposes to convert 430 square feet of Advanced Treatment Building to new office space, which would be required for plant operations staff. The 430 square feet of new DSPUD office space is currently used for chlorine and sulfur dioxide storage and feeding and would need to be renovated to meet its new intended function.
XIII. Construction of New Office Space and Board of Directors Meeting Room DSPUD proposes to construct 750 square feet of additional office space to accommodate expansion of administrative offices. The new office space would adjoin the existing Operations Building where current administrative offices are located. The area of proposed office expansion would be located on an existing cement slab foundation; therefore, there would be no further ground disturbance from the addition of this office space. The existing equipment storage area attached to the administrative offices will be converted to the Board of Directors Meeting Room. Administrative offices will be remodeled also to bring DSPUD into compliance with ADA rules.
XIV. Modification to Existing Equipment Building As part of the project, DSPUD may modify the existing Equipment Building located between existing treatment unit No. 1 and No. 2. The Equipment Building currently houses the DSPUD laboratory. DSPUD is considering relocating, upgrading, and expanding the lab to be located within the existing mechanical room on the second floor of the Equipment Building. The existing lab area would be retrofitted to accommodate additional office space. Miscellaneous mechanical improvements may require modifications in the lower level mechanical (blower) room in the existing Equipment Building.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-18 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
XV. Installation of Access Roads to Upgraded and Newly Constructed Facilities As part of the project, DSPUD proposes to install up to 7,500 square feet of new access roads to the upgraded and newly constructed facilities within the DSPUD WWTP limits of disturbance detailed in the attached figure of potential improvements and limits of anticipated disturbance for the proposed project (Figure 2-4). These roads would be used during construction and then for Photo 2-4 future operations and maintenance of the upgraded Existing Road onsite – example of new roads facilities and new facilities. Access roads would be paved and made permanent for operation and maintenance of all facilities on the site.
XVI. Upgrade of WWTP Electrical Service and Emergency Backup Power As part of the project, DSPUD would evaluate the need to upgrade the existing electrical service and emergency power systems at the WWTP. Several pieces of equipment included in the proposed process improvements may increase the electrical load at the WWTP. It is also possible the decommissioning of older equipment and installation of newer, more efficient equipment would mitigate the need for any service upgrades. As a safety feature, the WWTP currently has standby generators to provide power in the event of an outage, or other emergency. The need for additional or upgraded emergency power would be evaluated during preliminary design. These upgrades could be completed within the Equipment Building, Advanced Treatment Building, and/or Membrane Equipment Building No.1 and No. 2.
XVII. Snow Storage Area Identification DSPUD would evaluate the need to increase snow storage on site. DSPUD currently stores snow removed from existing access roads and facilities in the area detailed in the attached figure of potential improvements and limits of anticipated disturbance for the proposed project (Figure 2-4). This area could be slightly expanded if additional snow storage would be required due to additional snow removal on newly created access roads and facilities from the project on the WWTP site.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-19 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
Table 2-2. Summary of Proposed Donner Summit Public Utility District WWTP Actions Type of Upgrade Approximate Size Functions Modify existing Influent Existing tank is 200,000 Improved mixing to prevent solids settling and Equalization Tank gallons covering improved aeration to prevent odors without (EST 1) with new mixing approximately 1,500 adding excess dissolved oxygen that is detrimental and aeration systems square feet. Add new to treatment. Possible new building to house building up to 500 square mixing and aeration equipment, which will feet near tank. include mixing pumps and blowers. Construct additional Up to 700,000 gallons Improved plant performance and stability by Influent Equalization covering up to 5,000 significantly reducing fluctuations in flows and Storage Tank (EST 2) square feet. New building loads. Building to house return pumps and up to 600 square feet near possible mixing pumps and aeration blowers near new tank. tank. New Headworks Facility Up to 1,500 square foot New headworks facility with fine screens is facility to house new needed to protect the MBR process. screening system Installation of a 5,000 square feet within Improved biological treatment and nutrient Membrane Bioreactor Membrane and Equipment removal to meet new discharge requirements. (MBR) system Building No. 1 Construction of two new Total building area up to Buildings to house membrane basins and ancillary multi-function buildings about 8,000 square feet in facilities, including pumps, blowers, compressors, Membrane and Equipment chemical clean systems, electrical switchgear and Building No. 1 and No. 2. instrumentation equipment. Additional equipment may include UV disinfection facilities, boilers, heat exchangers, chemical storage tanks and feed pumps. Installation of UV Included in Membrane and Effluent disinfection without production of disinfection system Equipment Building or disinfection byproducts. Equipment Building 2. Modify existing sludge Existing 600,000 gallon Store residual solids during the winter for storage tank with new tank is approximately dewatering and disposal during the summer. mixing and aeration 3,000 square feet in size. Mixing and aeration functions needed to promote system and a new Possible new building up sludge digestion. Decanter and/or sludge decanter and/or sludge to 1,500 square feet near thickening equipment needed to remove excess thickening equipment. tank. water from tank. Possible new building for mixing and aeration equipment and possible sludge thickening equipment. Potential new Sludge Up to 50,000 gallon new Possible tank for gravity thickening of sludge Thickening Tank tank up to 800 square feet. prior to storage. Possible New Sludge 2,400 square feet. Additional drying bed may be necessary to Drying Bed (#5) accommodate increased loads. Expansion of effluent Up to 3 acres on a non- Disposal of effluent when no discharge occurs to disposal to land NFS parcel the South Yuba River. Convert existing filter Approximately 1,250 Shop space needed for treatment equipment area to shop space. square feet in existing storage, maintenance and repair. Advanced Treatment Building Convert existing chlorine Approximately 430 square Office space needed for plant operations staff. and sulfur dioxide space feet in existing Advanced to office space Treatment Building
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-20 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
Type of Upgrade Approximate Size Functions Possible new office space 750 square feet adjacent to Administrative offices and Board of Directors and Board of Directors existing DSPUD office meeting room. Bring Administrative Offices into Meeting room compliance with ADA rules. Modifications to the All modifications to occur Relocate, upgrade and expand laboratory. existing Equipment within existing Equipment Convert existing laboratory to office space. Building Building Provide necessary modifications to blower room to accommodate upgraded equipment. Access roads 7,500 square feet New roadways required to access upgraded and expanded facilities. Access roads would be paved for permanent all-weather service. Upgrade electrical service Included in existing Upgraded electrical facilities to serve existing and and emergency power Equipment Building, new treatment equipment and buildings systems existing Advanced Treatment Building, Membrane and Equipment Building and/or Equipment Building 2 Identified existing snow On site snow storage Winter snow storage area for snow removed from storage area within existing storage site access roads and structures. area Spray Irrigation Area 3 acres within a 5 acre site Effluent reuse and disposal via land application Expansion on a 25 acre parcel during dry weather conditions.
2.5 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND SCHEDULE Each construction activity, as well as the equipment and duration necessary to complete each activity, is summarized below in Table 2-3. These construction activities will facilitate the upgrades listed in Table 2-2 (Project Description Table). Phases 1-5 primarily take place within the 10-acre DSPUD WWTP project site and the spray irrigation expansion phase will take place on a 25-acre site southeast of the WWTP site and located at Soda Springs Ski area, which is owned and operated by Boreal Ski Corporation. All proposed improvement activities will take two construction seasons to be completed and are scheduled to begin in May of 2012 and should be completed by October 2013. The WWTP must meet final effluent limits as detailed in the NPDES permit by April 2014. DSPUD estimates that the two construction seasons will include, but will not be limited to, the months of May through October depending on weather and environmental permit constraints. A description of typical construction activities necessary for such a project is included below.
Note: These are estimations of the construction activities based on experience with similar size projects; however, the actual number of equipment pieces and duration of work will be ultimately be determined by the selected DSPUD contractor.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-21 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
Phase 1: Site Preparation Phase 1 of project construction will include approximately two weeks of site preparation at the WWTP site. Site preparation will include general site preparation, tree removal, pioneering, and chipping and hauling or burning of cleared vegetation. Phase 1 is expected to begin in May of 2012 and will include the use of a dozer, a skidder, two loaders, small crew trucks, four tractors, and chainsaws to cut trees. A chipper may be used if chipping of trees and other vegetation are implemented.
Phase 2: Mass Excavation Phase 2 of the WWTP site construction entails mass excavation of the WWTP site. This will prepare the site for Phase 3 Underground Work and Phase 4 Building and Major Structure Construction activities that are detailed below and in Table 2-1. Phase 2 will take approximately one month. This phase will include 3 weeks of cut and fill operations, fine site grading, and blasting granite boulders, and 1 week of building demolition, where necessary. Equipment used for this phase will likely include three to four scrapers, a blade, two loaders, small crew trucks, an excavator, a backhoe, four dozers, and four tractors. This phase of project construction is expected to take place in May/June of 2012.
Phase 3: Underground Work Phase 3 consists of underground work for utility installation. This phase is expected to take place in June/July 2012 should last approximately 1 month. Piping, bedding, and backfill material will be delivered during this phase.
Phase 4: Building and Major Structure Construction Phase 4 of the project construction is estimated to take between eight to ten months of building and major structure construction, installation of mechanical equipment, and underground infrastructure installation. Phase 4 is expected to take place from July to October of 2012 and May to October of 2013. Construction activities will include the use of dump trucks, backhoes, excavators, loaders, possible crane, hand tools, and small crew trucks.
Phase 5: Finish Grading and Paving Phase 5 of the WWTP Upgrade construction entails finish and final grading (3 weeks) and paving (1 week) activities. Phase 5 will take approximately one month. This phase of project construction is expected to take place in September/October of 2013.
Spray Irrigation Expansion – Soda Springs Ski Area The spray irrigation expansion construction phase will consist of installing a possible pump station (2 months), irrigation piping/pipeline (3 months), and hooking into the existing main and effluent storage pond at the site. While some of the construction activities from phases one and two will take place at the spray irrigation site, construction will occur during construction season 2013 at this site. Construction will occur simultaneously with WWTP 2013 construction and should last approximately five months.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-22 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
Table 2-3 DSPUD WWTP Upgrade Project Overview and Proposed Schedule
Estimated # of equipment in use Estimated Improvement Principal Construction Activities Estimated Equipment Needs per day Location Average Trips Estimated Date of Construction (All equipment used 8 hours/day) per Day
WWTP Upgrades General Site Preparation Dozer WWTP Site Construction: May 2012 (Estimated Duration = 2 Weeks) Phase 1 Tree Removal Skidder Spray Irrigation Site Construction will take place during Construction Season WWTP Site/ Pioneering 2 Loaders 4 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day 2013 Spray Irrigation 25 Chipping Small Crew Trucks Site 4 Tractors Chainsaws
WWTP Mass Excavation 3-4 Scrapers WWTP Site Construction: May/June 2012 (Estimated Duration = 1 Month) Upgrades Fine Site Grading Blade Spray Irrigation Site Construction will take place during Construction Season Phase 2 Cut/Fill Operations 2 Loaders 2013 Blasting (1 Week) 4 Dozers WWTP Site/ 10 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day Spray Irrigation 25 Demolition 4 Tractors Site Small Crew Trucks Excavator Backhoe
WWTP Underground Work Backhoes Upgrades Utility Installation Loaders June/July 2012 (Estimated Duration = 1 Month) Phase 3 Piping Delivery Underground Utility Equipment 5 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day WWTP Site 25 Bedding/ Backfill Material Dump Trucks 4 Tractors Small Crew Trucks
WWTP Upgrades Building Construction Dump Trucks July-October 2012 Phase 4 Installation of Mechanical Equipment Backhoes May-October 2013 Underground Infrastructure Excavators 3 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day (Estimated Duration = 8-10 Months) Loaders WWTP Site 15
Crane
Hand Tools Small Crew Trucks
WWTP Finish Grading (3 Weeks) 1 Scraper September/ October 2013 (Estimated Duration = 1 Month) Upgrades Finish Paving (1 Week) 1 Blade 3 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day Phase 5 5 Dump Trucks WWTP Site 10
Paving Equipment Small Crew Trucks
February 2011 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.004 2-25 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 2 Project Description
Estimated # of equipment in use Estimated Improvement Principal Construction Activities Estimated Equipment Needs per day Location Average Trips Estimated Date of Construction (All equipment used 8 hours/day) per Day
Spray Irrigation Pump Station (2 months) Backhoes Spray Irrigation Site Construction will take place during Construction Season Upgrades and Irrigation Piping/ Pipeline (90 days) 2 Loaders 2013 Expansion Hook into Existing Main and Pond Underground Utility Equipment Estimated Duration = 5 Months Dump Trucks Occurring Simultaneously with WWTP Construction Spray Irrigation 4 Tractors 3 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day 10 Site 3-4 scrapers Blade 4 Dozers Small Crew Trucks
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-24 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
2.6 OPERATION The operation activities of the new and upgraded infrastructure will begin upon completion of the construction and installation of new and upgraded facilities in October 2013. DSPUD will then have until 2014 to demonstrate that the upgraded WWTP meets the requirements of the CDO and the current WDRs. The new operations will be similar to existing operations, but with the added infrastructure detailed above. The additional capacity will not result in average dry weather flows to the South Yuba River beyond the permitted 0.52 mgd. In addition, the historical peak flow of 0.97 mgd is not expected to be exceeded due to the installation of flow equalization facilities that attenuate the peak discharge events. Effluent water quality will be improved for the discharge location at the South Yuba River as well as at the existing irrigation disposal area.
2.7 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS/BEST STANDARD PRACTICES The following environmental commitments and Best Standard Practices have been incorporated by DSPUD into the project design and will be executed prior to and during the proposed WWTP upgrade activities.
Environmental Commitment A: Wetland/Drainage Avoidance. The project will avoid impacts to all wetlands, the South Yuba River, and it will minimize impacts to drainages (other waters of the U.S.). For any work within jurisdictional waters of the US, DSPUD will obtain the appropriate Corps and CDFG permits. Environmental Commitment B: Nesting Migratory Bird and Raptor Avoidance. The project area contains potential nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors. The existing trees and WWTP structures in the project area will be surveyed prior to the initiation of construction and any active nests will be avoided during construction activities. Trees requiring removal will be removed prior to the raptor and migratory bird nesting season (March 1 to September 1) or surveys will be conducted to ensure no nests are active.
Environmental Commitment C: Prepare and Implement Erosion Control and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: DSPUD will require that the selected contractor prepare an erosion control plan and a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) prior to construction, if the area of grading (impact) is greater than 1 acre. The SWPPP should provide, at a minimum, measures to trap sediment, stabilize excavated soil piles, and stabilize and revegetate disturbed areas. These plans shall be implemented and inspected accordingly throughout the construction process.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-25 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 2 Project Description
2.8 POTENTIAL AGENCY APPROVALS The proposed project may require the following regulatory permits:
SWRCB NPDES Permit General Order for construction activities (> 1 acre) SWRCB SRF funding environmental compliance approvals Nevada County Grading Permit CDFG Code Section 1600 et seq Streambed Alteration Agreement Regional Water Quality Control Board Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification US Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation and Concurrence
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 2-26 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.1 AESTHETICS 3.1.1 SETTING The Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) is proposing upgrades and improvements on its wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and spray irrigation disposal system on Soda Springs Ski Area. The proposed project is located in Soda Springs in Nevada County. Project activities are planned on two separate parcels. The ten-acre WWTP site, which is partly developed, is situated on land under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service south of the South Yuba River and north of Interstate 80. Much of this parcel is covered by the existing WWTP. DSPUD plans to upgrade its facilities in order to bring the WWTP into compliance with its NPDES permit. Major improvements to the WWTP include increased capacity for flow equalization storage (new equalization storage tank), headworks upgrades, ammonia feed system, Micro-C feed system, Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) filters, ultraviolet (UV) disinfection systems, boiler and recirculation pumps to heat the influent during certain times of the year, among others (see Table 2-1). The second site is a 25-acre parcel located on land south of Interstate 80 and owned by Boreal Ski Corporation. It is bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad on the north, the Nevada-Placer County line on the south, the existing irrigation disposal site and Soda Springs Ski Area to the east, and a U.S. Forest Service parcel to the west. Improvements on this parcel involve the expansion of the existing effluent spray field, which will include the extension of a water main, a possible pump station, and new sprinkler system.
The general aesthetic quality of the area consists of rural forested areas, hills, and mountains. Paved roads, native vegetation, and forests surround the project sites. The WWTP site is located adjacent to and to the west of the South Yuba River, which contains sensitive aquatic and riparian habitats. Soda Springs Ski Area is a privately owned and operated ski area with several chairlifts and open terrain with scattered trees for skiers. The South Yuba River lies to the north of the proposed irrigation expansion area and natural runoff from the Soda Springs Ski Area and the irrigation expansion parcel drain to the South Yuba River. See Photos 3-1 through 3-6 below.
The location of the proposed upgrades would not be substantially visible from any major road or other facilities. However, the irrigation expansion site will include the selective removal of up to 3 acres of native trees, which will be visible from Interstate 80, Soda Springs, and residences north of the site and north of Interstate 80. The proposed removal of up to 3 acres of trees lie adjacent to the open ski runs of Soda Springs Ski Area directly east of the tree removal area and is surrounded by coniferous forest to the west, south, and north (see Figure 2-6). DSPUD will minimize the appearance of a large cleared area by selectively removing trees to expose the native soils for effluent application. Maintaining the aesthetic quality of both project sites has been incorporated into the project design to ensure less than significant impacts to the visual and aesthetic quality of the two areas. In order to commence development and construction, some existing vegetation, mostly native trees, will need to be removed from both sites and grading for new building sites and access roads will occur on the WWTP site. All trees and vegetation would be cut within and directly adjacent to
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-1 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
improvement boundaries (new buildings, access roads, etc.). This will ensure the fewest impacts to scenery in and around the project sites. Heavy equipment will be restricted from sensitive habitats and areas (determined by biological, archaeological, and historical resource surveys completed in summer and fall of 2010). There will be a 100 foot minimum setback from the South Yuba River (following Nevada County regulations for setbacks to perennial streams), located to the east adjacent to the WWTP site, where no vegetation removal or disturbance will occur within that conservation area. All slash generated from the tree harvesting would be treated by piling and burning or chipping and removing from the site. Root wads created by removing stumps would be removed from the project area. Any burn piles would be free of dirt, would be no larger than 6 feet x 6 feet, and would be burned in conditions that promote good smoke dispersal.
Trees and rock outcrops will be impacted and are minimal in comparison to the number adjacent to the project sites and the area as a whole. The USDA Forest Service, Built Environmental Guide for the National Forests and Grasslands (2001) was created to ensure thorough consideration in planning facility and site-specific design on Forest Service land. This guide provides examples of architecture which is influenced by ecological, cultural, and economic factors. In order to maintain the aesthetic quality of both project sites, the USDA Forest Service, Built Environmental Guide for the National Forests and Grasslands guidelines will be incorporated into the design of new structures and facilities on the WWTP site and thus will not represent a substantial degradation of the existing visual quality of the area. The implementation of these USDA Forest Service guidelines will be met to limit potential impacts to aesthetic resources.
Photo 3-1 DSPUD WWTP Project Site
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-2 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Photo 3-2 Soda Springs Ski Area (Existing Irrigation Spray Field)
Photo 3-3 South Yuba River East of WWTP Site
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-3 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Photo 3-4 Irrigation Expansion Site
Photo 3-5 Irrigation Expansion Site
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-4 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Photo 3-6 Existing DSPUD WWTP
3.1.2 REGULATORY SETTING National Scenic Byways Program The U.S Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration designated Interstate 80 as a National Forest Scenic Byway. A road is recognized as a National Scenic Byway if it has one or more archeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational and scenic qualities (National Scenic Byways Program, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2005).
California Scenic Highways Interstate 80 is the closest eligible state scenic highway to the project site. However, Interstate 80 is not officially designated as a California Scenic Highway by the California Department of Transportation (California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Department of Transportation, 2007).
Nevada County General Plan Nevada County has designated all of Interstate 80 within Nevada County and Donner Pass Road (Old Highway 40) as scenic corridors. Donner Pass Road (Old Highway 40) runs parallel to the north end of the spray irrigation field expansion project site and is considered a scenic corridor from the Interstate 80 intersection at Soda Springs to Donner State Memorial Park. The Aesthetics Element of the Nevada County General Plan (1995) includes the following specific goals, objectives, and policies that are applicable to the proposed Project:
Objective 2.14 Encourage protection and enhancement of the natural scenic beauty of this County in support of the tourist trade.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-5 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Policy 2.19 The County will support the Scenic Byways program, and particularly the establishment of the Yuba-Donner Scenic Byway, to further the promotion of tourism in the County (Chapter 2 Economic Development, Volume 1, Nevada County General Plan, 1995).
Policy 5.21 Recognize and protect the South Yuba River canyon as an important resource in terms of recreation, tourism, aesthetics, water resource, mineral resource, water quality, and wildlife habitat (Chapter 5 Recreation, Volume 1, Nevada County General Plan, 1995).
Objective 15.2 Promote and provide for the continued diversity and sustainability of the forest resources including timber, watersheds, wildlife habitat, aesthetics and recreation (Chapter 15 Forest, Volume 1, Nevada County General Plan, 1995).
Goal 18.1 Promote and provide for aesthetic design in new development which reflects existing character.
Objective 18.1 Develop appropriate community design guidelines to ensure aesthetic design in new development.
Policy 18.1 The County shall prepare Community Design Guidelines applicable to the various General Plan Designations and zoning classifications, and adopt such guidelines as part of Comprehensive Site Development Standards, to be used in the project site review of all discretionary and ministerial project permits. The guidelines may include, but not be limited to the following: o Community identity o Preservation of natural landforms o Protection and management of viewsheds o Protection and management of river corridors and other significant streams
Policy 18.2 The County may adopt Specific Design Guidelines for areas within Community Regions, Rural Places, and Rural Centers to provide for the maintenance of community identity, scenic resources and historic sites and areas. The Specific Design Guidelines may include, but not be limited to standards which: o h. Locate parking areas out of view from road traffic where conditions permit and provide measures to reduce the impacts of large paved areas; o j. Provide uniform criteria for project design review. o k. Encourage landscape treatment to enhance the built environment, including the preservation, long-term maintenance, and use of drought-tolerant native species.
Goal 18.2 Protect and preserve important scenic resources.
Objective 18.2 Develop standards to protect scenic resources and viewsheds.
Policy 18.3 The County shall establish standards for the protection of large-scale views and viewsheds and shall incorporate such standards in the Comprehensive Site Development Standards. The standards shall provide an inventory of sensitive views and viewsheds within
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-6 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Nevada County, and specify protective measures and impact controls applicable through the project site review process.
Policy 18.6 Discretionary development in Rural Regions and in Community Regions near the Community Boundary shall, wherever possible, preserve natural landmarks and avoid ridge- line placement of structures.
Policy 18.7 Encourage protection of scenic corridors wherever feasible.
Policy 18.7A The County shall promote a compact development pattern to protect open space buffers between communities and to maintain a geographic distinction between communities.
Objective 18.3 Promote the conservation of scenic roads and highways.
Policy 18.8 The County shall amend the “SC” Scenic Corridor Combining District Regulations to require design review of all proposed development within the district.
Policy 18.8A The County will designate scenic corridors along the following routes: Interstate 80 and Highways 49, 89, 174, and 267 for their entire length in the County; all of Highway 20, Donner Pass Road (Old Highway 40), from the Interstate 80 intersection at Soda Springs to the town limits of Truckee. These corridors should be placed within the SC "Scenic Corridor" Combining District, with boundaries based upon adopted studies.
Policy 18.11 New Commercial, Industrial and Multiple Family development shall utilize fixtures and light sources that minimize night time light pollution (Chapter 18 Aesthetics, Volume 1, Nevada County General Plan, 1995).
3.1.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS Table 3-1 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Impacts to Aesthetic Resources
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-7 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less than significant The proposed project activities are planned on two separate parcels. The ten-acre WWTP site, which is partly developed, is situated on land under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service south of the Yuba River and north of Interstate 80. Much of this parcel is covered by the existing WWTP. The second site is a 25-acre parcel located on land south of Interstate 80 and owned by Boreal Ski Corporation. The irrigation expansion site is adjacent to the existing irrigation disposal site, which is on the Soda Springs Ski Area. The Soda Springs Ski Area is an area of several large ski runs largely devoid of any trees except for a few small areas between ski runs. There are no scenic vistas present on either site (WWTP or irrigation expansion sites).
In order to commence development and construction, existing vegetation will need to be removed and site grading will occur for new building sites and access roads. All trees and vegetation would be cut within and directly adjacent to improvement boundaries (new buildings, access roads, etc.). This will ensure the fewest impacts to scenery in and around the project sites. Heavy equipment will be restricted from sensitive habitats and areas (determined by biological, archaeological, and historical resource surveys completed in summer of 2010) and no cutting of trees would occur within any 100 foot riparian conservation area except to remove hazard trees or trees with signs of insect infestation. There will be a 100 foot minimum setback from the South Yuba River where no vegetation removal or disturbance will occur within that conservation area.
Nevada County designated Interstate 80 and Donner Pass Road (Old Highway 40) as scenic corridors of the County (Nevada County General Plan, 1995). The location of the proposed upgrades may be partially visible from major roads, including interstate 80 and Donner Pass Road (Old Highway 40). The new infrastructure will be consistent with the current visual quality of the existing WWTP and Soda Springs Ski Area sites and surrounding environment. No other scenic vistas or scenic land units were identified within or adjacent to the project sites that could be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, the potential impact to scenic vistas is considered less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Finding: Less than significant The closest highway to the DSPUD WWTP and spray irrigation sites (existing and expansion area) is Interstate 80. The U.S Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration designated Interstate 80 as a National Forest Scenic Byway (National Scenic Byways Program, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2005). Additionally, Nevada County designated Interstate 80 and Donner Pass Road (Old Highway 40) as a scenic corridor of the County (Nevada County General Plan, 1995). However, Interstate 80 is eligible as a state scenic highway, but not officially designated as a California Scenic Highway by the California Department of Transportation (California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Department of Transportation, 2007).
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-8 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The location of the proposed upgrades would be partially visible from Interstate 80, Donner Pass Road (Old Highway 40), and other roads. The irrigation expansion site and WWTP site will include the removal of up to 4.5 acres of native trees and the removal of some rock outcroppings, which will be visible from Interstate 80, Donner Pass Road (Old Highway 40), Soda Springs, and residences north of Interstate 80. The rock outcroppings are located within forested areas of both sites so they are not easily visible from Interstate 80, Donner Pass Road (Old Highway 40), or local residences. Therefore, the potential aesthetic impact from the removal of rock outcroppings already hidden from view due to forest canopy cover would be less than significant.
The new infrastructure will be consistent with the current visual quality of the existing WWTP and irrigation expansion sites and the surrounding environment in general. Maintaining the aesthetic quality of both project sites has been incorporated into the project design to ensure less than significant impacts to the visual quality of the area. For instance, the WWTP site will incorporate USDA Forest Service, Built Environmental Guide for the National Forests and Grasslands guidelines into the project design. No other state scenic highways were identified within or around the project site. There are no historic buildings within either project site. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway and potential impacts are considered less than significant.
c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated The general aesthetic quality of the area consists of rural forested areas, hills, and mountains. Paved and unpaved roads, native vegetation, and forests surround the project sites. The project sites contain an existing WWTP and a privately owned ski area with open terrain for skiers with scattered trees (Soda Springs Ski Area). The WWTP site is partially developed with existing infrastructure, buildings, and paved acces roads. The location of the proposed upgrades would be partially visible from major roads, including Interstate 80 and Donner Pass Road (Old Highway 40). The new infrastructure will be consistent with the current visual quality of the existing WWTP, irrigation expansion site, and surrounding environment.
Up to 3 acres of trees will be removed from the irrigation expansion site. The 3 acres lie along the border of the Soda Springs Ski Area open ski runs and the forested hillside of the 25 acre parcel where the expansion is proposed to occur. Therefore, selective removal of up to 3 acres of trees along a ski run adjacent and to the east of the tree removal, and adjacent to a heavily treed hillside to the west, south, and north of the tree removal, will be minimally visible from nearby roads and residences. The selective removal of trees will slightly degrade the visual character of the site; however, this degradation will be less than significant due to removing trees adjacent to an open ski run and thus minimizing the appearance of an area cleared of forest.
In order to maintain the aesthetic quality of the WWTP site, the USDA Forest Service, Built Environmental Guide for the National Forests and Grasslands guidelines will be incorporated into the project design and thus does not represent a substantial degradation of the existing visual quality of the area (USDA, 2001). DSPUD will also incorporate additional measures to minimize degradation
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-9 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
of the existing visual character of the sites, which will be detailed in an Architectural and Landscape Plan. Therefore, the potential impact to the visual character of the area is considered less than significant with mitigation measure AES-01 incorporated.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less than significant. The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. As an implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), DSPUD will implement the following BMPs to minimize aesthetic light and noise impacts during all exterior construction activities. All exterior construction activities and material deliveries will be limited to 7am through 7pm on weekdays and Saturdays. Therefore, with the implementation of this BMP, no additional lighting will be necessary during construction. Additionally, the area surrounding the project sites has fairly low traffic and is not substantially visible from Interstate 80 and any impacts associated with light glare will be less than significant. Moreover, all outdoor lighting is expected to be minimal and will comply with Policy 18.11 in the 1995 Nevada County General Plan. Policy 18.11 requires all New Commercial, Industrial and Multiple Family development to utilize fixtures and light sources that minimize night time light pollution (Chapter 18 Aesthetics, Volume 1, Nevada County General Plan, 1995). Additionally, the lights from nearby sources such as Interstate 80 are much brighter in comparison with respect to nighttime views. Therefore, the impact of lights on day and night views would not be substantial and this potential impact is considered less than significant.
3.1.4 MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure AES-01: Development of an Architectural and Landscape Plan. DSPUD shall prepare and implement an Architectural and Landscape Plan for both project sites. A DSPUD architect will provide design guidance on all new structures at both projects sites to ensure compliance with the USDA Forest Service, Built Environmental Guide for the National Forests and Grasslands guidelines (USDA, 2001). Landscaping will be developed to block the view of some new buildings and structures and the placement of new structures where visibility from roads or residences will be minimized by trees, rock outcrops, and existing buildings is being incorporated into the project design. Mitigation Measure AES-01 Implementation Responsible Party: DSPUD will prepare and implement an Architectural and Landscape Plan to mitigate potential aesthetic impacts from the project. Timing: An Architectural and Landscape Plan must be prepared and approved by the U.S. Forest Service prior to construction. Monitoring and Reporting Program: DSPUD shall keep the Architectural and Landscape Plan on file at DSPUD administrative offices. DSPUD, with oversight from the U.S. Forest Service, will ensure the goals of the Plan are met. Standards for Success: Meeting the goals of the Plan through the minimization of visual impacts through landscaping and building and structure design and placement.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-10 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2.1 SETTING The Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) Upgrade and Expansion Project is not located on any land designated as Farmland of Importance (FMMP, 2008). The land on which the WWTP upgrade area is located is designated by the Nevada County General Plan as ‘Public’ lands and is surrounded by land designated as ‘Forest’ land. The spray irrigation expansion site land (owned by Boreal Ski Corporation) is designated as ‘Forest’ land by the Nevada County General Plan based on the Nevada County General Plan Boundaries and Designations Map (1995). Both project sites were outside the survey boundaries of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) (FMMP, 2008) (Figure 3-1). Both sites are also designated as ‘non-enrolled land’ according to the 2006 Williamson Act Maps for Nevada County (CDC, 2006) (Figure 3-2).
3.2.2 REGULATORY SETTING Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) According to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 [Sections 1539-1549 P.L. 97-98, Dec 22, 1981], the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to establish and carry out a program to "minimize the extent to which Federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses, and to the extent practicable, will be compatible with state, unit of local government, and private programs and policies to protect farmland" [7 USC 4201-4209 & 7 USC 658].
General Plan Agriculture Element The Agriculture Element is included as an optional element of the 1995 Nevada County General Plan to emphasize and strengthen existing County agriculture policies regarding preservation and enhancement of agricultural lands and activities in the 1995 Nevada County General Plan. Neither project site is located on a parcel considered to be important farmland. The Agriculture Element goals, objectives, and policies are relevant to the project; however, DSPUD will not consider using the effluent for agricultural irrigation. The Agriculture Element includes the following specific goals, objectives, and policies that are applicable to the proposed Project:
. Goal 16.1: Encourage the use of significant agricultural lands and operations in Rural Regions. o Objective 16.2: Maintain and encourage agriculture on lands zoned for agricultural use, especially those which border Community Regions, while minimizing conflicts with adjacent non agricultural lands. o Objective 16.3: Minimize and reduce pressures to convert lands zoned for agricultural use to more intensive uses. . Goal 16.2: Promote a strong and sustainable local agricultural economy. o Objective 16.8: Facilitate the placement of significant agricultural lands in the Williamson Act.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-11 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
o Objective 16.9: Promote new means for the recycling of waste that could be used by agricultural operations.
. Policy 16.14 Cooperate with wastewater generators in establishing programs for voluntary agricultural reuse of treated water in a manner which would be economically beneficial to agriculture, including investigations of reuse alternatives and establishment of a wastewater irrigation district.
. Goal 16.3: Provide for and protect agricultural water supplies.
Source (Chapter 16: Agriculture, Volume 1, Nevada County General Plan, 1995) (Section 4: Open Space, Volume 2, Nevada County General Plan, 1995).
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-12 WWTP Upgrade Project DSPUD WWTP Site Parcel No. 47-021-04
WESTBOUND I-80 SHERRITT LANE
WESTBOUND I-80 EASTBOUND I-80
EASTBOUND I-80
DONNER PASS ROAD
DONNER PASS ROAD
DONNER PASS ROAD WESTBOUND I-80
EASTBOUND I-80
Soda Springs
Irrigation Expansion Site
Soda Springs Parcel Ski Area No. 47-021-51
SODA SPRINGDS ROAD
Lake Van Norden
Legend Unsurveyed Area - No Important Farmland V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_important_farmland.ai 1-24-2011 mlm Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_important_farmland.ai 1-24-2011 V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner
0 200 400 600 800 1000 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
Figure 3-1 Nevada County Important Farmland DSPUD WWTP Site Parcel No. 47-021-04
WESTBOUND I-80 SHERRITT LANE
WESTBOUND I-80 EASTBOUND I-80
EASTBOUND I-80
DONNER PASS ROAD
DONNER PASS ROAD
DONNER PASS ROAD WESTBOUND I-80
EASTBOUND I-80
Soda Springs
Irrigation Expansion Site
Soda Springs Parcel Ski Area No. 47-021-51
SODA SPRINGDS ROAD
Lake Van Norden
Legend Non-Enrolled Land V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_williamson_act.ai 1-24-2011 mlm Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_williamson_act.ai 1-24-2011 V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner
0 200 400 600 800 1000 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
Figure 3-2 Nevada County Williamson Act Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.2.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS Potential impacts to Agricultural Resources are qualified in Table 3-2 and discussed below.
Table 3-2 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project Specific Potential Impacts to Agricultural Resources
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Finding: No impact The DSPUD project is not located on any Farmland of Importance (FMMP, 2008). The land on which the WWTP upgrade area is located is designated by the Nevada County General Plan (1995) as ‘Public’ land and is surrounded by land designated as ‘Forest’ land. The spray irrigation expansion site owned by Boreal Ski Corporation is a site designated as ‘Forest’ land by the Nevada County General Plan (Nevada County General Plan Boundaries and Designations Map, 1995). Both project sites are outside the survey boundaries of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) (FMMP, 2008) and therefore do not include any important farmlands associated with that program. Both sites are also designated as ‘non-enrolled land’ according to the 2006 Williamson Act Maps for Nevada County (CDC, 2006). Therefore, because the project is not converting prime, unique or farmland of statewide importance, no impact would occur.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-15 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
b) Would the project Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? Finding: No impact Both project sites are designated as ‘non-enrolled land’ according to the 2006 Williamson Act Map for Nevada County (CDC, 2006). The proposed DSPUD project is not located on the Nevada County Farmland of Importance Map (FMMP, 2008). The land on which the WWTP upgrade area is located is designated by the Nevada County General Plan (1995) as ‘Public’ land and is surrounded by land designated as ‘Forest’ land. The spray irrigation site land is designated as ‘Forest’ land by the Nevada County General Plan (Nevada County General Plan Boundaries and Designations Map, 1995). Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract in Nevada County where the project is located, so no impact would occur.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? Finding: Less than significant The DSPUD project is not located on any Nevada County Farmland of Importance (FMMP, 2008). The land on which the WWTP upgrade area is located is designated by the Nevada County General Plan (WWTP) as ‘Public’ land and is surrounded by land designated as ‘Forest’ land. The spray irrigation site land is designated as ‘Forest’ land by the Nevada County General Plan (Nevada County General Plan Boundaries and Designations Map, 1995). Both project sites were outside the survey boundaries of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) (FMMP, 2008). Both sites are also designated as ‘non-enrolled land’ according to the 2006 Williamson Act Maps for Nevada County (CDC, 2006).
The irrigation expansion site is zoned as “Forest” land by Nevada County. Up to 3 acres of this “Forest” land could be removed from the irrigation expansion project site. As part of ongoing operations and maintenance of the Boreal Ski Corporation site, the Soda Springs Ski Area is currently approved and permitted to remove up to 3 acres of trees within and adjacent to the existing irrigation expansion site. The California Department of Forestry (CDF) granted Boreal Ski Corporation an exemption to remove up to 3 acres of trees for non-commerical use and therefore did not need to develop a Timber Harvest Plan. As part of the DSPUD irrigation expansion project, DSPUD would be required to develop a Timber Harvest Plan by a Registered Professional Forester (RPF) for approval by CDF. As part of the Timber Harvest Plan process state and federal agencies will be required to review the Timber Harvest Plan and mitigation measures associated with minimizing erosion and runoff will be required.
The DSPUD WWTP project site is located on “Public” land according to the Nevada County General Plan 1995 Land Use Designation Map. DSPUD also operates the WWTP under a special-use permit granted by Tahoe National Forest, the owner of the WWTP parcel. Of the 10 acre parcel, up to 1.5 acres of existing forest on site could be removed through the proposed upgrades and expansion of the WWTP. Since the site is owned by Tahoe National Forest of the United States Forest Service
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-16 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
(USFS), DSPUD will be required to purchase all removed timber from the site under an agreement with the USFS. However, neither DSPUD, nor the USFS will attempt to change the land use designation of the site.
Though the project will result in the removal of up to 3 acres of “Forest” designated land by Nevada County on the irrigation expansion site, the proposed project will not result in the need to change the current land use designation of the irrigation expansion site. The remaining 22+ acres of the irrigation expansion site parcel will remain in its current natural state. The current land use designation of the WWTP site will not change. Therefore, the project does conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production and impacts will be less than significant.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Finding: Less than significant The DSPUD project is not located on any Nevada County Farmland of Importance (FMMP, 2008). The spray irrigation site land is designated as ‘Forest’ land by the Nevada County General Plan (Nevada County General Plan Boundaries and Designations Map, 1995). The DSPUD WWTP project site is located on “Public” land according to the Nevada County General Plan 1995 Land Use Designation Map. DSPUD operates the WWTP under a special-use permit granted by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the owner of the WWTP parcel. Of the 10 acre parcel, up to 1.5 acres of existing forest on site could be removed through the proposed upgrades an expansion of the WWTP. Since the site is owned by Tahoe National Forest of the USFS, DSPUD will be required to purchase all removed timber from the site under an agreement with the USFS.
Up to 3 acres of “Forest” designated land (according to Nevada County General Plan land use designation) could be removed from the irrigation expansion project site. As part of ongoing operations and maintenance of the Boreal Ski Corporation site, the Soda Springs Ski Area is currently approved and permitted to remove up to 3 acres of trees within and adjacent to the existing irrigation expansion site. The California Department of Forestry (CDF) granted Boreal Ski Corporation an exemption to remove up to 3 acres of trees for non-commerical use and therefore did not need to develop a Timber Harvest Plan. As part of the DSPUD irrigation expansion project, DSPUD would be required to develop a Timber Harvest Plan by a Registered Professional Forester (RPF) for approval by CDF. As part of the Timber Harvest Plan process state and federal agencies will be required to review the Timber Harvest Plan and mitigation measures associated with minimizing erosion and runoff will be required.
Therefore, the project on both the WWTP and irrigation expansion sites could result in the conversion of up to 4.5 acres of forested land. The direct loss of tree removal on the WWTP site will be offset through a purchase agreement with the U.S. Forest Service for the value of the timber (board feet based on species to be removed) DSPUD will remove from the site during construction. The conversion of up to 3 acres of irrigation expansion forested land would need to be approved and permitted by CDF prior to the removal of trees. DSPUD will contract an RPF to develop a Timber Management Plan to remove up to 3 acres of trees on the irrigation expansion site. Given that the project is located in the Donner Summit area, the removal of up to 4.5 acres of forested land is
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-17 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
considered an impact to the forest in the watershed and the greater area; however, the impacts are considered less than significant.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? Finding: Less than significant
Both project sites are located outside the survey boundaries of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) and are not considered Nevada County Farmland of Importance (FMMP, 2008) and therefore do not include any important farmlands associated with that program. Both sites are also designated as ‘non-enrolled land’ according to the 2006 Williamson Act Maps for Nevada County (CDC, 2006). Therefore, the proposed project will not convert prime, unique or farmland of statewide importance to a non-agricultural use.
As part of ongoing operations and maintenance of the Boreal Ski Corporation site, the Soda Springs Ski Area is currently approved and permitted to remove up to 3 acres of trees within and adjacent to the existing irrigation expansion site. The California Department of Forestry (CDF) granted Boreal Ski Corporation an exemption to remove up to 3 acres of trees for non-commerical use and therefore did not need to develop a Timber Harvest Plan. As part of the DSPUD irrigation expansion project, DSPUD would be required to develop a Timber Harvest Plan by a Registered Professional Forester (RPF) for approval by CDF. As part of the Timber Harvest Plan process state and federal agencies will be required to review the Timber Harvest Plan and mitigation measures associated with minimizing erosion and runoff will be required.
Of the 10 acre WWTP parcel, up to 1.5 acres of existing forest on site could be removed through the proposed upgrades and expansion of the existing WWTP. Since the WWTP site is owned by United States Forest Service (USFS - Tahoe National Forest), DSPUD will be required to purchase all removed timber from the site under an agreement with the USFS based on the board feet of each species to be removed.
Therefore, the project does involve a direct conversion of forest land to non-forest use; however, the impacts of this conversion are considered less than significant.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-18 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3.1 SETTING
The Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is located in Nevada County within the Mountain Counties Air Basin. Air quality problems in the County are primarily related to commuting in motor vehicles to and from the Sacramento area. According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Mountain Counties “Air Basin violates the State ozone standard due to transport from the Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin, and San Francisco Bay area air basins. Eastward flowing surface winds can move air pollution from these adjoining air basins up the mountain valleys during the daytime, and back down at night” (CARB, 2010).
The Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD) is responsible for the management of air quality in Nevada, Plumas, and Sierra counties. According to the NSAQMD, the pollutants of greatest concern are ozone, particulate matter, and air toxics. Table 3.3-1 describes Nevada County Area designations for State and National Ambient Air Quality (CARB, 2010). Table 3.3-2 describes project construction overview. Project specific impacts within the given AQMD were analyzed using URBMIS software. The results of the air quality analysis can be found in Table 3.3-3 below.
3.3.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal Clean Air Act The Federal CAA establishes the framework for modern air pollution control. The Act, enacted in 1970 and amended in 1990, directs the USEPA to establish national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for six pollutants: O3, CO, Pb, NO2, particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) and SO2. These standards are divided into primary and secondary standards, the former are set to protect human health, and the latter are set to protect environmental values, such as plant and animal life.
California Clean Air Act The California Clean Air Act (CAA) focuses on attainment of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). These standards are more stringent than federal regulations with respect to certain criteria pollutants and averaging periods. Responsibility for monitoring the CAAQS is placed on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local air pollution control districts.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-19 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Table 3.3-1 Nevada County Area Designations for State and National Ambient Air Quality
Criteria Pollutants State Designation National Designation 1-hour Ozone Non-attainment See footnote a a, b 8-hour Ozone Non-attainment Non-attainment
PM10 Non-attainment Unclassified
PM2.5 Unclassified Unclassified / Attainment Carbon Monoxide Unclassified Unclassified / Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Unclassified Sulfates Attainment - Lead Attainment Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified - Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified - (a) The National 1-Hour Ozone Standard was revoked in June 2005 and replaced with an 8-hour standard. (Source: CARB, 2010)
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-20 WWTP Upgrade Project Table 3.3-2 DSPUD WWTP Upgrade Project Overview and Proposed Schedule
# of equipment in use Estimated Improvement Principal Construction Activities Equipment per day Location Average Trips Estimated Date of Construction (All equipment used 8 hours/day) per Day
WWTP General Site Preparation Dozer WWTP Site Construction: May 2012 (Estimated Duration = 2 Weeks) Upgrades Tree Removal Skidder Spray Irrigation Site Construction will take place during Construction Season Phase 1 Pioneering 2 Loaders 4 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day WWTP Site/ 2013 Spray Irrigation 25 Chipping Small Crew Trucks Site 4 Tractors Chainsaws
WWTP Mass Excavation 3-4 Scrapers WWTP Site Construction: May/June 2012 (Estimated Duration = 1 Month) Upgrades Fine Site Grading Blade Spray Irrigation Site Construction will take place during Construction Season Phase 2 Cut/Fill Operations 2 Loaders 2013 Blasting (1 Week) 4 Dozers WWTP Site/ 10 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day Spray Irrigation 25 Demolition 4 Tractors Site Small Crew Trucks Excavator Backhoe
WWTP Underground Work Backhoes June/July 2012 (Estimated Duration = 1 Month) Upgrades Utility Installation Loaders Phase 3 Piping Delivery Underground Utility Equipment 5 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day WWTP Site 25 Bedding/ Backfill Material Dump Trucks 4 Tractors Small Crew Trucks
WWTP Building Construction Dump Trucks July-October 2012 Upgrades Installation of Mechanical Backhoes May-October 2013 Phase 4 Equipment Excavators 3 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day (Estimated Duration = 8-10 Months) Underground Infrastructure Loaders WWTP Site 15
Crane
Hand Tools Small Crew Trucks
WWTP Finish Grading (3 Weeks) 1 Scraper September/ October 2013 (Estimated Duration = 1 Month) Upgrades Finish Paving (1 Week) 1 Blade 3 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day Phase 5 5 Dump Trucks WWTP Site 10
Paving Equipment Small Crew Trucks
Spray Irrigation Pump Station (2 months) Backhoes Spray Irrigation Site Construction will take place during Construction Season Upgrades and Irrigation Piping/ Pipeline (90 days) 2 Loaders 2013 Expansion Hook into Existing Main and Pond Underground Utility Equipment Estimated Duration = 5 Months Dump Trucks Occurring Simultaneously with WWTP Construction Spray Irrigation 4 Tractors 3 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day 10 Site 3-4 scrapers Blade 4 Dozers Small Crew Trucks Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District NSAQMD adopted Rules 202 and 226, to improve air quality in the AQMD. Below is a summary of these rules as they apply to the proposed project:
RULE 202 - VISIBLE EMISSION LIMITATIONS During site preparation, alternatives to open burning of vegetative material shall be used unless otherwise deemed infeasible by NSAQMD. Among suitable alternatives is chipping, mulching, or conversion to biomass fuel. Construction equipment exhaust emissions shall not exceed NSAQMD Rule 202 Visible Emission limitations.
RULE 226 - DUST CONTROL Purpose: The purpose of this rule is to reduce and control fugitive dust emissions to the atmosphere.
Applicability: This rule shall apply to any person engaged in: a. Dismantling or demolition of buildings; b. Public or Private construction; c. Processing of solid bulk materials (i.e., sand, gravel, rock, dirt, sawdust, ash, etc.) d. Operation of machines or equipment e. Operation and use of unpaved parking facilities
General Requirements: Any person shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent dust emissions. Reasonable precautions may include, but are not limited to, cessation of operations, cleanup, sweeping, sprinkling, compacting, enclosure, chemical or asphalt sealing, and use of wind screens or snow fences. A. No person may disturb the topsoil or remove ground cover on any real property and thereafter allow the property to remain unoccupied, unused, vacant or undeveloped unless reasonable precautions are taken to prevent generation of dust. A dust control plan must be submitted to and approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer before topsoil is disturbed on any project where more than one (1) acre of natural surface area is to be altered or where the natural ground cover is removed. In the dust control plan, the Air Pollution Control Officer may require use of palliatives, reseeding, or other means to minimize windblown dust.
B. For any proposed development, division of land, special use permit application of zone change, the Air Pollution Control Officer may require the applicant to submit soils data and any other pertinent data for the area in which the development is proposed.
C. If a determination is made that the disturbance (per 3.1.A.) or development (per 3.1.B.) of the site may cause the generation of dust, the Air Pollution Control Officer may require: 1. Phased clearing of the land;
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-22 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
2. The use of palliatives; 3. The use of water; 4. The use of snow fencing; 5. The use of wind screen; 6. Reseeding;
After commencement of development, if the approved elements of the dust control plan prove ineffective, the Air Pollution Control Officer may require additional control measures to be instituted. Phasing will not be required as a control strategy after a project is under construction.
If a development requires a special use permit, the Air Pollution Control Officer may require the dust control plan to be submitted and become a condition of the special use permit process.
D. No person shall cause or allow the handling or storage of any materials on a manner which results, or may result in the generation of dust.
E. Any vehicle operation on a paved roadway with a load of any bulk material susceptible to being dropped, spilled, leaked, or otherwise escaping there from and being entrained in the air, must take one of the following control measures:
1. Six (6) inches of freeboard is maintained within the bed of the vehicle. For the purposes of this regulation, "freeboard" means the vertical distance from the highest portion of the edge of the load to the lowest part of the rim of the truck bed. 2. Materials contain enough moisture to control dust emissions from the point of origin to their final destination. Whenever possible, the use of dust suppressants must be applied in conjunction with the water. 3. In the event that measures 1 or 2 are ineffective in preventing materials from escaping, tarps or other cargo covers shall be employed.
This section does not prohibit a public maintenance vehicle from depositing sand on a paved roadway to enhance traction, or sprinkling water or other substances to clean or maintain a highway.
Paved entry aprons or other effective cleaning techniques (e.g., wheel washers), may be required by the Air Pollution Control Officer to prevent tracking onto paved roadways. Paved entry aprons may include road section or coarse aggregate or steel grate to "knock off" dirt which accumulates on the vehicle and/or vehicle wheels.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-23 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Any material which is tracked onto a paved roadway must be removed (swept or washed) as quickly and as safely as possible. Exceptions to this provision may be made by the Air Pollution Control Officer for the construction, maintenance, and/or repair of paved roadways and for the application of de-icing and traction materials for wintertime driving safety.
Nevada County General Plan As part of the General Plan, Nevada County (1995) has adopted certain goals intended to improve air quality. Table 3.3-1 above lists the current Area Designations for Nevada County State and National Ambient Air Quality. The following General Plan policies relating to air quality are relevant to the proposed project:
Goal 14.1 Attain, maintain, and ensure high air quality.
Objective 14.2: Implement standards that minimize impacts on and/or restore air quality
Policy 14.3 Where it is determined necessary to reduce short-term and long-term cumulative impacts, the County shall require all new discretionary projects to offset any pollutant increases. Wherever possible, such offsets shall benefit lower-income housing
Policy 14.4 Encourage and cooperate with the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District or any successor agency, to:
a. work with the county, local public utility districts, other public agencies, and private sector to encourage the development and implementation of educational and incentive programs to encourage energy conservation, house weatherization, solar energy use in new and existing buildings, and provide air quality monitoring and advisory and programs (e.g. daily standard air pollution index data);
b. develop community biomass program in cooperation with the Nevada County department of sanitation and existing homeowner associations, and provide incentives for composting, mulching, grinding, cogeneration, feedstocks, and chipping in-lieu if outdoor burning
c. adopt control measures to reduce pollutant emissions from open burning;
d. develop a program to regulate and control fugitive dust emissions from construction projects; and
e. identify and establish visibility standards for air quality in the County
Policy 14.6 For new construction, the County shall prohibit the installation of non-EPA certified and non-EPA exempt solid fuel burning devices.
Policy 14.7A The County shall, as part of its development review process, ensure that proposed discretionary developments address the requirements of NSAQMD Rule 226.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-24 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.3.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
The impact analysis and URBEMIS Air Quality Model data are based on the following estimation. Construction activities will likely require the equipment listed in Table 3-3.2 above for a period of approximately two construction seasons (2012 and 2013). Excavation involving earthmoving and hauling would have the greatest impact on air quality from trucks entering and exiting the site. Major improvements to the WWTP include increased capacity for flow equalization storage (new equalization storage tank), headworks upgrades, ammonia feed system, Micro-C feed system, Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) filters, ultraviolet (UV) disinfection systems, two 1-million btu biolers and recirculation pumps to heat the influent during certain times of the year, among others (see Table 3-1). The two 1-million btu biolers will be used only during certain times of the year when needed and their impact to air quality has been analyzed as an Area Source Emission. The URBEMIS air quality model for the proposed project resulted in projected emissions which are much lower than the Nevada County and EPA ‘de minimus’ thresholds.
Table 3-3.3 below summarizes the URBEMIS project specific air analysis findings.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-25 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Table 3-3.3 DSPUD WWTP Upgrade Project URBEMIS Air Emissions Model
1/21/2011 2:17:14 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Annual Emissions (Tons/Year) Project Name: Donner Summit Public Utility District WWTP Upgrade Project Location: Nevada County in Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 Dust Exhaust Dust Exhaust 2012 TOTALS (tons/year 0.57 3.63 2.03 0.00 0.84 0.21 1.06 0.18 0.20 0.37 unmitigated) 2013 TOTALS (tons/year 0.45 1.45 0.89 0.00 0.32 0.09 0.40 0.07 0.08 0.15 unmitigated) EPA General Conformity 10 10 100 100 70 70 70 100 100 100 “de minimis” Threshold (tons/yr) Nevada County Emissions 11.8 11.5 83.4 0.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 8.1 8.1 8.1 (Tons/ Day) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, 0.04 0.15 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 unmitigated) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 unmitigated) ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, 0.04 0.15 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 unmitigated) EPA General Conformity “de mimimis” Threshold 10 10 100 100 70 100 (tons/yr) Nevada County Emissions 11.8 11.5 83.4 0.5 20.5 8.1 (Tons/ Day)
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-26 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Potential project related impacts and the mitigation to reduce such impacts to less-than-significant levels are qualified in Table 3-3.4 and discussed below.
Table 3-3.4 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Impacts to Air Quality
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation III. AIR QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated
The Nevada County General Plan and the NSAQMD have adopted certain goals and rules intended to improve air quality in Nevada County and the air basin. The goals and rules of Nevada County and the AQMD are listed above in the regulatory framework of this section. The WWTP upgrade project is not in conflict with or obstructing the implementation of these goals and rules because mitigation measures and best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented by DSPUD contractors. Project construction entails approximately two seasons of construction activities at the WWTP and spray irrigation expansion project sites during 2012 and 2013. WWTP operation activities will be similar to existing conditions; therefore, the project does not represent a significant addition of long term impacts to air quality. The two 1-million btu biolers that will heat the influent during certain times of the year will add to the Area Source Emission Estimates; however, the estimates are below the Nevada County and EPA ‘de minimus’ thresholds.
The project will entail the temporary addition of construction vehicles (typically no more than 10 to 25 cars, trucks or other vehicular equipment will be associated with the project on any given day). Therefore, there will not be excessive localized CO concentrations due to motor vehicle emissions, project traffic, or a project caused increase in traffic.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-27 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
With respect to dust generation, the road to the DSPUD WWTP site is paved and does not currently generate dust during normal traffic flow. A total of 0.35 mile of access road to the spray irrigation field site is unpaved. The rest of the access road is paved and would create a minimal amount of dust generation during normal traffic flow, so potential impacts will occur within the project areas during grading, excavating, and paving activities. Nevada County is in non-attainment for State and Federal
ozone and PM10. As a result, an incremental increase in background PM levels would be considered a significant impact and implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-01 will reduce air emissions
impacts to less-than-significant levels. Ozone precursors, such as CO and NOx emissions, would not exceed quantitative thresholds (URBEMIS, 2011).
During construction, DSPUD shall require the construction contractor to implement Mitigation Measure AIR-01 to maintain potential construction-related air quality impacts at acceptable levels. This project will be consistent with the goals of the NSAQMD through the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-01. Therefore, potential air quality impacts are judged to be less than significant with the following mitigation incorporated.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated
The project would not violate any air quality standard by itself but could contribute to existing regional air quality exceedances. Nevada County is in non-attainment for State and Federal ozone and PM10. Ozone contributions from the project are expected to be minimal (Table 3-3.3, URBEMIS, 2011). Nevada County is in attainment or unclassified for all other criteria pollutants (CARB, 2010 & NSAQMD, 2008). The construction of the upgrades to the WWTP and expansion of the spray irrigation expansion site involves operating construction equipment listed in Table 3-3.2
above. These activities would temporarily produce additional NOx, SOx, and particulate matter.
The WWTP upgrade and irrigation expansion construction is estimated to be approximately two construction seasons (2012 and 2013); however, the majority of the construction work will take place between May and October before and after winter weather. During this time, air emissions from construction activities will be the greatest. Based on URBEMIS air quality modeling, short-term construction activities are expected to generate minor emissions below standard thresholds.
Potential air quality impacts would be considered significant for ozone and PM10 due to pre-existing regional non-attainment for both Ozone and PM10. However, no ozone precursors, such as CO, NOx emissions, would exceed quantitative thresholds (URBEMIS, 2011); therefore air quality impacts for ozone would be considered less than significant. An incremental increase in background PM levels would be considered a significant impact and implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-01 will reduce air emissions impacts to less-than-significant levels. As such project related air impacts require implementation of air quality mitigation measure AIR-01.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-28 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
DSPUD will implement Mitigation Measure AIR-01, which would include a Dust and Emissions Control Program, to effectively reduce the levels of dust and air emissions from construction to a less than significant level. WWTP and spray irrigation field operation activities will be similar to existing conditions; therefore, no long-term impacts to air quality would occur. Therefore, potential impacts to air quality standard or contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated
The construction of the project involves operating heavy equipment such as graders, excavators, dump trucks, cement trucks, and pavers; activities that would temporarily produce additional dust and air emissions. Any increase in non-attainment pollutants is considered a cumulative net increase, and therefore would constitute a significant impact. DSPUD will implement Mitigation Measure AIR-01, which would include a Dust and Air Emissions Control Program to effectively reduce the levels of dust and vehicle related emissions from construction to a less than significant level.
Additionally, no ozone precursors, such as CO, NOx emissions, would exceed quantitative thresholds (URBEMIS, 2011). Therefore, potential project-related impacts to criteria pollutants are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated
The construction of the upgrades to the WWTP and spray irrigation expansion involves operating heavy equipment and construction activities that would temporarily produce additional dust and air emissions. Current WWTP operations do not significantly add to air pollution.
The nearest sensitive receptor in the vicinity of the WWTP project site that would be affected by construction generated air emissions are houses and businesses located approximately 650 feet south of the WWTP (across I-80) and 950 feet northeast of the WWTP. The closest receptor in the vicinity of the spray irrigation expansion project site that would be affected by construction generated emissions are the various homes and businesses along Donner Pass Road and Soda Springs Road located at the closest point approximately 450 feet north of the spray irrigation site. Overall, the closest sensitive receptors to both project sites are over 450 feet away and air emissions impacts would be minimal at that distance with Mitigation Measure AIR-01 incorporated. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AIR-01 will be implemented to reduce the concentrations of pollutants to a less than significant level.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-29 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less than significant
While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can still be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and the NSAQMD. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source, the wind speed and direction, and the sensitivity of the receptor.
The nearest sensitive receptor in the vicinity of the WWTP project site that would be affected by odors are houses and businesses located approximately 650 feet south of the WWTP (across I-80) and 950 feet northeast of the WWTP. Current WWTP operations do not significantly add to odors in the area. The closest receptor in the vicinity of the spray irrigation expansion project site that would be affected by odors are the various homes and businesses along Donner Pass Road and Soda Springs Road located at the closest point approximately 450 feet north of the spray irrigation field site. Overall, the closest sensitive receptors to both project sites are over 450 feet away and odor impacts would be minimal at that distance.
This proposed improvement involves upgrades to a WWTP and spray irrigation disposal system and should improve and not contribute to odor given the higher level of treatment to be given to wastewater effluent from the project. Given the distance from sensitive receptors, lack of current odor complaints from the nearest sensitive receptors, and the improvement in water quality from the proposed project, the impacts from odor are expected to be less than significant.
3.3.4 MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure AIR-01: Dust and Emissions Control Measures Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) shall require that the selected contractor prepare and implement a project Dust and Emissions Control Program prior to construction. The following will be conducted throughout the construction period to limit and control dust and air emissions: Ensure compliance with all Rules and Regulations of NSAQMD, the Nevada County General Plan, and County Zoning Ordinances. Utilize watering trucks for dust control, ensuring that soil moisture is adequate to eliminate or substantially reduce any visible dust emissions. Storage piles would be kept wet or covered during construction. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. Vehicles and equipment traveling across unpaved areas would be kept to speeds of less than 15 miles per hour (speed limit must be posted). All grading and earth moving operations shall be suspended when sustained wind speeds exceed 20 mph. The project contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is properly maintained.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-30 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
If dust or dirt accumulates on the road ways, sweep (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. Employ best management construction practices (BMPs) to avoid unnecessary emissions (e.g., trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues would turn their engines off when not in use). Vehicle and equipment idling shall not be allowed to exceed five minutes. Encourage construction worker commuters to carpool or employ other means to reduce trip generation.
Mitigation Measure AIR-01 Implementation
Responsible Party: DSPUD would require that the contractor prepare and implement a Construction Emissions and Dust Control Program and to mitigate equipment exhaust emissions during all phases of grading and activities that generate dust.
Timing: An Emissions and Dust Control Program must be prepared and approved by DSPUD prior to construction and implemented during all phases of grading and activities that generate dust.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: During construction, regular inspections will be performed by a DSPUD representative and reports will be kept on file by DSPUD for inspection by the Northern Sierra AQMD or other interested parties.
Standards for Success: Visible emissions and dust are kept to the lowest practicable level. The goal is to minimize dust and emissions during construction and to the extent feasible, complaints from the public.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-31 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4.1 SETTING & IMPACT ANALYSIS SCOPE All proposed project activities at the DSPUD WWTP site are located in upland areas since the site does not contain wetlands and the proposed project will not encroach within a 100-foot buffer to the South Yuba River. There will be no work associated with the proposed project at the outfall location within the South Yuba River. Several willow/alder wetlands and drainages are located within the spray irrigation expansion site; however, the wetlands will be avoided by the project and the existing drainages do not contain aquatic habitat since they are ephemeral in nature. Therefore, the terrestrial setting and potential terrestrial biological impacts are assessed in detail in this section. However, aquatic biological resources area also assessed in this section because:
a) The WWTP project site is located adjacent to the South Yuba River; b) The upgrades to the WWTP are intended to improve the quality of the effluent discharge to the South Yuba River; c) DSPUD, although not proposing to increase their flows beyond the permitted 0.52 mgd, will slightly increase the winter flow discharge from the current amount to the South Yuba River as part of expansion of the WWTP; and d) The spray irrigation expansion site includes several ephemeral drainages (tributaries to the South Yuba River) and alder/willow wetlands (to be avoided).
3.4.2 METHODOLOGY
Stantec Wildlife Biologists, Aquatic Biologists, Wetland Ecologists, Soil Scientists, Hydrologists, and Project Botanists Karen Kallahan and Cyndi Brinkhurst reviewed existing information regarding the project, conducted species specific and resource specific surveys of both the WWTP site and irrigation disposal expansion site on the following dates: June 16, June 29, July 8, July 12, July 20, August 11, August 20, September 14, September 21, September 29, and September 30, 2010. In addition, Stantec Aquatic Biologists have been conducting a South Yuba River temperature study since December 2009, which includes spot checking the outfall area and reconnaissance level stream observations. Stantec biologists conducted several data base searches for biological resources to support this biological resources analysis. The following information was used for the preparation of this technical section:
California Department of Fish and Game’s (DFG) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (2011) records search for the following nine 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles: Soda Springs (the quadrangle where project is located), English Mtn., Webber Peak, Independence Lake, Cisco Grove, Norden, Duncan Peak, Royal Gorge, and Granite Chief;
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-32 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS’) 2010 online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California for the Soda Springs (the quadrangle where project is located), English Mtn., Webber Peak, Independence Lake, Cisco Grove, Norden, Duncan Peak, Royal Gorge, and Granite Chief 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles;
A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of endangered, threatened, and proposed species for the Soda Springs (the quadrangle where project is located), English Mtn., Webber Peak, Independence Lake, Cisco Grove, Norden, Duncan Peak, Royal Gorge, and Granite Chief 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles and Nevada County;
Previously prepared environmental documents in the area including the following: USFS Upper Perazzo Meadow Area Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Assessment (EA)/Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/PMND); Donner Summit Public Utility District Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Report for Treatment and Disposal (Final 1984); Sugar Bowl Gondola North Homesite Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (2010); Biological Resource Evaluation for the 2,896 Acre Royal Gorge Study Area (Nevada & Placer Counties) (North Fork and Associates, 2008);
South Yuba Citizen’s League (SYRCL) Yubashed data for the Plavada, DSPUD WWTP (x2), and Van Norden monitoring sites (SYRCL, 2010) (www.Yubashed.org);
Donner Summit Sierra Watch Report (Sierra Watch & Sierra Club, 2007);
Calfish Biogeoprahpic Data (CDFG, 2011) (www.calfish.org);
South Yuba River Water Quality and Quantity Report (ECO:LOGIC, 2009);
United States Forest Service (USFS) Soil Survey data for the project sites (USDA-USFS, 1982);
Color aerial photograph for the area; and
Stantec file information.
3.4.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over species listed as threatened or endangered under Section 9 of the ESA. The act protects listed species from harm or take which is broadly defined as “…the action of harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, or attempting to engage in any such conduct.” For any project involving a federal agency in which a listed species could be affected, the federal agency must consult with the USFWS in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA. The USFWS issues a
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-33 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
biological opinion and, if the project does not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species, issues an incidental-take permit.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States under Section 404 of the CWA (“waters of the United States” include wetlands and lakes, rivers, streams, and their tributaries). Wetlands are defined for regulatory purposes as areas “…inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated solid conditions” (333 CFR 328.3, 40 CFR 230.3). Project proponents must obtain a permit from the Corps for all discharges of fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, before proceeding with a proposed action.
Consultation with the USFWS would be necessary if a proposed action may affect suitable habitat for a federally listed species (such as the valley elderberry longhorn beetle or the California red-legged frog). This consultation would proceed under Section 7 of the ESA if a federal action is part of the proposed action (such as the Corps granting a Section 404 permit for the project) or through Section 10 of the Action if no such nexus were available. No federally-listed species will be impacted by this proposed project.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA, 16 United States Code Section 703-711) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668) protect certain species of birds from direct take. The MBTA protects migrant bird species from take through setting hunting limits and seasons and protecting occupied nests and eggs. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection act prohibits the take or commerce of any part of these species. The USFWS administers both Acts and reviews federal agency actions that may affect species protected by the Acts.
California Endangered Species Act The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has jurisdiction over species listed as threatened or endangered under section 2080 of the California Fish and Game Code. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits take of state-listed threatened and endangered species. The state act differs from the federal act in that it does not include habitat destruction in its definition of take. The California Fish and Game Code defines take as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The CDFG may authorize take under the CESA through Sections 2081 agreements. If the results of a biological survey indicate that a state-listed species would be affected by the project, the CDFG would issue a permit and if the species is both federally and state-listed then under Section 2081 of the CDFG Code, CDFG would establish a Memorandum of Understanding with the USFWS for the protection of the state-listed species.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-34 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
California Fish and Game Code – Sections 1601 – 1607 The CDFG regulates the modifications of streams, rivers, and lakes under Sections 1601-1607 of the California Fish and Game Code. Modification includes diverting, obstruction, or changing the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of a regulated feature. The California Fish and Game Code, Sections 1601 to 1607, require that CDFG be notified of any activity that could affect the bank or bed of any stream that has value to fish and wildlife. In practice, CDFG authority is extended to any stream shown on a United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map, as well as unmapped channels with a definable bed and bank. Upon notification, CDFG has the discretion to excite a Streambed Alteration Agreement that stipulates restrictions on project activities and mitigation requirements for project impacts.
Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code States that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in theorder Falconiformes or Strigiformes or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of anysuch bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specific criteria. This section was included in the guidelines primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on, for example “candidate species” that has not yet been listed by the USFWS or CDFG. CEQA, therefore, enables an agency to protect a species from significant project impacts until the respective government agencies have an opportunity to list the species as protected, if warranted.
In general, plants appearing on the California Native Plant Society List 1 (plants believed to be extant and rare threatened or endangered plants in California) and List 2 (rare, threatened, or endangered plants in California but more numerous elsewhere) are considered to meet CEQA’s Section 15380 criteria. Impacts to these species would therefore be considered “significant” requiring mitigation.
Nevada County General Plan
Nevada County General Plan - The Nevada County General Plan Open Space Element identifies specific goals, objectives, and policies pertaining to the protection of natural resources and open space (Nevada County General Plan 1995). The General Plan states that areas to be preserved for natural resource preservation should include lands that provide habitat for plants, fish, and wildlife species as well as preserving water quality of major waterways. In addition, protecting corridors located along major stream courses within the Planning Area as a means of protecting and preserving these environmentally sensitive areas from the encroachment of development is encouraged. Chapter 13, Wildlife and Vegetation, of the Nevada County General Plan identifies the following goals, objectives, and policies for the protection of sensitive resources in the Planning Area:
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-35 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Goal 13.1 Identify and manage significant areas to achieve sustainable habitat.
Objective 13.1 Discourage intrusion and encroachment by incompatible land uses in significant and sensitive habitats.
Policy 13.1 Where significant environmental features, as defined in Policy 1.17, are identified during review of projects, the County shall require all portions of the project site that contain or influence said areas to be retained as non-disturbance open space through clustered development on suitable portions of the project site, or other means where mandatory clustering cannot be achieved. The intent and emphasis of such open space designation and non-disturbance is to promote continued viability of contiguous or inter-dependent habitats by avoiding fragmentation of existing habitat areas and preserving movement corridors between related habitats. Vegetation management for the benefit of habitat preservation or restoration shall be considered consistent with the intent of this policy.
Policy 13.2 As part of the Comprehensive Site Development Standards, include standards to minimize removal of existing vegetation and require installation and long-term maintenance of landscaping in setbacks and buffer areas. These standards shall be applicable to all discretionary projects and to all ministerial projects other than a single-family residence located on an individual lot. Tree removal may be allowed where necessary to comply with public right-of-way development or dedication, or development of required site access and public utilities. Individual trees or groups of trees shall be protected during construction to prevent damage to the trees and their root systems. Vegetation in proximity to structures shall conform to applicable fire protection standards.
Policy 13.2A Project review standards shall include a requirement to conduct a site-specific biological inventory to determine the presence of special-status species or habitat for such species that may be affected by a proposed project. The results of the biological inventory shall be used as the basis for establishing land use siting and design tools required to achieve the objective of no net loss of habitat function or value for special-status species. Where a Habitat Management Plan is deemed appropriate, the Plan shall be prepared to comply with the requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The plan shall provide the background data, impact analysis, and mitigation programs necessary to obtain a
FESA Section 10(a) and CESA Section 2081 permit authorizing incidental take of federal and state listed threatened and endangered species that occur in areas proposed for future development. Prior to implementation of an adopted Habitat Management Plan, project applicants proposing the development
(a) No suitable alternative site or design exists for the land use;
(b) There is no degradation of the habitat or reduction in the numbers of any rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species as a result of the project;
(c) Habitat of superior quantity and superior or comparable quality will be created or restored to compensate for the loss; and
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-36 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
(d) The project conforms with regulations and guidelines of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CDFG of a project that would impact a federal or state listed species, or a species that is proposed for listing, shall be individually responsible for obtaining federal and state incidental take permits on a project-by-project basis.
Policy 13.2B Development projects which have the potential to remove natural riparian or wetland habitat of 1 acre or more shall not be permitted unless authorized by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, and other relevant agencies.
Policy 13.4 Encourage long-term sustainability and maintenance of landscaped areas.
Policy 13.4A No net loss of habitat functions or values shall be caused by development where rare and endangered species and wetlands of over 1 acre, in aggregate, are identified during the review of proposed projects. No net loss shall be achieved through avoidance of the resource, or through creation or restoration of habitat of superior or comparable quality, in accordance with guidelines of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game.
Policy 13.4B Habitat that is required to be protected, restored, or created as mitigation for a Project’s impacts shall be monitored and maintained in accord with a County approved Habitat Management Plan.
Policy 13.4C The land use designations and associated acreages identified on the proposed General Plan land use maps for Special Development Areas should be modified as necessary at the Specific Plan stage to protect sensitive natural communities and other important biotic resources.
Policy 13.4D The County shall prepare and implement a Habitat Management Plan for rare and endangered species and wetlands habitat while allowing the preparation of individual project habitat management plans as an alternative, including an offsite ecological reserve.
Policy 13.4E The County shall investigate establishing interagency agreements with adjoining counties where new developments could impact significant natural resource areas shared by adjoining counties. The agreements shall require notification of development projects within one mile of the County's borders and provide for review and comment by affected counties.
Policy 13.4G To minimize the loss or disturbance of deer habitat, clustering shall be required on parcels of 40 acres in size or larger in critical migratory deer winter ranges in Rural Regions within the western portion of the County, when such parcels are located in areas where the existing parcelization in the immediate vicinity is currently 40 acres or more.
Policy 13.4H Non-development buffers shall be maintained adjacent to perennial stream corridors through the use of clustering, the designation of a Planned Development, or the implementation of other siting and design tools. Buffers shall be sufficient in size to protect the stream corridor for movement, as well as provide some adjacent upland habitat for foraging. Objective 13.2 Minimize impacts to corridors to ensure movement of wildlife.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-37 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
See: Policy 13.1
Objective 13.3 Provide for the integrity and continuity of wildlife environments.
See: Policy 13.1; Policy 13.2
Objective 13.4 Support the acquisition, development, maintenance, and restoration, where feasible, of habitat lands for wildlife enhancement.
Policy 13.5 Participate in all bio-regional planning councils, initiated by Federal or State agencies, which involve lands within the jurisdiction of Nevada County. County representatives on such councils shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The purpose of participation shall be to ensure the policies of the General Plan are complemented by and incorporated into any bio-regional plan encompassing all or part of Nevada County.
See: Policy 13.1
Objective 13.5 Support, where feasible, the continued diversity and sustain ability of the habitat resource through restoration and protection.
Policy 13.6 Monitor, through the input of other agencies, the sensitive wildlife and habitat resources of Nevada County to ensure the continued validity and effectiveness of General Plan policies intended to protect, preserve and enhance these resources. Results of monitoring shall be incorporated into the General Plan Update process.
Objective 13.6 Discourage significant adverse environmental impacts of land development, agricultural, forest, and mining activities on important and sensitive habitats.
See: Policy 13.1
Objective 13.7 Identify and preserve heritage and landmark trees and groves where appropriate.
Policy 13.8 As part of the Comprehensive Site Development Standards, include measures applicable to all discretionary and ministerial projects to minimize disturbance of heritage and landmark trees and groves. These measures shall include, but are not limited to, requirements for on-site vegetation inventories and mandatory clustering of development in areas likely to support such vegetation or habitat.
Policy 13.9 Development in the vicinity of significant oak groves of all oak species shall be designed and sited to maximize the long-term preservation of the trees and the integrity of their natural setting. The County shall adopt a regulation to protect native heritage oak trees and significant oak groves. All native oak tree species with a trunk diameter of 36" or greater shall be protected.
See: Policy 13.2
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-38 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Objective 13.8 Minimize removal or disturbance of low elevation oak habitat.
See: Policy 13
Non-Government Organizations Recommended Planning Principals
In 2007, Sierra Watch published a report with multiple recommended planning principals for the Donner Summit area. A cover letter and list of these principals was submitted to the Nevada County Board of Supervisors (and Placer County) in April, 2008. The signatories on this cover letter included key leaders from the following organizations:
Sierra Watch South Yuba Citizens League Sierra Club Tahoe Group North Fork American River Alliance Snowlands Network Sierra Foothills Audubon Society California Native Plant Society, Red Bud Chapter Sierra Nevada Alliance, and Forrest Issues Group
The list of recommended planning principals are not binding and have not been made policy by any local or state government; however, they are important to note because they represent recommendations from multiple conservation related stakeholders from the Donner Summit area. Relative to biological resources the key recommended principals are as follows:
1. Natural Heritage: Recognize the importance of Donner Summit to the broader Central Sierra and downstream ecosystems. 2. Biological Resources: Protect the wide array of habitat and the incredible range of biodiversity on Donner Summit. 3. Wetlands and Meadows: Protect the wetlands and meadows of Donner Summit. 4. Forests: Expand permanent protection of Donner Summit forest resources. 5. Water Resources: Improve and maintain the water quality of Donner Summit’s lakes, creeks, and rivers.
Note: Additional recommendations relative to the Cultural Resource Section, Recreation, and Greenhouse Gas Sections are as follows:
Cultural Importance: Preserve the history and scenery of Donner Summit as the portal to California and as the region’s primary recreational and economic resource. Challenging Climate: Recognize the challenging climate on Donner Summit and the impact of climate change on the region’s landscape and resources
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-39 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
In 2009, Sierra Watch published a conservation Priorities map and short report. It can be found at http://www.sierrawatch.org/images/09%2007%2006%20DSCP%20report.pdf. DPSUD and the potential spay irrigation sites are not located within the target conservation areas. In addition, the planned development for which the WWTP upgrades would serve, are not within the Sierra Watch mapped “Priority Conservation Areas”.
3.4.4 STUDY AREA DEFINITIONS In the following sections, specific terms are used to describe the size of the area screened, analyzed, and/or surveyed for this Biological Resources baseline description and impact analysis. The Biological Survey Area/Project Area is depicted in Figure 3-3. The project region including CNDDB data is shown later in this section in Figures 3-4 and 3-5.
The Biological Survey Area for the project is completely contained within the existing DSPUD WWTP property and within the irrigation expansion site at Soda Springs Ski Area. The project footprint is located completely within the Biological Study Area; therefore, the Biological Study Area is synonymous with the project area. Reconnaissance-level biological surveys were conducted in 2009 and early 2010, while species and habitat specific surveys were conducted in the spring and summer of 2010 to include the project’s physical footprint and the area of potential affects to biological resources within the WWTP and irrigation expansion property (Figure 3-3).
The Biological Survey Area encompasses approximately 10 acres within the existing WWTP and approximately 25 acres within the irrigation expansion area and is defined in Figure 3-3. Impacts within this study area may result from the construction of new treatment facilities at the WWTP and the upgrades of existing infrastructure at both the WWTP and irrigation disposal expansion sites, as detailed in the Project Description. Once construction is complete, no additional operational impacts to terrestrial biological resources are expected within this study area. Operational impacts to aquatic resources are expected to be beneficial because the overall purpose of the project is to improve effluent water quality while staying within the permitted flow capacity of 0.52 mgd for average dry weather flow.
Most of the expansion areas at both the WWTP and irrigation disposal expansion sites are undeveloped and contain native forests. Several potential perennial alder wetlands and drainages exist within the Biological Survey Area at the irrigation disposal expansion area (Figure 3-3). These convey surface run-off from the within the irrigation disposal expansion site to the South Yuba River. Natural drainage within the WWTP site also drains to the South Yuba River.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-40 WWTP Upgrade Project DSPUD WWTP Site Parcel No. 47-021-04
WESTBOUND I-80 SHERRITT LANE
WESTBOUND I-80 EASTBOUND I-80
EASTBOUND I-80
DONNER PASS ROAD
DONNER PASS ROAD
DONNER PASS ROAD WESTBOUND I-80
EASTBOUND I-80
Soda Springs
Irrigation Expansion Site
Soda Springs Parcel Ski Area No. 47-021-51
SODA SPRINGDS ROAD
Lake Van Norden
V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_proj_location.ai 1-19-2011 mlm Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_proj_location.ai 1-19-2011 V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner 0 200 400 600 800 1000 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
Figure 3-3 Project Location Section 3 Environmental Checklist
For the purposes of this project, which is contained completely within the WWTP property and the irrigation disposal expansion area, the “project region” is defined as the ten-mile radius around the WWTP project site. This designation is not the area of potential effect, but rather is used for screening potential species in the area. This area is depicted in the two figures showing the results of the CNDDB data search within a ten-mile radius of the WWTP property (Figures 3-4 and 3-5).
3.4.5 REGIONAL SETTING Biological communities within the region are diverse. The most common biological community in the project area is Mixed Coniferous Forest, which contains up to 5 dominant species of trees. The lower, steeper slopes on the south side of Interstate 80 contain predominantly Red Fir Forest. The large Lake Van Norden contains a large wet meadow and other wet meadow communities exist along areas adjacent to the South Yuba River. These areas contain the biological community named Montane Meadow. In most cases, a Montane Meadow will meet the criteria of the Corps and will therefore be considered a jurisdictional wetland and will be subject to the Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting requirements; however, the project does not entail any proposed work within this meadow area.
Riparian Scrub is a biological community that associates with rivers and streams. Riparian Scrub was documented to occur along the South Yuba River near the DSPUD WWTP discharge point and also associates with small areas along the southern end of the Lake Van Norden meadow. Riparian Scrub can sometimes meet the criteria of the Corps and therefore can be subject to the Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting requirements. Riparian Scrub is generally regulated by the CDFG and impacts to this biological community are normally permitted under the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement program (CDFG Code 1600 et seq.).
Aquatic Resources Setting: The existing DSPUD WWTP and the existing/proposed irrigation sites at Soda Springs Ski Resort are located adjacent to the South Yuba River, below Van Norden Dam and above Plavada. Specifically, the potential spray irrigation area is located upland and west of the South Yuba River, north of Lake Van Norden and the existing DSPUD outfall is located at the intersection of Castle Creek and the South Yuba River. The area is considered the upper watershed of the South Photo 3-1 Yuba River. The South Yuba River is predominately South Yuba River immediately NE of the bedrock confined and boulder dominated system with DSPUD WWTP (August 2010). cobble and sandy sediment (from granite erosion) found interspersed along its length. Recent baseline water quality and preliminary periphyton (algae) data for the area can be found on the South Yuba Citizen’s League (SYRCL) Yubashed Website (Yubashed.com). Fisheries typically encountered in the project watershed (upper Yuba) include rainbow and brown trout. The only reported amphibians are western spadefoot toad and Pacific chorus frog.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-42 WWTP Upgrade Project ^_
Legend
^_ DSPUD WWTP Site
CNDDB Fauna Common Name (Status) California wolverine (CT) Cooper's hawk (CDFG) Kings Canyon cryptochian caddisfly (CDFG) Lahontan cutthroat trout (FT) Pacific fisher (FC, CSSC) Sierra Nevada mountain beaver (CSSC) Sierra Nevada red fox (CT) Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare (CSSC) Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (FC, CSSC) Sierra marten (CDFG) amphibious caddisfly (CDFG) bald eagle (FD, CE) black swift (CSSC) gray-headed pika (CDFG) harlequin duck (CSSC) northern goshawk (USFWS, CSSC) osprey (CDFG) willow flycatcher (CE)
V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_fauna_map.ai 3-4-2011 mlm Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_fauna_map.ai 3-4-2011 V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner yellow warbler (CSSC) Great Basin Cutthroat Trout/Paiute Sculpin Stream (Habitat) 0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles Nevada County Parcels
Figure 3-4 Special-status FAUNA Known to Occur within Ten Miles of the DSPUD WWTP (CNDDB, 2011) ^_
Legend
^_ DSPUD WWTP Site
CNDDB Flora Common Name (Status) Bolander's bruchia (CNPS 2.2) Donner Pass buckwheat (CNPS 1B.2) English sundew (CNPS 2.3) Plumas ivesia (CNPS 1B.2) Santa Lucia dwarf rush (CNPS 1B.2) Webber's ivesia (FC, CNPS 1B.1) alder buckthorn (CNPS 2.2) broad-nerved hump moss (CNPS 2.2) common moonwort (CNPS 2.3) fell-fields claytonia (CNPS 2.3) long-petaled lewisia (CNPS 1B.3) mud sedge (CNPS 2.2) saw-toothed lewisia (CNPS 1B.1) starved daisy (CNPS 1B.3) subalpine fireweed (CNPS 1B.3) water bulrush (CNPS 2.3) V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_flora_map.ai 3-4-2011 mlm Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_flora_map.ai 3-4-2011 V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner white beaked-rush (CNPS 2.2) 0 1.25 2.5 5 Nevada County Parcels Miles
Figure 3-5 Special-status FLORA Known to Occur within Ten Miles of the DSPUD WWTP (CNDDB, 2011) Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The South Yuba River flows adjacent to both project areas. This is a perennial stream with its headwaters above the snowline. Flows in the South Yuba River are therefore primarily dictated by snowmelt patterns (i.e. highest in winter and spring and lowest in mid to late -summer and early fall). Flow data from 2009-2011 near Cisco Grove, the nearest stream gage, located several miles downstream of the WWTP are depicted in the figure below. As stated in the project description, currently DSPUD discharges between November and June, in a typical year. These discharge dates are determined by the flow and related assimilative capacity of the receiving waters and are dictated by the RWQCB in the DSPUD waste discharge permit. The proposed project does not entail any proposed flow rate or discharge rate changes to the existing permit discharge requirements.
Figure 3-6: Flow rates measured on the South Yuba River near Cisco grove, approximately 10 miles below the WWTP site
Because the Cisco Grove gage is located 10 miles below the WWTP, the baseline (current conditions flow data depicted in Figure 3-6), include the effluent input during winter, spring and early summer months. The proposed project will not exceed the RWQCB-approved and CEQA compliant DSPUD averge dry weather flow rate of 0.52 mgd.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-45 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Baseline water quality data collected and reported to the RWQCB are described in the Water Quality Section of this report. In addition, water quality parameters of particular importance to biological resources monitored by SYRCL are included in the State of the Yuba 2010 on Yubashed website (www.Yubashed.org, 2010).
In general, the SYRCL water quality monitoring sites above the WWTP (Van Norden Dam) and below the WWTP (Plavada) show low Ecoli counts, low iron concentration, low total suspended solids (slightly higher at Van Norden than Plavada), and moderate to above optimal benthic macroinvertebrate species richness (at Plavada = only upper watershed site, 2004-2008 data) (Figure 3-7).
Source: SYRCL State of the Yuba 2010 (www.yubashed.org)
Figure 3-7: Benthic Macroinvertebrate (BMI) Species Richness below the WWTP Site (Plavada Monitoring Site).
3.4.6 PROJECT –SPECIFIC BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES (VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE HABITATS) Vegetative communities are assemblages of plant species that occur together in the same area. They are defined by species composition and relative abundance. The following is a description of the dominant plant communities identified in the project area. Vegetative communities generally correlate with wildlife habitat types. Below is a description of the major vegetative communities that exist in the Biological Survey Area.
WWTP Upgrede Site
The vegetation on both parcels involved in the DSPUD projects is a mixed conifer forest of Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta ssp. murryana), white fir (Abies concolor), and red fir (Abies magnifica). The forest habitat of mid-size conifers occupies north slopes on both parcels with numerous very large erratic granite boulders left by glacier alluvial deposits. The forest
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-46 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
understory has a variety of low-growing native shrubs and forbs. Common species found in the understory are double honeysuckle, (Lonicera conjugialis), cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum), creeping snowberry, (Symphoricarpos mollis), pinemat manzanita, (Arctostaphylos nevadensis), mountain monardella,(Monardella odoratissima), Jacob’s ladder, (Polemonium californicum), and bracken fern, (Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens).
For the 10-acre parcel one general vegetation type is delineated on the Tahoe National Forest’s Vegetation Map, an unpublished reference atlas available at the Ranger district office in Nevada City, California. The vegetation is described as MC-AW “Mixed Conifer-Alder/Willow” in the Tahoe National Forest’s Vegetation Map Legend, 1981:
“Typically 80% mixed conifer (as described in MC) and 20% alders and/or willow with some openings and fringes of sedges; sometimes aspen, cottonwood or lodgepole.”
The vegetation type (referenced above as MC “Mixed Conifer”) is described in the Map Legend as:
“Mostly a mix of white fir, Jeffrey pine, and red fir (some western white pine or sugar pine), near transition to red fir forest; or mix of Jeffrey, ponderosa and white fir near transition to JP vegetative map units. Lodgepole are along drainways and in depressions; some whitethorn and wyethia understory.”
Soils for the WWTP parcel are mapped as:
TIE, Tinker-Rock outcrop, Glacial Alluvial, Granitic-Cryumbrepts, wet complex, 2-30% slope. Lodgepole Pine, Brown cobbly loam.
TBE, Tallac-Cryumbrepts, wet complex, 2-30% slope. Glacial Alluvial, gravelly, high amount of volcanic andesite rock fragments. Mixed Conifer-Fir.
Additional Irrigation Site
There are four areas within the 20-acre Soda Springs ski area parcel that are delineated on the Tahoe National Forest’s Vegetation Map, an unpublished reference atlas available at the Ranger district office in Nevada City, California. The following are descriptions of these areas from the Tahoe National Forest’s Vegetation Map Legend, 1981:
MC/AW: Mixed Conifer-Alder/Willow
“Typically 80% mixed conifer (as described in MC) and 20% alders and/or willow with some openings and fringes of sedges; sometimes aspen, cottonwood or lodgepole.”
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-47 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
RF-AW: Red Fir-Alder/Willow
“Typically 80% red fir (as described in RF), 20% alder stringers with some openings and fringes of sedges. Some lodgepole, aspen, willow, wyethia, and meadows.”
WY-RF: Wyethia-Red Fir
“Typically 60% wyethia (as described in WY) and 40% red fir with some western white pine and lodgepole pine.”
WY: Wyethia
“Mostly wyethia [Wyethia mollis, mountain mules’-ears], 10-40% barren with few sagebrush and bitterbrush. Squirrel tail is the common grass.”
The Tahoe National Forest maps of vegetation types were consistent with what we found on field surveys with the exception of the southern area. The southern area is the highest elevation and consists of steep slopes on a rocky ridge. This is designated as “Wyethia” on the vegetation maps, but is closer to the Forest Service’s MB-WY “Mixed Brush-Wyethia” which is described as:
“Typically 70% mixed brush, 30% wyethia with up to 10% mixed conifers. Brush consists mainly of huckleberry oak, green leaf manzanita, and whitethorn.”
From our observation of these rocky slopes, bittercherry, pine mat manzanita, and huckleberry oak are the most common shrubs with patches of mountain mule’s- ears, Wyethia mollis. We did not find large areas where Wyethia mollis was the dominant ground cover.
The soils for the additional spray irrigation site are mapped as following:
RSG: Granitic Tinker Cryumbrepts, 30-75% slope.
TAF: Tallac, very gravelly, 30-50% slope.
TBE: Tallac Cryumbrepts, 2-30%, wet complex.
ACF: Ahart Waca, rhyolitic sub-stratum, Cryumbrepts, 30-50% slope
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-48 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.4.7 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
For the purpose of this CEQA compliant document, special-status species are defined as:
Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.12 for listed plants, 50 CFR 17.11 for listed animals, and various notices in the Federal Register [FR] for proposed species) Species that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under ESA (67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002)
Species that are listed or proposed for listing by California as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (14 CCR 670.5) Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (California Fish and Game Code 1900 et seq.) Plants considered by CNPS to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere” (CNPS List 1B species)
Species that meet the definitions of “rare” or “endangered” under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 Animal species of special concern to DFG Animals fully protected in California (California Fish and Game Code Sections 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals], and 5050 [reptiles and amphibians])
A list of special-status plant and animal species that have the potential to occur within the project region was compiled based on data in the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (CDFG, 2011), California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online inventory, and USFWS List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that may be affected by the proposed project in the USGS 7.5’ Soda Springs quadrangle and 8 quads surrounding the Soda Springs quad (i.e. the English Mtn., Webber Peak, Independence Lake, Cisco Grove, Norden, Duncan Peak, Royal Gorge, and Granite Chief quadrangles).
Based on project maps, aerial photography, and biological surveys, most species identified in databases for the region were eliminated, including all sensitive habitats, from further consideration for one or more of the following reasons:
Lack of suitable habitat in the project study area Outside of species range Conclusions regarding habitat suitability and species occurrence are based on the background research listed above (existing literature and databases) and the biological surveys conducted by a Stantec Wildlife Biologists, Aquatic Biologists, Wetland Ecologists, and Soil Scientists.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-49 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Table 3-4 identifies the special-status plant and wildlife species that are known to occur or have a potential to occur within three miles of the project site. The CNDDB registrations are vague about the actual locations of species. For each of these species, which are identified in Table 3-4 the “potential for occurrence” at the project site was evaluated as follows:
Very Low to Nil: The project site and/or immediate area do not support suitable habitat for a particular species. Project is outside the species known range. Low Potential: Project site and/or immediate area only provide limited habitat for a particular species. In addition, the known range for a particular species may be outside the immediate project area. Medium Potential: The project site and/or immediate area provide suitable habitat for a particular species, and habitat for the species may be impacted. High Potential: The project site and/or immediate area provide ideal habitat conditions for a particular species and/or known populations occur in the immediate area and within the potential area of impact.
A description of the special-status plants and wildlife species identified as having a potential to occur within the Biological Survey Area is provided below. There have been no special-status plants or wildlife species identified within the existing WWTP or irrigation disposal sites. In addition, the single protected special-status species known to occur within 10 miles of the site is Lahontan cutthroat trout, a species confined to the Truckee watershed, not the South Yuba River watershed. Of the two amphibian species, the foothill and the sierra yellow-legged frogs, due to the elevation and habitat, only the sierra yellow-legged frog (non-listed species of concern) has a potential to occur within and adjacent to the South Yuba River. Common wildlife and tree species found in the natural communities of the WWTP and irrigation expansion sites are listed in Table 3-4.1.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-50 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Table 3-4 Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species That Have Potential to Occur in the Project Area (CNDDB/USFWS/CNPS, 2011)
Legal Statusa Level of Potential for Common Name Geographic Distribution/ Identification Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Project Scientific Name Floristic Province Period Federal State CNPS Sites Plants Common moonwort – – 2 1980-3400 meters Meadows and seeps, August Low. Last reported in Botrychium lunaria subalpine montane Sagehen Creek area north coniferous forest, upper of Truckee with no other montane coniferous forest occurrences in area (CNDDB, 2010). Bolander’s bruchia – – 2 1700-2800 meters Lower montane coniferous All year Low. Last reported in Bruchia bolanderi forest, meadows and Castle Valley in Tahoe seeps, upper montane National Forest with no coniferous forest on damp other occurrences in area soil (CNDDB, 2010). Constance’s sedge – – 1B 2000 meters Subalpine coniferous August Low. Last reported in Carex constanceana forest on shady, mesic Sagehen Creek soils Experimental Forest in 2008 with no other occurrences in area (CNDDB, 2010). Mud sedge – – 2 1200-2700 meters Bogs and fens, lower June-August Low. Known in the Eagle Carex limosa montane coniferous forest, Lakes area from a 1973 list meadows and seeps, of ferns and seed plants of marshes and swamps, Nevada County (CNDDB, upper montane coniferous 2010). forest Fell-fields claytonia – – 2 2600-3532 meters Subalpine coniferous July-September Low. Last reported on the Claytonia megarhiza forest on rocky or gravelly north side of Mount Lola soils Summit in 1975 with no other occurrences in area (CNDDB, 2010). English sundew – – 2 1300-2000 meters Bogs and fens, meadows June-September Low. Last reported near Drosera ánglica and seeps on mesic soils the Sagehen Creek Field Station in 1975 (CNDDB, 2010).
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-51 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Legal Statusa Level of Potential for Common Name Geographic Distribution/ Identification Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Project Scientific Name Floristic Province Period Federal State CNPS Sites Supalpine fireweed – – 1B 2000-2700 meters Meadows and seeps, July-August Low. Last reported Epilobium howellii subalpine coniferous forest sightings in 2007 at 4 on mesic soils Sierra Pacific locations (CNDDB, 2010). Starved daisy – – 1B 1840-2620 meters Upper montane coniferous June-October Moderate. Last reported Erigeron miser forest on rocky soils sighting in 2006 near Donner Peak with older reports near DSPUD facilities (CNDDB, 2010). Donner pass buckwheat – – 1B 1855 – 2620 meters Meadows and seeps, July-September Low. Last reported Eriogonum umbellatum upper montane coniferous sighting in 2001 on Tahoe var. torreyanum forest on volcanic and National Forest property rocky soils. Prefers steep (CNDDB, 2010). slopes and ridge tops usually in bare or sparsely vegetated areas. Plumas ivesia – – 1B 1465-2200 meters Great Basin scrub, lower May-October Low. Last sighted near Ivesia sericoleuca montane coniferous forest, Independence Lake in meadows and seeps, 1946 (CNDDB, 2010). vernal pools on vernally mesic, usually volcanic soils Webber’s ivesia C – 1B 1000-2075 meters Great Basin scrub, lower May-July Low. Last sighted near Ivesia webberi montane coniferous forest, Webber Lake in 1875 pinyon and juniper (CNDDB, 2010). woodland Santa Lucia dwarf rush – – 1B 300-2040 meters Chaparral, Great basin April-July Low. Last reported Juncus luciensis scrub, lower montane sighting in 2006 near coniferous forest, Donner Pass on Tahoe meadows and seeps, National Forest property vernal pools (CNDDB, 2010). Long-petaled lewisia – – 1B 2500-2925 meters Alpine boulder and rock July-August Low. Last reported Lewisia longipetala field, subalpine coniferous sightings from 3 locations forest on mesic rocky or in 1991 (CNDDB, 2010). granitic soils
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-52 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Legal Statusa Level of Potential for Common Name Geographic Distribution/ Identification Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Project Scientific Name Floristic Province Period Federal State CNPS Sites Saw-toothed lewisia – – 1B 900-1435 meters Broadleaf upland forest, May-June Low. Last reported Lewisia serrata lower montane coniferous sighting in 1980 at a forest, riparian forest on “Sensitive” location in mesic, rocky slopes Placer County (CNDDB, 2010). Broad-nerved hump moss – – 2 1300-2804 meters Bogs and fens, meadows October Low. Last reported in 2004 Meesia uliginosa and seeps, subalpine at the headwaters of coniferous forest, upper Sagehen Creek (CNDDB, montane coniferous forest 2010). on damp soils Stebbins’ phacelia – – 1B 610-2010 meters Cismontane woodland, May-July Low. Last reported Phacelia stebbinsii lower montane coniferous sighting from 1997 forest, meadows and (CNDDB, 2010). seeps White-stemmed pondwed – – 2 1800-3000 meters Marshes and swamps in July-August Low. Last reported Potamogeton praelongus deep water and lakes sighting in 2001 in Catfish Lake (CNDDB, 2010). Robbins’ pondweed – – 2 1530-3300 meters Marshes and swamps in July-August Low. Not known from Potamogeton robbinsii deep water and lakes Placer or Nevada Counties (CNDDB, 2010). Alder buckhorn – – 2 1370-2130 meters Lower montane coniferous May-July Low. Last reported Rhamnus alnifolia forest, meadows and sighting in 1996 along Little seeps, riparian scrub, Truckee River (CNDDB, upper montane coniferous 2010). forest White beaked-rush – – 2 60-2040 meters Bogs and fens, meadows July-August Low. Last reported Rhynchospora alba and seeps, marshes and sighting in 1973 at Eagle swamps Lakes with no other occurrences in area (CNDDB, 2010). Water bulrush – – 2 750-2250 Bogs and fens, marshes June-August Low. Last reported Schoenoplectus and swamps on montane sighting in 2007 at Eagle subterminalis lake margins Lakes with no other occurrences in area (CNDDB, 2010).
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-53 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Legal Statusa Level of Potential for Common Name Geographic Distribution/ Identification Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Project Scientific Name Floristic Province Period Federal State CNPS Sites Munroe’s desert mallow – – 2 2000 meters Great basin scrub May-June Low. Last reported Sphaeralcea munroana sighting in 1922 along Squaw Creek with no other occurrences in area (CNDDB, 2010). Fish Lahontan cutthroat trout T – N/A Endemic to the Found in a wide variety of Year-round None. Not found in the Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) Physiographic Lahontan cold water habitats depending on life Yuba River or within any clarki henshawi basin of northern including lakes, rivers, and stage. Spawns tributaries to the Yuba Nevada, eastern streams. Generally prefer April-July. River California and Southern cool flowing water with Oregon. available cover, well vegetated stable stream banks and relatively silt free waters. Amphibians Foothill yellow-legged frog – SSC N/A Known in the Sierra Associated with shallow, Year-round Low. Last reported Rana boylii Nevada up to 2040 flowing water in small to depending on life sighting in 1994 along the meters to south of moderate sized streams stage North Fork of the American Fresno County with some cobble-sized River. Found at lower substrate. elevations. Sierra Nevada yellow- C SSC N/A Known in the Sierra Associated with streams, Year-round Moderate. Recently legged frog Nevada range from 1370 lakes, and ponds in depending on life reported sightings within Rana sierra to over 3650 meters from montane riparian, stage streams and lakes in the Plumas County to lodgepole pine, sub-alpine project area. Fresno County. conifer, and wet meadow habitats. Always found within a few feet of water. Birds Cooper’s hawk MB SSC N/A Breeding habitat in the Nest sites mainly in Year-round Moderate. Project Accipter cooperii Sierra Nevada extends riparian growths of activities may occur within from Shasta County deciduous trees, including riparian and forested south to northern Kern in canyon bottoms on river areas; however, this County. floodplains and in live species nests in lower oaks. elevations and is not likely to nest within the project area.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-54 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Legal Statusa Level of Potential for Common Name Geographic Distribution/ Identification Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Project Scientific Name Floristic Province Period Federal State CNPS Sites Northern goshawk MB SSC N/A Permanent resident in Nests and roosts in older Year-round Low. Project activities will Accipter gentalis the Klamath and stands of red fir, Jeffrey occur within forest areas; Cascade Ranges, in the pine, Ponderosa pine, however, project sites are North Coast Ranges lodgepole pine, Douglas within or adjacent to from Del Norte County to fir, and mixed conifer developed and/or disturbed Mendocino County, and forests. Usually nests on areas making it less likely in the Sierra Nevada north slopes and near the species would nest south to Kern County. water within the project area. Winters in Modoc, Lassen, Mono, and northern Inyo Counties Black swift – SSC N/A Breeding habitat in the Nest sites mainly in Year-round Low. Project activities Cypseloides niger Sierra Nevada extends riparian growths of may occur within riparian from Shasta County deciduous trees, including and forested areas; south to northern Kern in canyon bottoms on river however, this species County. floodplains and in live nests in lower elevations oaks. and is not likely to nest within the project area. Yellow warbler – SSC N/A Western Slope of Sierra Riparian deciduous Neotropical Moderate. Limited riparian Dendroica petechia Nevada to Kern County habitats in summer. Also migrant (Summer areas for cover along Yuba brewsteri and Eastern side from breeds in montane late spring and River; however, areas Lake Tahoe south to shrubbery in open early fall) adjacent to Lake Van Inyo. Rare to uncommon coniferous forests. In Norden meadow contain in lowlands. migration visits woodland suitable habitat for this shrub habitats species.
Willow flycatcher – E N/A Summers along the Extensive thickets of low, Spring/Summer Moderate. Potential Empidonax traillii western Sierra Nevada dense willows on the edge project areas adjacent to from El Dorado to of wet meadows, ponds, or Van Norden meadow Madera Counties and in backwaters. Usually found contain suitable habitat northern Sierra Nevada in riparian habitats during (riparian thickets) for this in Trinity, Shasta, migration. species; however, there is Tahama, Butte, and limited riparian areas for Plumas Counties. Found cover along the Yuba between 2000-8000 feet. River.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-55 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Legal Statusa Level of Potential for Common Name Geographic Distribution/ Identification Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Project Scientific Name Floristic Province Period Federal State CNPS Sites American peregrine falcon D, MB E,FP N/A Permanent resident Nests and roosts on Summer Low. Project activities will Falco peregrinus anatum along the north and protected ledges of high occur within forest areas; south Coast Ranges. cliffs, usually adjacent to however, project sites are May summer in the lakes, rivers, or marshes within or adjacent to Cascade and Klamath that support large prey developed and/or disturbed Ranges and through the populations. areas making it less likely Sierra Nevada to Madera the species would nest County. Winters in the within the project area. Central Valley south through the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges and the plains east of the Cascade Range. Bald eagle D, MB E,FP N/A Nests in Siskiyou, In western North America, Year-round Low. Project activities will Haliaeetus leucocephalus Modoc, Trinity, Shasta, nests and roosts in occur within forest areas; Lassen, Plumas, Butte, coniferous forests within however, project sites that Tehama, Lake, and 1.5 kilometers of a lake, are within 1.5 kilometers of Mendocino Counties and reservoir, stream, or the a lake or stream lie in the Lake Tahoe Basin. ocean. adjacent to developed Winter range includes and/or disturbed areas the rest of California, making it less likely the except the southeastern species would nest within deserts, very high the project area. altitudes in the Sierra Nevada, and east of the Sierra Nevada south of Mono County. Osprey MB PR N/A Sierra Nevada from Mature forest with suitable Year-round Low. Recorded along Pandion haliaetus Lassen County south to nesting trees. In southern Donner Lake. Project area northern Kern County, California, occurs in oak appears unlikely to nest in and in the Transverse, and oak-conifer habitats in the project area since the Peninsular and southern addition to mature conifer area lacks suitable coastal mountains forest foraging habitat for this species.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-56 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Legal Statusa Level of Potential for Common Name Geographic Distribution/ Identification Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Project Scientific Name Floristic Province Period Federal State CNPS Sites Great gray owl – E N/A Permanent resident of Late successional Year-round Low. No known records of Strix nebulosa the Sierra Nevada from coniferous forests this species in the project Plumas County south to bordering meadows area. Project area appears the Yosemite area. to lack suitable habitat for Occasionally occurs in this species. northwestern California in the winter and the Warner mountains in the summer. California spotted owl – SSC N/A Sierra Nevada from Mature forest with suitable Year-round Low. No known records of Strix occidentalis Lassen County south to nesting trees. In southern this species in the project occidentalis northern Kern County, California, occurs in oak area. Project area appears and in the Transverse, and oak-conifer habitats in to lack suitable habitat for Peninsular and southern addition to mature conifer this species. coastal mountains forest Mammals Sierra Nevada Mountain – SSC N/A Found through out the Montane riparian habitat Year-round Low. Project area lacks Beaver Cascade, Klamath, and preferred. Frequent open (nocturnal) suitable habitat with small Aplodondia rufa califórnica Sierra Nevada Ranges. and intermediate canopy deciduous trees and coverage with dense shrubs except for along the understory near water. Yuba River and Van Deep friable soils are Norden meadow. required for burrowing. California wolverine – T,FP N/A Klamath and Cascade Sighted in a variety of Year-round Low. Prefer areas with Gulo gulo luteus Ranges south through habitats from 480–4,325 (largely low human disturbance. the Sierra Nevada to meters. Most common in nocturnal) Uses caves, hollows, cliffs, Tulare County open terrain above and logs for cover in timberline and subalpine denser forests, but may forests hunt in more open areas. Known from 1973 within project area. Sierra Nevada snoeshoe – SSC N/A Uncommon resident at Primarily found in montane Year round Low. Rarely found in open hare upper elevations riparian habits with thickets (crepuscular and spaces. Activity primarily Lepus americanus throughout the Sierra of alders and willows and nocturnal) crepuscular and nocturnal. tahoensis Nevada to Mariposa, in stands of young conifers Last reported sighting in Mono, and Madera interspersed with area was 1969. Counties. chaparral.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-57 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Legal Statusa Level of Potential for Common Name Geographic Distribution/ Identification Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Project Scientific Name Floristic Province Period Federal State CNPS Sites Western white-tailed – SSC N/A An uncommon to rare Areas of scattered shrubs Year Round Low. Last reported jackrabbit year round resident of with cover such as thickets (nocturnal) sighting was 1920. Feeds Lepus tonsendii the crest and upper slow of young conifers or low in open meadows during of the Sierra Nevada branches of stunted summer; however has primarily from the conifers. Feeds in nocturnal (sometimes Oregon border to Tulare summer in open meadows. crepuscular) activity and Inyo Counties. patterns. Project activities Migrates to higher areas in the meadow surface will in summer and descends occur in winter. to lower regions in summer. Pacific fisher C SSC N/A Coastal mountains from Late successional Year-round Low. Project site lacks Martes pennanti (pacifica) Del Norte County to coniferous forests and suitable habitat for this DPS Sonoma Counties, east montane riparian habitats species. There is limited through the Cascades to with a high percentage of late successional forest Lassen County, and canopy cover. Uses and riparian habitat with a south in the Sierra cavities, snags, and logs high percentage of canopy Nevada to Kern County for cover and denning. cover in the vicinity of the project. Gray-headed pika – – N/A Uncommon resident at Primarily found in montane Year round Low. Last reported Ochotona princeps upper elevations riparian habits with thickets (crepuscular and sighting project area was schisticeps throughout the Sierra of alders and willows and nocturnal) 1937. Nevada to Mariposa, in stands of young conifers Mono, and Madera interspersed with Counties. chaparral. American badger – SSC N/A Cascade Ranges in Most abundant in drier Year-round Low. Could visit open Taxidea taxus Siskiyou County, the open stages of most forested, riparian, and Sierra Nevada from shrub, forest, and meadow areas within the Lassen County south to herbaceous habitats with project area; however, Tulare County friable soils. there are no documented sightings of this species in the area. Sierra Nevada red fox – T N/A Cascade Ranges in Coniferous forests, Year-round Low. Could visit forested Vulpes vulpes necátor Siskiyou County, the generally from 1,500– and meadow areas; Sierra Nevada from 2,560 meters. Often however, documented Lassen County south to associated with mountain sightings of this species Tulare County meadows are few in the area.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-58 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Federal T = listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. D = delisted under the federal Endangered Species Act PD = proposed for delisting C = candidate to become a proposed species MB = Migratory Bird Treaty Act – = no listing.
State E = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. T = listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. R = listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act. This category is no longer used for newly listed plants, but some plants previously listed as rare retain this designation. CE = candidate species for listing as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act FP = fully protected species SSC = species of special concern in California PR = Protected Raptor Species – = no listing.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 1B = List 1B species: rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2 = List 2 species: rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. 3 = List 3 species: plants about which more information is needed to determine their status. 4 = List 4 species: plants of limited distribution.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-59 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Table 3-4.1 Biological Communities Found Within the Project Areas
Biological Location Vegetation Type Common Wildlife Common Vegetation Communities
Mixed DSPUD WWTP Site and Lodgepole pine Avian species: western tanager (Piranga Major vegetation types: Coniferous Effluent Irrigation and mixed conifer ludoviciana), western wood peewee (Contopus 1. Eastside pine, 2. Lodgepole pine, 3. Forest Disposal Expansion sordidulus), hairy woodpecker Mixed conifer, 4. Subalpine conifer, 5. White Site (Picoides villosus), mountain chickadee (Poecile fir. gambeli), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta Tree species: Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), carolinensis), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus white fir (Abies concolor), sugar pine (Pinus ater), chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina), lambertiana), ponderosa pine (Pinus Oregon junco (Junco hyemalis thurberi), yellow- ponderosa), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta rumped warbler Dendroica coronata), northern ssp. murrayana), and western white pine flicker (Colaptes auratus), and Steller’s jay (Pinus monticola). (Cyanocitta telleri). Plant species: Indian paintbrush (Castilleja Mammalian species: lodgepole chipmunk pinetorum), snowberry (Symphoricarpos (Tamias speciosus), mule deer (Odocoileus mollis), mule ears (Wyethia mollis), Sierra hemionus), montane vole (Microtus montanus), currant (Ribes nevadense), and mountain California vole (Microtus californicus), black bear pride (Penstemon newberryi) (Ursus americanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), mountain lion (Felis concolor), and western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus). Red Fir Forest Effluent Irrigation Red fir trees See above discussion as species are similar for These habitats within the project areas are Disposal Expansion both biological communities. characterized by dense stands of red fir Site (Abies magnifica). Because the canopy associated with this habitat is extremely dense and relatively impermeable to sunlight, the understory supports sparse vegetation. Alder/Willow Effluent Irrigation Alder and willow Species include: raccoon, western gray squirrel, Vegetation types: 1. Alder, Wetlands Disposal Expansion California mule deer, northern flicker, mountain 2. Willow, 3. Willow-aspen. Site and Along the chickadee, and lodgepole chipmunk. Yuba River Species include: willow (Salix sp.), alder (Alnus tenuifolia), cottonwood (Populus sp.), and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides)
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-60 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 3 Environmental Checklist
SPECIES ACCOUNTS
Detailed species accounts for those species with a moderate or higher potential to occur at the site are listed below. In addition, species that are of a particular concern to the resource agencies (i.e. Northern Goshawk) are also included.
Starved daisy (Erigeron miser) is a low perennial member of the sunflower family (Asteraceae) that has no state or federal status. It is on the CNPS List 1B. Starved daisy lacks basal leaves and has yellow disk flowers and no ray flowers. It grows in crevices in rock outcrops at mid to high elevations in the Sierra Nevada in Placer and Nevada Counties. It blooms between June and October. During special status surveys this species was not encountered.
Sierra NevadaYellow-legged Frog (Rana sierrae) occurs primarily at higher elevations of the Sierra Nevada from Plumas County to southern Tulare County (Zeiner et al., 1998). In the Sierra Nevada this species is associated with streams, lakes and ponds in montane riparian, lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, and wet meadow habitat types. It is never encountered far from water. The Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog feeds primarily on aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, but favors terrestrial insects. Tadpoles graze on algae and diatoms along rocky bottoms in shallow waters. Breeding and egg-laying at higher elevations usually occurs from June to August depending on local conditions. Clusters of 200 to 300 eggs are deposited in shallow water and attached to gravel or submerged rocks. Tadpoles may require up to two over-wintering periods to complete metamorphosis. Adults are commonly preyed upon by garter snakes and introduced trout.
The CNDDB (2011) documents a few occurrences of this species within a 10-mile radius of the project site. These occurrences are primarily from northwest of the site in the region of Rattlesnake Creek and Fordyce Lake. Suitable habitat for this species may occur within the project site in association with Lake Van Norden and the Sout Yuba River; however, surveys conducted by SRYCL in Lake Van Norden have not found any such frogs to date. In addition, amphibian surveys at both sites resulted in findings of a single non-listed species, western spadefoot toad. Based on the close proximity to other known occurrences of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the presence of suitable habitat, it is expected that the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog has a reasonable potential for occurring along the South Yuba River. However, the project does not entail any work in such habitat.
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) breeds in dense-canopied trees from foothill pine-oak woodlands up to the ponderosa pine forest. Nesting sites are usually located near water. This species hunts in broken woodland and habitat edges, where they catch small birds in the air. They prefer nesting sites in riparian growths of deciduous trees, as in canyon bottoms and on river flood plains, although live oaks are often used. Breeding takes place March through August, with peak activity occurring May though June. Cooper’s hawk nests are often constructed in deciduous trees in crotches approximately 20–50 feet above the ground. The nest is a stick platform lined with bark. Cooper’s hawk incubates eggs for about 35 days, and the fledge young between 30 to 34 days. Young birds often remain in the vicinity of the nest after they fledge while they are learning to hunt.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-61 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The CNDDB (2011) documents previous nesting of Cooper’s hawks within a 10-mile radius of the project site. This occurrence is from south of the site. Although this species prefers nesting in riparian woodland habitats, it is occasionally known to nest in coniferous habitats located close to water. Within the project site, potential nesting habitat occurs in forested habitats located in the vicinity of water, such as in the vicinity of Lake Van Norden and the South Yuba River.
Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) occurs in dense, mature conifer and deciduous forest habitats interspersed with meadows or other openings. It typically breeds in mature oldgrowth stands of conifer and deciduous habitats, at mid to high elevations. Nesting habitat includes north-facing slopes located near water. Nests are usually located in the fork of a large, horizontal limb close to the trunk, approximately 19-82 feet above the ground. This species often uses old nests, and will maintain alternate sites. Breeding generally begins in mid-June, with eggs being incubated approximately 36 to 41 days. Young usually fledge at about 45 following hatching and are typically independent by 70 days.
The CNDDB (2011) documents previous nesting activity within a 10-mile radius of the project site, primarily to the east and south. Suitable nesting habitat for the northern goshawk occurs in oldgrowth forest. Neither of the two project sites are located in old growth forests. Therefore, based on the fact that the forests in the area are not old growth, there is a low potential for nesting at the project site.
Yellow warbler (Dendoica petechia) is an uncommon to common, summer resident in the northern Sierra Nevada. It primarily breeds in riparian woodlands up to 8000 feet, but is also known to breed in montane chaparral, open ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitats with substantial amounts of shrub cover. During migration, this species is found in a variety of forest and woodland habitats. Nests consist of an open cup placed approximately 2 to 16 feet above the ground in a deciduous tree or shrub. Breeding generally takes place from mid-April to early-August with peak activity occurring in June. Incubation is approximately 11 days. Young fledge at about 9 to 12 days following hatching. Young yellow warblers breed the following year after hatching.
The CNDDB (2011) documents previous nesting activity within a 10-mile radius of the project site, to the south, off of Soda Springs-Baker Ranch Road. Within the project sites suitable nesting habitat for the yellow warbler occurs in association with riparian habitats in along the South Yuba River, near the outfall (where no work is proposed). In these areas there is a reasonable protential for nesting, but not within the WWTP or irrigation expansion sites.
Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailii) is a rare to locally uncommon summer resident in the Sierra Nevada. It typically is associated with broad, open river valleys or large mountain meadows with a dense growth of shrubby willows (Zeiner et al., 1990). This species is most abundant in areas containing extensive willow thickets along the edges of meadows, ponds, or backwaters of streams. Nest is an open cup constructed in an upright fork of a willow or other shrub, approximately 1.5 to 10 feet above the ground. Peak egg-laying of this species is during June. Incubation is for 12 to 13 days, with young fledging after 13 to 14 days. Diet consists of flying insects captured on short flights from exposed perches.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-62 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The CNDDB (2011) documents willow flycatcher as previously occurring within ten miles of the project area, within the meadow located upstream of Lake Van Norden. Suitable habitat includes willow thickets in the vicinity of the South Yuba River, where no project work is proposed. In these areas there is a reasonable protential for nesting, but not within the WWTP or irrigation expansion sites.
3.4.8 IMPACT ANALYSIS
DSPUD has incorporated into the project design the measures and the BMPs listed in Section 2.7 (Environmental Commitments) as well as the biological resources-specific measures listed below. These measures are included into the project design to avoid and/or minimize environmental impacts. The project impact analysis takes these measures into account:
All wetlands and potential waters of the US will be avoided to the extent feasible. The project was designed to ensure stream, drainage, and wetland buffers are maintained. However, in areas on the additional spray irrigation site where crossing ephemeral drainages were unavoidable, appropriate regulatory permits will be obtained from the Corps, CDFG, and Regional Baord.
All construction activities associated with the WWTP will occur within the limits of the treatment facility property disturbed and upland non-native grassland habitat.
Proposed lay down sites will be located in disturbed or graded areas.
All vehicular traffic will remain in graded areas and on the existing access road.
BMPs will be employed during construction to minimize dust, erosion, and potential sediment loading (see section 2.7) into the drainages and seasonal wetlands.
The purpose of the project is to improve wastewater treatment and effluent water quality and meet the planned growth commitments (within the permitted 0.52 mgd limit). Downstream water quality at the South Yuba River discharge point will improve from the implementation of the proposed project and winter and spring/early summer flows will increase slightly (within the permitted 0.52 mgd). The current peak flow of 0.97 mgd will likely remain under future conditions because the addition of attenuation facilities will dampen future peak flows.
The following discussion evaluates the potential impacts to biological resources from the proposed project. The activities encompassed in this analysis will occur within the Biological Survey Area.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-63 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Table 3-4.2 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Biological Resources Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (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 impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f). Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Impact BIO-01: Potential Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species during Construction Activities Finding: Less than significant The WWTP and irrigation disposal expansion areas provide very little potential habitat for special- status plant species. Comprehensive botanical surveys were conducted on both the WWTP and irrigation expansion sites in 2010 and no special-status plant species were documented within either site. Given that the proposed project disturbance within both sites will be contained within upland habitats and dry ephemeral drainages (within the irrigation expansion site), there is a low potential for the proposed project to impact special-status plant species.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-64 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Impact BIO-02: Potential Disturbance of Nesting Special-Status Migratory Birds and Raptors during Construction Activities Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporation The WWTP and irrigation disposal expansion areas provide potential nesting locations for migratory birds and small to large raptors since they contain several medium to large sized trees for nest establishment. Therefore, the proposed project does have the potential to disturb to tree-nesting protected raptors and other tree-nesting special-status birds.
The breeding season for most protected birds is generally from March 1 to September 1.
Construction activities during the breeding season could disturb or remove occupied nests of migratory birds or small raptors. This disturbance could cause nest abandonment and subsequent loss of eggs or developing young at active nests in or near the study area. Disturbance resulting in nest abandonment or loss of eggs would be considered a potential substantial adverse impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant with mitigation incorporation.
Therefore, with the implementation of these measures, this potential impact is thus considered less than significant.
Impact BIO-03: Potential for operation-related algae blooms from altered effluent quality and quantity (within the 0.52 permitted limit).
Under essentially current effluent quality and quantity conditions, nuisance biostimulatory events were documented in the South Yuba River below the WWTP during the spring 2008 receding snowmelt hydrograph. The nuisance growth occurred and died back during a period in which effluent discharge to the river was continuous. This was the only recorded such nuisance event in the vicinity of the outfall since the commencement of surface discharge in the 1980s. It is currently unclear whether the presence of effluent in the South Yuba River presents an ongoing risk of contributing along with other unknown factors to nuisance biostimulation events. In 2009 and 2010, ECO:LOGIC conducted a biolstimulation field survey along the South Yuba River. Both reports are available on the DSPUD website. In the spring and summer of 2009 and 2010, the effluent discharge did not cause any nuisance biostimulation materially different from background river conditions. Biostimulation was not evident even where the effluent enters the river prior to mixing and dilution into the river, which suggests that effluent dilution is not a critical parameter in preventing biostimulation in this particular effluent and receiving water situation. However, algal growths were observed both above the effluent discharge point and several miles downstream below it. The general South Yuba River aquatic environmental conditions and WWTP effluent conditions during spring snowmelt at Donner Summit were similar in 2008, 2009, and 2010, which makes the correlation between nuisance algal growths and DSPUD’s effluent discharge unclear. The only known major difference in watershed conditions on the upper South Yuba River in the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 period was the major reconstruction of the I-80 crossing of the South Yuba River upstream of the effluent discharge point.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-65 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
In the summer of 2009, SYRCL volunteers conducted periphyton studies in the South Yuba River above and below the effluent discharge point, and a little further downstream at Plavada. The June data were collected while the WWTP was still discharging effluent (which stopped on 26 June 2009). The July data reflect conditions after the effluent discharge had stopped for the summer/autumn seasons. The relative algae biomasses above the WWTP, below the WWTP and at Plavada were almost identical in June and slightly higher above the WWTP in July (Figure 3-8). These data corroborate the ECO:LOGIC findings of no nuisance biostiumulation being caused by the effluent discharge. Based on these data, there is no correlation between effluent discharge and algae blooms; however, DSPUD continues to monitor the situation.
Source: SYRCL, 2010 (www.yubashed.org)
Figure 3-8: Average Algae Biomass above and below the DSPUD WWTP (2009)
Based on these independent, corroborating findings, the proposed project does not specifically address potential effluent discharge biostimulation issues because effluent caused biostimulation does not appear to be an issue, not even in the effluent mixing zone at the effluent discharge point. The mixing zone where effluent concentrations are relatively high as considered to be the “canary in the coal mine” that would provide an early warning of a pending or potential nuisance biostimulation condition. However, the upgraded plant will remove nitrogen and ammonia more efficiently. Therefore, the future operational conditions will entail improved water quality from a biostimulation perspective. Considering that, the proposed project does not entail any changes in the timing of currently permitted effluent discharges. As such, no significant change in current river biostimulation is expected to occur based on historical and current biostimulation studies, as well as conditions observed each spring and summer in the effluent mixing zone of the South Yuba River.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-66 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Therefore, quantities or potential biostimulatory impacts in the South Yuba River from the operation of the proposed upgraded plant are considered less than significant and does not require mitigation.
Impact BIO-04: Potential Water Quality or Flow-related Impacts to Common Aquatic or Semi-aquatic Species and Habitat during Operation. The upper South Yuba River is predominately a bedrock confined, boulder and cobble dominated reach in the vicinity of the DSPUD WWTP. It provides habitat for brown and rainbow trout among other common fish species. The South Yuba River is lined by riparian habitat that supports a wide array of common and potential special status species. In addition, there is a potential for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, a state species of special concern, to occur along the banks of the South Yuba River. These species and their associated riparian and riverine habitat are considered Public Trust assets protected under the California Fish and Game Code.
The proposed project involves treatment upgrades and the conversion from chlorine to UV disinfection, which improve the quality of effluent discharged to the South Yuba River. Accordingly, the proposed project is expected to improve South Yuba River water quality compared to what has or could have occurred historically under current permits. DSPUD will continue to conduct regular 3- tier chronic bioassay tests using sensitive species in 100 percent effluent, no dilution, to monitor if any aspect of the effluent itself, whether a regulated effluent contaminant or not has any significant potential to have an adverse impact on aquatic ecology, even without the benefit of dilution in the river. Based on currently observed field conditions and 100 percent effluent 3-tier chronic bioassay results, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any adverse impact on aquatic ecology or aquatic species. As such, the potential impacts to common stream-associated wildlife and habitats are considered less than significant and does not require mitigation. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Impact BIO-05: Potential Indirect Sedimentation Impacts to Waters of the U.S. during Construction Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporation The project is being designed to avoid indirect impacts to potential seasonal wetlands and other waters of the U.S.
Upgrades to the existing WWTP facility would not result in a substantial adverse effect on any seasonal wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There are forested riparian areas at the project site adjacent to the South Yuba River; however, such habitats will not be impacted. It has been avoided by design. In addition, all construction will occur at a distance greater than 100 feet from the South Yuba River and no work is planned at the existing outfall site.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-67 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Construction of the irrigation expansion area, as currently designed, will not result in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The project is being designed so that all wetlands and water resources will be avoided by the proposed project, including the perennial alder wetlands within the Biological Survey Area at the irrigation disposal expansion site. However, the project will directly impact waters of the US on the irrigation disposal expansion site. There will be minimal direct removal, filling, and hydrological interruption of these potential waters of the US. At the irrigation expansion area, a runoff collection system will be created which will alter the drainage pattern of the site; however, the runoff collection system will be designed to allow natural seasonal runoff to bypass the collection system and flow along existing drainage courses. Since the majority of runoff at the site occurs in the winter and spring and outside of the irrigation period, natural runoff will continue along the existing drainage pattern. Some construction activities will be necessary in existing drainages to install diversion/bypass appurtenances and stabilize drainages to prevent them from meandering into the new irrigation area. These activities will be conducted in compliance with Clean Water Act sections 404 and 401 and in conjunction with a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game, where necessary.
Sediment control BMPs such as hay coils and natural buffers will be in place in any area where construction activities approach waters of the US. An assessment of water quality impacts is addressed in the Water Quality and Hydrology (Section 3.9) of this IS/MND.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, potential project related indirect impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. from sedimentation will be less-than-significant with mitigation incorporation.
Potential Impact BIO-06: Potential Water Quality or Flow-related Impacts to Common Aquatic or Semi-aquatic Species and Habitat during Operation. The upper South Yuba River is predominately a bedrock confined, boulder and cobble dominated reach in the vicinity of the DSPUD WWTP. It provides habitat for brown and rainbow trout among other common fish species. The South Yuba River is lined by riparian habitat that supports a wide array of common and potential special status species. In addition, there is a potential for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, a state species of special concern, to occur along the banks of the South Yuba River. These species and their associated riparian and riverine habitat are considered Public Trust assets protected under the California Fish and Game Code.
The proposed project was designed specifically to improve the effluent water quality. The treatment upgrades and the conversion from chlorine to UV disinfection will all increase the effluent water quality during operation. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to have the beneficial impact of improved effluent water quality. Relative to flows, DSPUD is not proposing to alter the current seasonal discharge requirements and will continue to only discharge to the South Yuba River when flow conditions permit (typically late fall to early summer). DSPUD is also NOT proposing any changes to the currently permitted flow amount of 0.52 mgd. The actual average flows may increase slightly over current conditions during winter months; however, the installation of additional flow equalization facilities means the current peak flows of 0.97 mgd should not be exceeded, even under
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-68 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
future conditions. As a result the habitat suitability for fish and amphibians, as well as the conditions that support riparian habitat will not be significantly altered.
Therefore, because (1) the proposed operational conditions will improve effluent water quality; (2) the project does will not alter the current effluent discharge dates or permitted quantity (0.52 mgd); and (3) peak flows will be stabilized to the current peak rate of 0.79 mgd by the installation of equalization facilities, operational impacts to common stream-associated wildlife and habitats are considered less than significant and do not require mitigation.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by 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? Impact BIO-07: Potential Loss of Wetlands from the Proposed Project Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporation The project does not entail any construction in the South Yuba River or its adjacent wetlands. A preliminary wetland delineation using the USCOE wetland delineation manual will be developed and by DSPUD to the USCOE. This will define the existing wetland area boundaries at that time. The mapped wetlands will be included in the preliminary wetland delineation submitted to the Sacramento District of the USCOE for verification. During biological surveys conducted in June, July, August, and September 2010 for the proposed project, Stantec biologists, wetlands ecologists, and soil scientists confirmed the presence of alder wetlands and drainage areas within the irrigation disposal expansion site. DSPUD is designing the proposed project to avoid the alder wetland and to minimize impacts to waters of the US (drainage areas) that lie within that site.
If the alder/willow wetlands and drainage areas can’t be avoided, then this would be a significant impact to those resources. However, through the implementation of the mitigation measures below, this potential adverse impact can be reduced to less than significant levels.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 and BIO-4 would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. Therefore, with the implementation of these measures, the potential impact to seasonal wetlands and drainages is thus considered less than significant. d) Would the project 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 impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Finding: Less than significant
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-69 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
IMPACT BIO-08: Potential Impact to Wildlife Movements or Migration Wildlife Movements and Migration:
Deer Migration Corridors Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) is a common to abundant resident and local migrant throughout most of California. At higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada they move downslope during winter to areas with minimal snow. Mule deer occur in a variety of communities including forest, woodland and brushy habitats, but they prefer areas with a combination of woody cover and open areas for foraging, near water. Mule deer occurring in the vicinity Van Norden are part of the Blue Canyon deer herd (North Fork & Associates, 2008). The boundaries of this herd are defined by the Blue Canyon Deer Herd Management Plan (Fowler and Wagner, 1982) as the following: the eastern boundary following the Sierra Crest from Ellis Peak north to Norden; the northern boundary follows Interstate 80 west, along the Bear River, then toward Colfax; the western boundary extending southeast from Colfax, through Foresthill, to the Middle Fork of the American River; and the southern boundary following the Rubicon River east to Ellis Peak (Fowler and Wagner, 1982).
Tracking studies have shown that most of the deer in the Blue Canyon herd winter together in the western-most portion of the range at elevations of 1,000 to 4,000 feet, far from the project area and summer in the eastern portion at elevations from 6,000 to 9,000 feet. Known and potential fawning areas occur throughout the range, with major fawning areas being documented in the southeastern portion, and not the project vicinity.
Some Rocky Mountain mule deer summer with the Blue Canyon herd and may move east over the Sierra crest, wintering with the Loyalton-Truckee herd. Therefore, migration out of the project area in the fall likely occurs both westward and eastward. Snowfall is the controlling factor in migration for this herd, with the first heavy snows triggering fall migration. Migration corridors often run along ridgelines, but occasionally occur in canyons. Major seasonal movement corridors have been documented to the north of Foresthill Divide, and to the south along the Middle Fork of the American River (Fowler and Wagner, 1982).
The proposed project in this area includes the removal of some forested habitat and spray irrigation during summer. This means there may be a slight reduction in cover for mule deer that summer near the summit and a slight increase in foraging habitat. If the Blue Canyon herd does occur at the project site, its movements are not expected to be significantly affected. The WWTP project is located within the existing fenceline and thus its construction and operation will not significantly change from a migrating mule deer’s perspective. The spray irrigation site will be operated in a manner identical to the existing adjacent spray fields. The new fields will present less cover than the current forest does; however, the area is surrounded by forest and includes several forest patches for cover. It will provide more foraging habitat. Spray field operations are not likely to occur during the migration season (early spring/late fall), when the soils are too wet for effluent absorption. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant impact on possible mule deer migration (and over summering habitat).
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-70 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Both the project sites could be used by migratory species and could serve as a sort of wildlife corridor for some species. However, since operation of the existing WWTP and irrigation disposal sites have not been documented to be used as sites for important movements and/or migration purposes, nor have their operation impacted the movements of any migratory species, the impact during operation of the expanded and upgraded facilities will be negligible. Construction activities will not likely disturb or disrupt the movement or migration of terrestrial migratory species since there is ample undeveloped areas adjacent to both project sites that can be used by species moving through the project areas during construction. Potential impacts to native resident or migratory wildlife species are considered less-than-significant and no mitigation is required.
There are no migratory (anadromous) fish species in the project area due to the multiple dams and reservoirs downstream of the project site. In addition, the project entails improvements in water quality and slight increases in winter inputs (less than the permitted 0.52 mgd). Such beneficial water quality impacts and minor winter flow alterations within an already volatile and high hydrograph are not expected to impact common species riparian corridor or aquatic migrations. The potential impact to aquatic and stream-associated migrations is considered less-than-sigifnicant and no mitigation is required. e/f) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Finding: Less than Significant
Impact BIO-9: Potential Project Conflicts with Existing or Planned Habitat Conservation Plans or Local Ordinances The project will not conflict with local ordinances relative to biological resources as specified in the Nevada County General Plan or other existing or planned habitat conservation plan or local ordinances. Since the WWTP is designated a public facility and it provides infrastructure to accommodate ongoing operations and maintenance activities for wastewater treatment, the proposed project fits within the purpose and scope and does not conflict with the Nevada County General Plan for biological resources.
Even though the project will occur within the District boundaries and subject to District Policies, DSPUD has also facilitated compliance with the Nevada County General Plan as follows: The project is not incompatible with land uses in senstivie habitats (GP Objective 13.1). It avoids impacts to mapped wetlands in the area and proposed to improve the effluent water quality discharged to the South Yuba River. This also follows suite with Policy 13.1 in that the project as designed includes work area buffers (i.e. 100 feet along the S. Yuba River) for non-disturbance space around sensitive habitat. In addition, the project does not entail habitat fragmentation. .
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-71 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
As part of the Comprehensive Site Development Standards, the project was designed to minimize removal of existing vegetation and entails long term maintenance of the spray irrigation site (i.e. revegetation with grasses, erosion control, run-off containment, and irrigation) . According to the Nevada County General plan, though, “tree removal may be allowed where necessary to comply with public right-of-way development or dedication, or development of required site access and public utilities” (Policy 13.1).
In accordance with Policy 13.2A, the project review included “a site-specific biological inventory to determine the presence of special-status species or habitat for such species that may be affected by a proposed project and the the results of the biological inventory shall be used as the basis for establishing land use siting and design tools required to achieve the objective of no net loss of habitat function or value for special-status species”.
Although Policy 13.2B states that development projects which have the potential to remove natural riparian or wetland habitat of 1 acre or more shall not be permitted unless: of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, and other relevant agencies, the proposed project has been designed to avoid impacts to wetlands and ephemeral drainages, and where infeasible, CORPS and CDFG permits will be secured.
The project has also been assessed to minimize the loss or disturbance of deer habitat (Policy 13.4G ) and minimize impacts to wildlife corridors (Policy 13.4H) by proposing all project activities occur on the existing WWTP site and immediately adjacent to the existing spray irrigation site (i.e.clustering).
There are no approved habitat conservation plans or natural communities’ conservation plans for the Donner Summit Area; however, Sierra Watch, with the support of multiple conservation-oriented non-government organizations (NGOs) have developed a list of recommended planning principals for the Donner Summit Area (Refer to the Biological Regulatory Setting for details). The principles are not binding and have not been made policy; however, they are important to note because they represent recommendations from multiple conservation related stakeholder from around the Donner Summit area. The proposed project was designed to improve the effluent water quality. Therefore, DSPUD “recognizes the importance of Donner Summit to the broader Central Sierra and downstream ecosystems” and is investing money and technology by continuing to improve downstream watershed water quality. In the same token, by selecting additional spray irrigation sites outside the Sierra Watch priority conservation areas (Sierra Watch, 2009, Figure 3-9), DSPUD seeks to ‘protect the wide array of habitat and the incredible range of biodiversity on Donner Summit” and avoid impacts to potential “permanent protection sites…. for Donner Summit Forest Resources”. The project was specifically designed to avoid the wetlands and meadows on the summit. The additional spray irrigation sites were defined by soil permeability characterizes AND wetland avoidance measures. Therefore, DSPUD is adhering to the proposed development principal of “Protect the wetlands and meadows of Donner Summit”. And finally, the entire project was developed first and
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-72 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Source: Adapted from Sierra Watch Conservation Priorities Report, 2009. Note: black arrows denote the proposed DSPUD project area, both located outside potential conservation priority areas).
Figure 3-9 Sierra Watch Recommended Conservation Priority Sites for Donner Summit
foremost to continue the stewardship of Donner Summit water resources. The purpose of the project is to “improve and maintain the water quality of Donner Summit’s lakes, creeks, and rivers”.
Therefore, for the above-mentioned reasons the proposed project will not conflict with any approved or planed local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. This potential impact is thus considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.
3.4.9 MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure BIO-01: Avoid Disturbance of Nesting Special- Special-Status Migratory Birds and Small Raptors DSPUD will implement one of the following measures, depending on the specific construction timeframe, to avoid disturbance ground nesting special- and non-special-status migratory birds.
1. If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season for these species (generally between March 1 and September 1), a qualified wildlife biologist will be retained to conduct the following focused nesting survey within the appropriate habitat:
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-73 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Nesting surveys will be conducted within the Biological Survey Area and all potential nesting habitat within 250 feet of this area. The surveys should be conducted within one week before initiation of construction activities at any time between March 1 and September 1. If no active nests are detected, then no additional mitigation is required. If surveys indicate that migratory bird nests are found in any areas that would be directly affected by construction activities, a no-disturbance buffer will be established around the site to avoid disturbance or destruction of the nest site until after the breeding season or after a wildlife biologist determines that the young have fledged (usually late June to mid- July). The extent of these buffers will be determined by a wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise or construction disturbance, line of sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise and other disturbances, and other topographical or artificial barriers. These factors should be analyzed to make an appropriate decision on buffer distances.
2. If construction activities begin before the breeding season (i.e., begin between September 1 and February 28) (pre-existing construction), then construction can proceed until it is determined that an active migratory bird nest would be subject to abandonment as a result of construction activities. (Pre-existing construction activities are assumed to be “full force,” as are site grading and infrastructure development. Activities that technically initiate construction but are minor would not be considered full force.) Optimally, all necessary vegetation removal should be conducted before the breeding season (generally between March 1 and September 1) so that nesting birds would not be present in the construction area during construction activities. If any birds nest in the project vicinity under pre-existing construction conditions, then it is assumed that they are habituated (or will habituate) to the construction activities. Under this scenario, the preconstruction survey described previously should still be conducted on or after March 1 to identify any active nests in the vicinity. Active sites should be monitored by a wildlife biologist periodically until after the breeding season or after the young have fledged (usually late June to mid-July). If active nests are identified on or immediately adjacent to the project site, then all nonessential construction activities (e.g., equipment storage and meetings) should be avoided in the immediate vicinity of the nest site, but the remainder of construction activities may proceed.
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Party: DSPUD will ensure that a qualified biologist conducts pre- construction surveys. Timing: One nesting survey will be conducted within one week of initiating the project, should the project occur between May and August.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-74 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Monitoring and Reporting Program: The survey will be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist and a brief survey report will be documented and kept on file with DSPUD. Standards for Success: Special status species and migratory bird nests will not be disturbed during the project construction activities.
Mitigation Measure BIO-02: Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures Straw bales, coir rolls, hydroseeding and other best management practices (BMPs) will be used in areas of bare soil, and in drainages near all areas of disturbance to reduce surface runoff velocities and to prevent sediment from entering drainages.
Maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures will be conducted on a weekly basis. The re- vegetation of all graded and disturbed areas of bare soil will be completed within six months, or prior to the rainy season. Seed mixes will be used to replicate the naturally occurring vegetation, with the exception that the irrigation area will be seeded with grass species suitable for extensive soil cover, climatic conditions, and irrigation, such as mountain timothy and tufted hairgrass. Innitial seeding of the irrigation area will occur immediately after sprinkler installation, and the site will be irrigated to establish cover prior to the winter “wet” season.
Additionally, the project will be in accordance with the Nevada County Grading Code which requires the project be designed with the primary concern of long-term erosion and sedimentation control. The WWTP and irrigation area will be designed to minimize runoff generation and control erosion and sedimentation. DSPUD will inspect the performance of these inherent control practices annually and maintain, repair, and/or augment where necessary.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures
Responsible Party: The DSPUD will require the contractor to develop and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and re-vegetate the site, and comply with requirements of the General Order. This includes required monitoring, reporting and provision of a qualified LRP. The DSPUD will incorporate into their facility design the necessary improvements to comply with the Post-Construction requirements of the General Order for post-construction runoff volumes.
Timing: During and immediately after construction activities in the vicinity of the South Yuba River or its tributaries, implement a SWPP as well as any other erosion and sediment control practices necessary to ensure no adverse water quality impacts due to soil erosion. Re-vegetate the site immediately upon construction completion.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: The monitoring, reporting and evaluation requirements of the General Order will be addressed by the LRP.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-75 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Standards of Success: Prevent introduction of significant amounts of sediment into any stream or drainage course tributary to the South Yuba River.
Mitigation Measure BIO-03. Avoid Site Wetlands DSPUD plans to avoid the wetlands and drainage areas during the design phase of the project. If wetland avoidance is not practicable, DSPUD will need to apply for a CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit for the filling of the wetlands and drainage or;
Mitigation Measure BIO-04. Compensation for Direct Impacts to Wetlands If avoidance of the wetlands is not practicable for various engineering or other site constraints, DSPUD shall apply for and obtain a CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit and comply with the current COE compensation schedule for any loss of low biological value wetlands. The DSPUD will work with the USCOE to ensure that the local and federal “no net loss” of wetlands is properly upheld.
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Party: DSPUD is responsible for applying for all permits and approvals needed to fill the wetlands. Timing: CWA Section 404 Permit will be obtained prior to construction. Monitoring and Reporting Program: DSPUD will ensure that the CWA 404 wetland permit will be obtained prior to construction and the appropriate fees paid to comply with the COE’s current compensatory mitigation schedule. The DSPUD project manager will prepare brief letter report on compliance with this mitigation measure for DSPUD files. Standards of Success: No net loss of wetlands from the DSPUD’s project.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-76 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.5.1 METHODOLOGY
This section is in compliance with federal (Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and NEPA) and state and county (CEQA) antiquities guidelines. Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) is required to consider potential project impacts on heritage resources. Archaeological work was conducted under a Letter of Authorization (dated August 4, 2010) from the United States Forest Service (USFS) Truckee Ranger District. Accordingly, a heritage resource study was conducted by Dr. Susan Lindström under contract to ECO:LOGIC, now Stantec. Tasks associated with the heritage resource study included the following: (1) prefield research (including the required records search at the North Central Information Center at California State University, Sacramento (see Appendix A) and the Tahoe National Forest, (2) consultation with the Washoe Tribe (see Appendix A), (3) intensive archaeological field reconnaissance surveys to identify and record heritage resources, and (4) presentation of findings in a final report.
The methodologies for the evaluation of cultural resources are described below. The project includes two sites or Areas of Potential Effect (APE) located in Soda Springs in Nevada County. The first site includes the 10-acre USFS parcel wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) site and the second includes the spray irrigation 25-acre parcel owned by Boreal Ski Corporation. Both Areas of Potential Effect are depicted in Figures 3-5.1 & 3-5.2. On the 10-acre USFS WWTP parcel elevations range around 6,600 feet. On the 25-acre spray irrigation expansion parcel, elevations range from about 6,720 feet at the base of the slope up to 7,320 feet along the ridge top. In addition to archival methods of investigation, an official records search for both sites was completed through the California Historical Resources Information System at the North Central Information Center at Sacramento State University on August 5, 2010. Cursory field reconnaissance surveys were conducted within the APE/Project Study Areas (Figures 3-5.1 & 3-5.2) on August 3 and 11, 2010. Below is a summary of the cultural resource evaluation for the DSPUD WWTP Upgrades and Expansion project. Further details can be found in the ‘Heritage Resource Inventory DSPUD WWTP Upgrades and Expansion’ Report located in Appendix A.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-77 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Figure 3-5.1 Project Location Map
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-78 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Figure 3-5.2 Heritage Resource Inventory
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-79 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.5.2 SETTING
The project area is situated due west of the main crest of the Sierra Nevada. Birkeland (l964) has described the Quaternary geology of the Donner Pass area. Today, the average annual snowfall at Donner Summit is 35 feet (Powell 2003:107). Prior to 40,000 years ago, Pleistocene trunk glaciers flowed down Donner Pass into the Truckee River Basin on the east and the South Yuba River drainage on the west, sculpting the terrain into its present form. Holocene glaciation within the past l0,000 years was limited to the advance of small cirque glaciers along the Sierran crest. Moraines and glacial outwashes are remnants of these events. The Pleistocene geology of the area has important implications for the distribution of lithic raw materials which were fashioned into prehistoric ground stone and flaked stone tools.
The study area lies within Storer and Usinger's (l97l) Lodgepole Pine-Red Fir Belt or Canadian Zone. Dominant tree species are lodgepole pine (Pinus murrayana), Jeffrey pine (P. jeffreyi) and willow (Salix spp.). Open areas are covered by sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata) and bitterbrush (Pursia tridentata), with wetter areas colonized by elderberry, serviceberry, alder, gooseberry, etc. Wet meadow grasses include brome, fescue, bluegrass, and sedge. Forbes includes dwarf lupine, potentilla, pussy paws, yarrow, sorrel, pennyroyal, mallow, and buckwheat. It is doubtful that modern plant and animal communities closely resemble their pristine composition due to past disturbance. In earlier times the area is thought to have supported a luxuriant growth of native bunch grasses that allowed an abundant large game population and provided a nutritious source of seeds for use by prehistoric peoples.
Project topography varies greatly. On the 10-acre USFS WWTP parcel the land surface slopes gently to the north and comprises a bouldered glacial moraine. The parcel is directly drained by the South Fork of the Yuba River, which passes through its northeastern corner. The existing WWTP covers about half of the parcel. Buildings are modern, being much younger than 45 years old. Disturbed ground and industrial debris extend north of the plant. Undisturbed areas outside the plant are thickly vegetated with conifer forest and riparian zones. The lower one-third of the 25-acre irrigation expansion parcel is covered by a very dense and extensive alder wetland. The mid-slope flank is forested and a snowshoe trail passes through this zone. The upper one third of the slope is marked by steep and open volcanic slopes interspersed by small brush fields. Certain rocky knolls have been blasted to accommodate potential future ski runs and ski lift construction (Lindstrom, 2010: Appendix A).
Field Surveys The records search disclosed that portions of the project area have been subject to prior archaeological survey, but no heritage resources were encountered. The field survey was guided by a mixed reconnaissance strategy. Coverage on each parcel was accomplished by four individuals walking parallel transects at less than 15-meter (~30 -foot) intervals and up to 25 and 35-meter (~80 and 115-foot) intervals depending upon terrain and vegetation factors.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-80 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The field team consisted of Susan Linström, PhD in anthropology/archaeology, Archaeologist Lizzie Bennett, Stantec Anthropologist Meagan O’Deegan, and Native American consultants and archaeological technicians Joseph Bryan and Tanya Ruiz who represented interests of the Washoe Tribe.
An archaeological field reconnaissance of the 25-acre private parcel was conducted on August 3, 2010 and the 10-acre USFS WWTP parcel was surveyed on August 11, 2010. A USGS topographic map (7.5’ quadrangle) and expanded scale project maps and aerial photographs were used to structure the field work phase. A programmed Trimble GPS unit aided in the delineation of unmarked project boundaries. Cardinal directions and transect intervals were maintained by altimeter, compass and pacing.
Archaeological coverage is shown in Figure 3-5.2. Based on the expected location of prehistoric and historic resources of interest, survey transects were narrowed to adjust for an adequate observing distance for encountering these resources. Ground surface visibility ranged from excellent to poor. For both parcels, in some areas slash, duff and deadfall precluded examination of the ground surface (Lindstrom, 2010: Appendix A).
Records and Literature Search
A records search was conducted by Carrie Smith, Acting Forest Archaeologist for the Tahoe National Forest. According to USFS files, the western portion of the USFS 10-acre parcel was previously surveyed in 1971 (Johnson 1971) as part of initial expansion plans by the DSPUD. The parcel was examined by walking 20-meter (~65-foot) transect intervals. No heritage resources were encountered.
An in-house records search (NCIC #NEV-10-33, correspondence attached in Appendix A) was also conducted by the North-Central Information Center (NCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (an adjunct of the State Office of Historic Preservation or SHPO). Records housed at California State University Sacramento were reviewed by NCIC staff to identify any properties listed on the National Register, California Register and other listings. Research at the NCIC disclosed that four archaeological studies have been conducted within or adjacent to the project area. There were no NCIC Resources, NRHP/CRHP, California Inventory or Historic Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, Points of Historic Interest, or Caltrans Bridge Inventory listed within or adjacent to the project sites.
Pre-field research for this study entailed a literature review of prehistoric and historic themes for the project area. This included a review of prior archaeological research and of pertinent published and unpublished literature. Historic maps dating from 1865 were checked to determine prior land ownership of the project area and trace developments in the local transportation and community
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-81 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
development. Avocational historian Norm Sayler, was also consulted regarding the specific history of Soda Springs. In addition John Booth, retired employee of Boreal Ski Corporation, was also contacted regarding the ski industry around Donner Pass. Greg Matuzak of Stantec Consulting and Tom Skjelstad, General Manager of DSPUD, provided helpful project background information.
Native American Consultation Prior ethnographic studies indicate that the Washoe Tribe is the applicable tribal authority for lands encompassing the project area, although the area is also peripheral to the traditional territory of the Hill Nisenan. Accordingly, Darrel Cruz, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) for the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, was contacted in order to incorporate the opinions, knowledge, and sentiments regarding traditional Native American lands within the project area. No specific concerns were identified. As a follow-up, project background information and location maps were emailed to Mr. Cruz on July 29, 2010. Mr. Cruz was again contacted by telephone prior to the commencement of fieldwork and provided helpful direction regarding the participation of trained Native American archaeological technicians in the field reconnaissance surveys conducted for the proposed project. Joseph Bryan joined the survey of the USFS parcel and Tanya Ruiz participated in surveying the private parcel. The Washoe Tribe has been consulted and concurs with the project findings (Lindstrom, 2010: Appendix A).
Results and Findings No heritage resources were identified within the project area. The potential effects of this project on heritage resources are not considered to be a significant effect on the environment. It is reasonable to conclude that the project should not result in the alteration of or adverse physical or aesthetic effect to any significant archaeological or historical sites, structures, objects, or buildings; nor should the project have the potential to cause a physical change that would affect unique ethnic (including Native American) cultural values or restrict historic or pre-historic religious or sacred uses. No prehistoric or historic sites, features or artifacts or structures were identified within the project area. Evidence of various past cultural activities was observed, but not recorded because none of these features or materials possessed attributes that would unequivocally place them in the historic time period and their age of over 45-50 years cannot be authenticated.
No further study or special operational constraints need be imposed on the project sponsor concerning these heritage resources. Although the project area has been subjected to a systematic surface investigation, it is possible that buried or concealed heritage resources could be present that may be detected during project implementation. If heritage resources are revealed during project operations, work should stop in the immediate vicinity, and a qualified archaeologist and/or Native American consultant should be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find. If human remains are inadvertently discovered, California law requires that work must stop immediately and the county coroner must be notified. If the remains are found to be Native American, both the Native American Heritage Commission and members of the Washoe Tribe (or other identified descendants)
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-82 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
must be notified to insure that proper treatment is given to the burial site. With the implementation of this recommendation, potential effects of this project on heritage resources are not considered to be a significant effect on the environment (Lindstrom, 2010: Appendix A).
Regulatory Setting
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires a federal agency with jurisdiction over a federally funded, federally assisted, or federally licensed undertaking to take into account the effects of the agency's undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (16 United States Code 470 et seq.). Because the project will most likely be at least partially funded by federal funds and due to the WWTP site being located on US Forest Service Land, the project must comply with Section 106 of the NHPA.
For compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the lead federal agency will be the United States Forest Service (USFS) and they can either make a no effect determination or consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) before granting a special-use permit to operate the upgraded WWTP facilities in the DSPUD site. The Section 106 review process is implemented using a five- step procedure:
Identification and evaluation of historic properties Assessment of the effects of the undertaking on properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register Consultation with the SHPO and other agencies for the development of an agreement that addresses the treatment of historic properties Receipt of Advisory Council on Historic Preservation comments on the agreement or results of consultation Implementation of the project according to the conditions of the agreement
To determine whether the proposed project could affect properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register, cultural sites (including archaeological, historical, and architectural properties) must be inventoried and evaluated for eligibility for listing in the National Register. If no properties determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register would be affected by the project, as is the case with this proposed DSPUD WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Project, the federal lead agency need not consult with the SHPO. In addition to Section 106 of the NHPA, under Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that it is a misdemeanor to knowingly disturb a human grave.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-83 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.5.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Potential impacts to Cultural Resources are qualified in Table 3-5 and discussed below.
Table 3-5 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Cultural Resources Impacts
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated
No heritage resources were identified within the project area. The potential effects of this project on heritage resources are not considered to be a significant effect on the environment. It is reasonable to conclude that the project should not result in the alteration of or adverse physical or aesthetic effect to any significant archaeological or historical sites, structures, objects, or buildings; nor should the project have the potential to cause a physical change that would affect unique ethnic (including Native American) cultural values or restrict historic or pre-historic religious or sacred uses.
No prehistoric or historic sites, features or artifacts or structures were identified within the project area. Evidence of various past cultural activities was observed, but not recorded because none of these features or materials possessed attributes that would unequivocally place them in the historic time period and their age of over 45-50 years cannot be authenticated.
No further study or special operational constraints need be imposed on the project sponsor concerning these heritage resources. Although the project area has been subjected to a systematic surface investigation, it is possible that buried or concealed heritage resources could be present that may be detected during project grading and other construction activities; therefore, Mitigation Measure CULT-01 will be implemented if heritage resources are revealed during project
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-84 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
construction. With the implementation of CULT-01, potential effects of this project on heritage resources are considered less than significant. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as identified in Section 15064.5?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated
There are no known significant Native American cultural sites or archeological deposits within the area of proposed disturbance. However, the possibility for encountering cultural resources during construction of the Proposed Project does exist. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CULT-01 is required to reduce impact to a less than significant level. c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated
There are no known significant paleontological sites or deposits within the area of proposed disturbance, based on the records search and field study. However, the possibility of encountering paleontological resources cannot be entirely discounted. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CULT-01 is required to reduce impact to a less than significant level. d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated
There are no known human burials or remains within the area of proposed disturbance. However, the remote possibility for encountering human remains during construction of the project does exist. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CULT-01 and CULT-02 are required if human remains are found during construction to reduce impact to a less than significant level.
3.5.4 MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure CULT-01: Proper Handling of Inadvertent Discovery of Historical Resources
If cultural resources are encountered during project construction, construction shall be halted immediately in the subject area and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be consulted. Prehistoric resources may include chart or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestles, dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, and heat-affected rock. Historic resources may include stone or wood foundations or walls, structures or remains with square nails, and refuse deposits.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-85 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsible Party: DSPUD would insure the appropriate treatment for any discovery of pre- historic or historic resources during construction. Timing: During all ground disturbing activities. Monitoring and Reporting Program: If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of DSPUD and the qualified archaeologist would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared by the qualified archaeologist according to current professional standards. A report will be kept on file at DSPUD. Standards of Success: The proper recording, evaluation, and treatment of any newly identified pre-historic or historic resources.
Mitigation Measure CULT-02: Proper Handling of Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains
If human graves are encountered, work should be halted in the vicinity and the County Coroner shall be notified immediately pursuant to PRC Section 7050.5. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. If human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification.
Mitigation Measure CULT-02 Implementation
Responsible Party: DSPUD and Nevada County Coroner would ensure the appropriate treatment for any discovery of any human remains during construction. Timing: During all ground disturbing activities. Monitoring and Reporting Program: The recording and evaluation of any newly identified human remains will be conducted by qualified professional archaeologist and a report will be kept on file at DSPUD. Standards of Success: The proper recording, evaluation, and treatment of any newly identified human remains.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-86 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
3.6.1 SETTING Geology The regional geology of the project area consists of granitic (granite and granodiorite) bedrock overlain by Pliocene and Miocene volcanic rocks that was subjected to Quaternary glaciation (Saucedo and Wagner, 1992). The volcanic rocks occur in a sequence of a basal unit of rhyolite/dacite tuffs, overlain by andesitic flows and agglomerates, capped by basaltic flows and breccias that are usually only preserved along ridge tops. Because of erosion, faulting and the uneven granitic surface onto which the volcanic rocks were deposited, this sequence of volcanic rocks may be locally absent or incomplete. Additionally, in some areas erosion and glaciation have exposed the underlying granitic bedrock, while other areas have quaternary glacial deposits, including till and outwash, overlying the bedrock.
Local geologic mapping conducted by Harwood (1980; Figure 3-6.1) and Hudson (1951; Figure 3-6.2) indicate that the project area generally occurs on glacial deposits. Small areas of granitic bedrock likely occur in the project area, and the ridgeline associated with the Soda Springs Ski Area is comprised of outcroppings of basalt and andesite. Additional details of the geology of the Soda Springs Ski Area are presented in the Donner Summit Public Utility District, Groundwater Monitoring Study (ECO:LOGIC, 2010) attached as Appendix B, and the results of a detailed geotechnical investigation of the wastewater treatment plant site conducted by Blackburn Consulting Inc. (BCI) are presented in the Geotechnical Pre-Design Report (BCI, 2010) attached as Appendix B.
Only the Hudson, 1951 geologic map shows a fault in the vicinity of the project, which occurs south of the project area. The fault appears to be from displacement that occurred prior to the Quaternary, since it is mapped in the Pliocene-Miocene volcanic rocks and no trace extends into adjacent Quaternary deposits. This fault is absent from the Harwood (1980) and Saucedo and Wagner (1992) maps. The 2010 Fault Activity Map of California [California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2010] also does not show this fault. However, several pre-Quaternary (older than 1.6 million years) faults are mapped by the CGS (2010) in the vicinity, especially to the northeast of the project area and associated with the crest of the Sierra Nevada range. East of the crest there are some more recent faults including the West Tahoe, North Tahoe, and Polaris faults with evidence of Holocene (within the last 11,700 years) movement. Historic (within the last 200 years) displacement has occurred adjacent to the older Dog fault trace east of the Polaris fault and northeast of the town of Truckee.
There are no principal faults in the area that are identified and mapped pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act. Moreover, ground shaking due to an earthquake is estimated to be somewhat low (0.24 to 0.30 times gravity) (CGS 2010).
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-87 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
WWTP
Irrigation Area
Qg=undifferentiated glacial deposits, includes till and outwash; Tb= basalt; Ta= andesite; Tr=rhyolite and dacite tuffs; KJg=granodiorite
Figure 3-6.1 Harwood (1980) Geologic Map
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-88 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
WWTP
Irrigation Area
Qm = glacial deposits; b = basalt flows, agglomerates and tuff. Intrusive breccia and lava in black; a = andesite agglomerate, minor tuff & flows; r = rhyolite tuff, in part welded; g = intrusive
Figure 3-6.2 Hudson (1951) Geologic Map
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-89 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Soils The project area occurs within the boundaries of the Soil Survey of the Tahoe National Forest Area, California (Soil Survey, 1994). The Order 3 soil survey was prepared cooperatively by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service, with field work occurring between 1973 and 1979 and approval of soil names and descriptions occurring in 1982. The soil survey refers to conditions in 1980; however, wide-ranging publication of the soil survey did not occur until 1994. In the Soil Survey, the soils underlying the wastewater treatment plant and proposed expansion site (WWTP) and the sprinkler irrigation expansion area at the Soda Springs ski resort were primarily mapped as complexes (i.e. multiple soil types occurring on the same landscape where individual soil series occur over small areas relative to the scale of the soil survey and/or two or more soil series are intricately combined across the landscape). This is typical of Order 3 surveys where individual soil phase delineations are typically larger than 40 acres (Figure 3.6-3).
Figure 3-6.3 Soil Map of the Donner Summit PUD WWTP and Irrigation Area, Soil Survey, 1994
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-90 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The soils beneath the WWTP were mapped largely as Tinker- Rock outcrop, granitic-Cryumbrepts, wet complex 2 to 30 percent slopes (TIE), while two small areas in the expansion area are delineated as Rock outcrop, granitic-Tinker- Cryumbrepts, wet complex 2 to 30 percent slopes (RSE) (Soil Survey, 1994). The difference between the two phases is whether the rock outcrop is the dominant condition (covers more area) or if the Tinker series is the dominant condition. The Rock outcrop, granitic component of these complexes consists of exposed granodiorite or similar granitic bedrock and associated thin (less than 4 inches) soil developing in unconsolidated granitic bedrock. This component is somewhat excessively drained and is in hydrologic group D.
The Tinker component consists of the Tinker cobbly loam, classified as a loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Andic Dystrudepts, and similar soils. The Tinker is a moderately deep, well drained soil that developed in glacial deposits of granitic origin. A root and moisture restricting weakly cemented and/or compacted pan occurs at a depth of 20 to 40 inches in the Tinker and has very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). Erosion hazard of the Tinker components of these complexes is moderate. The Tinker is in hydrologic group C.
Both TIE and RSE contain 15 percent Cryumbrepts, wet and similar soils. The Cryumbrepts, wet consists of largely undifferentiated poorly drained soils that are classified to the Great Group level (e.g. Cryumbrepts). These soils occur in and along natural drainage ways which results in a wide range of textural classes and generally limited soil development. Soils in this component are too variable to evaluate erosion hazard and Ksat; however, they are in hydrologic group D.
The vicinity of the existing and expansion sprinkler irrigation area at the Soda Springs Ski Area was mapped as several complexes in the Soil Survey. The southern ridgeline was mapped as the Meiss- Waca-Rock outcrop complex 30 to 50 percent slopes, severely eroded (MKF3). North, and downslope, of the MKF3 are two phases of the Tallac-Cryumbrepts, wet complex with the mid slope position being the 30 to 50 percent slopes (TBF) and intermediary between MKF3 and the 2 to 30 percent slopes (TBE) located along the base of the hill. Although the existing sprinkler irrigation area has slopes of less than 30 percent, all three of these complexes are delineated beneath the sprinkler fields. In the far western portion of the Boreal Ski Corp sprinkler irrigation expansion area, there are two additional complexes associated with a change in parent material at these locals: the Rock outcrop, granitic-Tinker- Cryumbrepts, wet complex 30 to 75 percent slopes (RSG), and the Ahart-Waca, rhyolitc substrtatum complex 30 to 50 percent slopes (ACF). The RSG is composed of similar soils as described for the WWTP site; however, the higher slopes associated with the RSG increase the hazard associated with erosion.
The Meiss, Waca, Ahart, and Waca, rhyolitic substratum are all soils that developed in extrusive volcanic bedrock. The Meiss is shallow to hard andesitic bedrock, while the other soils are moderately deep to weathered andesitic or rhyolitic tuff bedrock. These soils are somewhat
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-91 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
excessively drained. Erosion hazard is high and very high for the ACF and MKF3, respectively and the soils are in hydrologic group B and D, respectively.
The Tallac component consists of Tallac very gravelly sandy loam, classified as a loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Humic Dystroxerepts, and similar soils. The deep, well drained Tallac
soils have developed in glacial till and/or outwash. Their Ksat is moderately rapid above a relatively impermeable weakly silica cemented hardpan that is greater than 40 inches from the soil surface. Erosion hazard is high, and the soils are in hydrologic group B. The Cryumbrepts, wet component is as described above.
In 1984, prior to installing the existing irrigation system, a detailed soil inventory of the Soda Springs Ski Area was conducted by Davis2 Consulting Earth Scientists (Davis2, 1984). Davis2 indicated that the soils were less affected by glaciation, and largely affected by the presence of an andesitic mudflow bedrock. The site, including the potential expansion area, was mapped by Davis2 as the Ahart fine sandy loam in various phases distinguished by slope class, drainage class (moderately well vs. somewhat poorly drained), and whether the area had been eroded. Undisturbed areas were reported as having slight erosion, while the ski slopes exhibited moderate to severe erosion. Generally, the soils exposed in profiles were described by Davis2 as moderately deep, averaging 31 inches, moderately well drained, and having a moderate to high hydraulic conductivity. Erosion hazard ranged from moderate to high, and the soils were placed in hydrologic group C.
In 2010, a soil survey of the potential irrigation expansion area at the Soda Springs Ski Area was conducted by Stantec, the results of which are presented in the Donner Summit Public Utility District, Soil Characterization for Expansion of the Irrigation Disposal Area (2011) and attached as Appendix C. The majority of the area was mapped as a variant of the Putt series in three phases divided by slope and erosion hazard (Figure 3-6.4). The Putt variant, classified as a loamy-skeletal, mixed, frigid Typic Durixeralf or Durixerept, has developed in glacial till and contains a silica cemented hardpan at a depth of about 27 inches below the soil surface. The Putt variant is moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained and has low or very low Ksat in the hardpan. It was recommended to minimize disturbance in the steepest slope class (20 to 26 percent) due to high erosion hazard. Small areas of two additional soils were identified, a Toem variant and a Gefo variant. The Toem variant is moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained, and developed in colluvium and residium from weathered granitic bedrock. The Gefo is very deep, well drained, and developed in alluvium and glacial outwash. Both of these soils have a moderate erosion hazard.
3.6.2 REGULATORY SETTING State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) - Stormwater Quality and Erosion Control Regulations
A Statewide General Construction Stormwater Discharge (GCSD) Permit has been adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) with an erosion control component for construction projects that disturb greater than one acre or have the potential to impair water quality. The current GCSD was adopted on September 2, 2009 by the State Water Resources Control Board as Order No.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-92 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
2009-0009-DWQ. An order amending the GSCD was adopted on November 16, 20100 as Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ (herein referred to as the General Order). The project will require coverage under this permit.
The Legally Responsible Person (LRP), or their authorized representative, as defined by the General Order, is required to obtain coverage under the General Order when the construction project involves land disturbance of equal to or greater than one acre. The proposed project will disturb more than 1 acre during construction, therefore it will be subject to the General Order. The General Order requires electronic Permit Registration Documents (PRD) to be submitted, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be developed and implemented, monitoring to be conducted and compliance with Post-Construction Standards.
The SWPPP must contain best management practices (BMPs) and other measures to prevent pollution and a construction timeline. The SWPPP shall demonstrate compliance with erosion and sediment control standards and identify responsible parties. Furthermore, a BMP maintenance program is required by the SWPPP, which should include proper installation and thorough and frequent inspection to ensure the effectiveness of specific BMPs.
The project design and construction must incorporate measures to comply with Post-Construction Standards listed in the General Order. These measures can be non-structural or structural, with non- structural measures preferred. Compliance with Post-Construction Standards included in the General Order will be mandatory effective October 2012. The Post-Construction Standards require the replication of the pre-project water balance (defined as the volume of rainfall that ends up as runoff) for the smallest storms up to the 85th percentile storm event (or the smallest storm event that generates runoff, whichever is larger.
Seismic Related Regulations
The Alquist Priolo Zoning Act requires the mapping of zones around active faults in California, in an effort to prohibit the construction of structures for human occupancy on active faults and minimize damage due to rupture of a fault. The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act is intended to delineate zones where earthquakes could cause hazardous ground shaking and ground failure. Both of these acts require local cities and counties to regulate activities within these zones. Additionally, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, the California Standard Building Code, contains specific requirements for construction with respect to earthquakes intended to be protective of public health.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-93 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Figure 3-6.4 Soil Survey Map of Irrigation Expansion Area, 2010
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-94 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Nevada County General Plan
The Nevada County General Plan contains elements to control erosion, including Goal 12.1 “Minimize adverse impacts of grading activities, loss of soils and soil productivity.” Specifically, the county enforces a Grading Code (Section L-V Article 19 of the Nevada County Land Use and Development Code) with the scope of “…sets forth rules and regulations to control excavation, grading and earthwork construction, including fills and embankments; establishes standards of required performance in preventing or minimizing water quality impacts from storm water runoff; establishes the administrative procedure for issuance of permits; and provides for approval of plans and inspection of grading construction, drainage, and erosion and sediment controls at construction sites” (Sec L-V 19.2A). Section L-V 19.14 establishes standards for erosion control, including the requirements for preparing erosion control plans. Work will be in accordance with the Nevada County Grading Code. Additionally, work conducted at the irrigation area will likely require a Timber Harvest Plan, which will also require the implementation of erosion control practices.
3.6.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS Table 3-6 and the section below discuss the potential project impacts relative to geology and soil- related issues.
Table 3-6 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Impacts to Soils and the Potential for Geologic Impacts to the Project
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk 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 for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-95 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Impacts a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk 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 for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Finding: Less than significant
The project area is not located in a fault zone delineated on the California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map (CGS, 2010). The nearest active fault is approximately 20 miles from the project site and east of the Crest of the Sierra Nevada. The project would not subject people or structures to adverse effects due to rupture of a known fault because there are no known active faults in the project area, based on information provided by the California Geological Survey maps (CGS, 2010). Moreover, Blackburn Consulting Inc. prepared a Geotechnical Pre- Design Report (BCI, 2010) for the site in which the potential for geologic hazard associated with faulting was considered low. Therefore, impact is less than significant.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking Finding: Less than significant
The project area is susceptible to moderate ground shaking (<0.3 g) associated with a major earthquake on nearby active faults, in which slight to moderate damage to ordinary structures and negligible damage to well designed and constructed structures is possible. The DSPUD will use existing geotechnical survey information for the proposed project areas, and design and construct facilities to withstand seismic ground shaking. Specifically, Seismic Design Parameters for California Building Code Site Class C were determined applicable and presented for design purposes by BCI in the Geotechnical Report (BCI, 2010). Therefore, impact is less than significant.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-96 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
iii) Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction. Finding: Less than significant Soils underlying the facility are generally shallow to bedrock, very coarse textured, well drained, and not likely susceptible to liquefaction. The geotechnical survey for the proposed project indicates with proper grading and foundation preparation the potential for liquefaction is low. Therefore, impact is less than significant.
iv) Landslides. Finding: Less than significant The WWTP project area is located on terraced flat to gently sloping land (i.e. 0 to 2 percent slopes) and landslides are not anticipated. The geotechnical survey (BCI, 2010) did not identify any potential hazards associated with slope stability. Expansion of the irrigation area will avoid steeply sloping areas, and the irrigation system will generally be placed on existing grade or stabilized more moderate grades to prevent landslides. Therefore, impact is less than significant. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporation On the WWTP site, the project generally includes clearing, excavation, grading, trenching, and paving, as well as construction of buildings/tanks including concrete slab foundations. Specific construction activities and associated construction timeline is presented in Table 2-1. These actions will move soil and increase the amount of impervious surface in the project area. These construction activities could represent a significant impact if not properly controlled. However, for any disturbance area greater than 1 acre, the DSPUD will require that the selected contractor prepare an erosion control plan and a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) prior to construction. The plans should provide, whenever practicable, measures to trap sediment and prevent soil erosion or transport to nearby surface water courses or storm drains. These plans shall be implemented and inspected accordingly in compliance with the SWPPP throughout the construction process. Additionally, the project will be constructed in accordance with the Nevada County Grading Code, to minimize disturbance and control erosion.
The expansion of the irrigation system will be designed to minimize soil erosion by incorporating vegetative and mechanical soil stabilization methods. The area will be seeded and irrigated sufficiently to establish vegetation immediately after construction and prior to winter snows. These sediment and erosion control methods were applied to the existing irrigation disposal site and have proven effective. A long term erosion control plan will be implemented in which erosion control measures are monitored, maintained, and improved where necessary. The implementation of the long term erosion control plan along with the construction period SWPPP (implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-01) should minimize any substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, reducing impact to less than significant levels.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-97 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
c) Would the project be located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Finding: No impact The project is located on stable relatively shallow coarse textured soils with considerably amounts of rock fragments. The soils at the site are generally not susceptible to landslide or lateral spreading, and are not likely susceptible to subsidence or liquefaction. Furthermore, the project will be constructed according to all state and county requirements including UBC building standards, as well as incorporating recommendations included in the site specific geotechnical survey, to protect the public and construction personnel from potential geologic hazards. No impacts are likely.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? Finding: Less than significant The surface soils have clay contents of less than 20 percent and coefficients of linear extensibility of 0 to 2.9 percent. These soils have very low to no expansion potential. The geotechnical survey indicates that the potential for damage due to expansive soils is low, and cautions that engineered fills should not be expansive. As such, this impact is less than significant. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Finding: No impact The project is an upgrade of an existing wastewater treatment plant, where the treatment system is relied upon for all wastewater treatment, as opposed to septic and/or alternative wastewater disposal systems that rely upon soil for wastewater treatment. Traditional irrigation disposal of highly treated (tertiary filtered and disinfected) effluent will occur on soils that have been evaluated and determined suitable for such purposes. Although the soils may provide additional treatment, such treatment is not a necessary component of the project. The project does not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.
3.6.4 MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure GEO-01: Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures The Contractor shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for all grading activities exceeding one acre of soil disturbance, to ensure erosion and sedimentation from the project is kept to a minimum and to prevent impacts to water quality. The Contractor shall prepare and implement the SWPPP and standard erosion and sediment control practices will be used during and after construction to control accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation and ensure it will not adversely affect the South Yuba River, or other associated drainages.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-98 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Straw bales, coir rolls, hydroseeding and other best management practices (BMPs) will be used in areas of bare soil, and in drainages near all areas of disturbance to reduce surface runoff velocities and to prevent sediment from entering drainages.
Maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures will be conducted on a weekly basis. The re- vegetation of all graded and disturbed areas of bare soil will be completed within six months, or prior to the rainy season. Seed mixes will be used to replicate the naturally occurring vegetation, with the exception that the irrigation area will be seeded with grass species suitable for extensive soil cover, climatic conditions, and irrigation, such as mountain timothy and tufted hairgrass. Innitial seeding of the irrigation area will occur immediately after sprinkler installation, and the site will be irrigated to establish cover prior to the winter “wet” season.
The project design will incorporate the necessary improvements to comply with the Post- Construction requirements of the General Order, as well as provide source material for the PRD package.
Additionally, the project will be in accordance with the Nevada County Grading Code which requires the project be designed with the primary concern of long-term erosion and sedimentation control. The WWTP and irrigation area will be designed to minimize runoff generation and control erosion and sedimentation. DSPUD will inspect the performance of these inherent control practices annually and maintain, repair, and/or augment where necessary.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures
Responsible Party: The DSPUD will require the contractor to develop and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and re-vegetate the site, and comply with requirements of the General Order. This includes required monitoring, reporting and provision of a qualified LRP. The DSPUD will incorporate into their facility design the necessary improvements to comply with the Post-Construction requirements of the General Order for post-construction runoff volumes.
Timing: During design incorporate measures to comply with the Post-Construction Standards of the General Order. During and immediately after construction activities in the vicinity of the South Yuba River or its tributaries, implement the SWPP as well as any other erosion and sediment control practices necessary to ensure no adverse water quality impacts due to soil erosion. Re-vegetate the site immediately upon construction completion.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: The monitoring, reporting and evaluation requirements of the General Order will be addressed by the LRP.
Standards of Success: Prevent introduction of significant amounts of sediment into any stream or drainage course tributary to the South Yuba River.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-99 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
3.7.1 SETTING
Environmental Setting Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and climate change are a cumulative global issue. CARB and EPA regulate GHG missions within the State of California and the United States, respectively. While the CARB has the primary regulatory responsibility within California for GHG emissions, local agencies can also adopt policies for GHG emission reduction.
Climate Change In the early 1960’s scientists recognized that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were rising every year. It was also noted that several other gasses, including methane and nitrous oxides were also increasing. Levels of these gases have increased by about 25% since large-scale industrialization began around 150 years ago, according to the EPA. After numerous computer-simulated model runs on the effects of these increases in the atmosphere, it was concluded that the rising concentration almost always resulted in an increase of average global temperature. Rising temperatures may, in turn, produce changes in weather, sea level and land use patterns, commonly referred to as “climate change”. (EIA 2010) There is general scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that human activity contributes in some measure (perhaps substantially) to that change. Man-made emissions of GHGs, if not sufficiently curtailed, are likely to contribute further to continued increases in global temperatures. Increases in global temperature will cause a reduction in the polar ice caps and increase sea level, which will flood low lying areas of the world. Additionally, climate change will shift rainfall patterns that will cause significant impacts to agriculture and fresh water availability worldwide.
Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Many chemical compounds found in the Earth’s atmosphere act as GHGs, which allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat). GHGs absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. Over time, the amount of energy sent from the sun to the Earth’s surface should be about the same as the amount of energy radiated back into space, leaving the temperature of the Earth’s surface roughly constant. Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties. Some of them occur in nature (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous Oxide), while others are exclusively human-made (like gases used for aerosols). The most relevant GEDs are water vapor
(H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CR4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These gases prevent heat from escaping to space.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-100 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The principal climate change gases resulting from human activity that enter and accumulate in the atmosphere are listed below:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2): CO enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and chemical reactions (e.g., the
manufacture of cement). CO2 is also removed from the atmosphere (or “sequestered”) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. Methane (CH4): CH4 is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. CH4 emissions also result from livestock and agricultural practices and the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O): N20 is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
Fluorinated Gases: HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are synthetic, powerful climate-change gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are often used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (i.e., chlorofluorocarbons, hydrochloro fluorocarbons, and halons). These gases arc typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent climate-change gases, they are sometimes referred to as high Global Warming Potential (GWP) gases.
Global warming potential is a relative measure, compared to carbon dioxide, of a compound’s residence time in the atmosphere and ability to warm the planet. Mass emissions of GHGs are converted into carbon dioxide equivalent (C02e) emissions for ease of comparison.
GHGs, in most cases, have both natural and anthropogenic sources. Natural mechanisms already exist as part of the ‘carbon cycle’ for removing GHGs from the atmosphere (often called land or ocean sinks). Levels of GHGs, due to the increase in anthropogenic sources, have exceeded the normal rates of natural absorption. This has resulted in increased atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and potentially human- induced global warming.
GHG emissions in the United States come mostly from energy use. These are driven largely by economic growth, fuel used for electricity generation, and weather patterns affecting heating and cooling needs. Energy related carbon dioxide emissions, resulting from fossil fuel exploration and use account for approximately three quarters of the human-generated GHG emissions in the United States, primarily in the form of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. More than half the energy-related emissions come from large stationary sources such as power plants approximately a third comes from transportation while industrial processes, agriculture, forestry, other land uses, and waste management make up a majority of the remainder of sources (EPA, 2010).
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-101 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Global carbon dioxide emissions are expected to increase by 1.9 percent annually between 2001 and 2025 (EIA 2010). Much of the increase in these emissions is expected to occur in the developing world where emerging economies are fueled with fossil energy, such as China and India. Around 2018 developing countries’ emissions are expected to surpass the emissions of industrialized countries: increasing by 2.7 percent annually between 2001 and 2025, faster than the world average. Climate models predict that the average temperature at the Earth’s surface could increase from 2.5 to 10.4°F above 1990 levels by the end of this century if GHGs continue to increase. Other aspects of the climate are also changing such as rainfall patterns, snow and ice cover, and sea level.
Scientists believe that most areas in the United States will to continue to warm, although some will likely warm more than others. Predicting which parts of the country will become wetter or drier is extremely difficult, but scientists generally expect increased precipitation and evaporation, and drier soil in the middle parts of the country. The northern regions such as Alaska are expected to experience the most warming. In order to address climate change concerns the United States government has established a comprehensive policy to deal with global warming. This policy has three basic components:
Slowing the growth of emissions; Strengthening science, technology and institutions; and Enhancing international cooperation.
Currently, the federal government is using voluntary and incentive-based programs to reduce emissions and has established a variety of programs promoting climate technology and science. The United States prepared a comprehensive strategy in February 2002 to reduce the GHG intensity by 18% over the 10-year period from 2002 to 2012. ORG intensity is a measurement GHG emissions per unit of economic activity. By meeting this commitment the United States will prevent the release of more than 500 million metric tons cumulatively between 2002 and 2012 (Climate Vision 2007).
Project Setting The Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) is proposing upgrades and expansion of its wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and spray irrigation disposal system. The proposed project is located in Soda Springs in Nevada County, CA.
Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed Project were estimated using CO2 emissions as a proxy for all greenhouse gas emissions. This is consistent with the current reporting protocol of the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). Calculations of greenhouse gas emissions typically focus on CO2 because it is the most commonly produced greenhouse gas in terms of both number of sources and volume generated, and because it is among the easiest greenhouse gases to measure. However, it is important to note that other greenhouse gases have a higher global warming potential
than CO2. For example, as stated previously, 1 lb of methane has an equivalent global warming potential of 21 lb of CO2 (California Climate Action Registry, 2009). Nonetheless, emissions of other
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-102 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
greenhouse gases from the proposed Project (and from almost all greenhouse gas emissions sources) would be low relative to emissions of CO2 and would not contribute significantly to the overall generation of greenhouse gas from the proposed Project.
The primary sources of project-related greenhouse gas emissions are anticipated to be combustion of fossil fuels from the operation of internal combustion engines used during project construction
(portable equipment, off road equipment, and vehicles). CO2 emissions during project operation are expected to be low and will primarily be associated with vehicles and equipment associated with operations and maintenance of the WWTP. The installation and use of two-1 million btu boilers to heat wastewater effluent at certain times of the year will also increase area source source emissions (see Air Quality Section 3.3 for an analysis of the proposed project emissions estimates).
The following project components have the potential to impact greenhouse gas emissions:
. Tree removal at both project sites - Approximately 1.5 acres at WWTP site - Up to 3 acres at spray irrigation disposal expansion site . Temporary Construction Activities - Including transportation related emissions . WWTP - Transportation related emissions - Two 1 million btu boilers for heating effluent during winter months - Typical WWTP operations
In order to commence development and construction, some existing trees and vegetation will be removed and grading will occur for new building sites and access roads. A total of approximately 4.5 acres of trees will be removed from both project sites (~3 acres from the irrigation expansion site and ~1.5 acres from the WWTP site). Trees removed from both sites will most likely be sold as lumber and used for general construction. Because the removed trees will be used for general construction, they will become a carbon sink and the tree removal will have a neutral impact to greenhouse gas emissions. Temporary construction activities and post-construction WWTP operation activities will be mitigated with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-01. Table 3-7 below summarizes the DSPUD WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Project Carbon Dioxide Emissions Estimates. Predicted
project emissions are also well below CARB Maximum allowable CO2 Emissions levels.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-103 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Table 3-7 DSPUD WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Project URBEMIS Carbon Dioxide Emissions Estimates
Project Component CO2 Total Construction Source Emission Estimates 2012 406.40 (tons/year unmitigated) Total Construction Source Emission Estimates 2013 168.72 (tons/year unmitigated) Total Area Source Emission Estimates 176.63 (tons/year, unmitigated) Total Operational (Vehicle) Emission Estimates 0.14 (tons/year, unmitigated) Total Project CO2 Emission Estimates 751.89 (tons/year, unmitigated) CARB Maximum allowable CO2 Emissions 7000 (metric tons/year)
3.7.2 REGULATORY SETTING
In 1988, the United Nations and the World Metrological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the impacts of global warming and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established an agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions, including methane. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of GHGs in the United States. The plan consists of more than 50 voluntary programs. In October 1993, President Bill Clinton announced his Climate Change Action Plan, which had a goal to return GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. This was to be accomplished through 50 initiatives that relied on innovative voluntary partnerships between the private sector and government aimed at producing cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions (CAPCOA, 2008).
On March 21, 1994, the United States joined a number of countries around the world in signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Under the Convention, governments do the following: gather and share information on ORG emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing ORG emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change (UNFCCC, 2007).
A particularly notable result of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change efforts was a treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol which was negotiated in December 1997. The agreement came into force on February 16, 2005 following ratification by Russia on November 18, 2004. When countries sign the treaty, they demonstrated their commitment to reduce their emissions
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-104 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
of GHGs or engage in emissions trading as of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement. Notable exceptions include Australia and the United States. Although United States Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the Protocol in 1998, in order for the Protocol to be formally ratified, it must be ratified by the United States Congress and this has not occurred to date. Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement despite their relatively large populations.
On September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, of 2006 was enacted by the State of California. The legislature stated that “global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California.” (AB 32). The Act caps California’s GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. The Act
defines GHG emissions as all of the following gases: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6. This agreement represents the first enforceable state wide program in the U.S. to cap all GHG emissions from major industries that includes penalties for non compliance. While acknowledging that national and international actions will be necessary to fully address the issue of global warming, AB 32 lays out a program to inventory and reduce GHG emissions in California and from power generation facilities located outside the State that serve California residents and businesses (CAPCOA, 2008).
AB 32 charges the CARB with responsibility to monitor and regulate sources of GHG emissions in order to reduce those emissions. CARB staff recommended an amount of 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) as the total statewide GHG 1990 emissions level and 2020 emissions limit. The Board approved the 2020 limit on December 6, 2007. This limit is an aggregated statewide limit, rather than sector- or facility-specific. The CARB is then to conduct rulemaking, culminating in rule adoption by January 1, 2011 for reducing GHG emissions to achieve the emissions cap by 2020. The rules must take effect no later than 2012.
In designing emission reduction measures, the CARB must aim to minimize costs, maximize benefits, improve and modernize California’s energy infrastructure, maintain electric system reliability, maximize additional environmental and economic co-benefits for California, and complement the State’s efforts to improve air quality.
Federal Regulations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the EPA must determine whether or not emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision, In making these decisions, the EPA is required to follow the language of section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court decision resulted from a
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-105 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
petition for rulemaking under section 202(a) filed by more than a dozen environmental, renewable energy, and other organizations.
On April 1 7, 2009, the Administrator signed proposed endangerment and cause or contributes findings for GHGs under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The EPA held a 60-day public comment period, which ended June 23, 2009, and received over 380,000 public comments. These included both written comments as well as testimony at two public hearings in Arlington, Virginia and Seattle, Washington. The EPA carefully reviewed, considered, and incorporated public comments and has now issued these final Findings.
The EPA found that six GHGs taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations. The EPA also found that the combined emissions of these GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse as air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 202(a). These Findings were based on careful consideration of the full weight of scientific evidence and a thorough review of numerous public comments received on the Proposed Findings published April 24, 2009. These Findings are effective on January 14, 2010.
Specific GHG Regulations that the EPA has adopted to date are as follows:
- 40 CFR Part 98. Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. This rule requires mandatory reporting of GHG emissions for facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of C02 emissions per year (EPA, 2009). Additionally, reporting of emissions is required for
owners of SF6- and PFC-insulted equipment when the total nameplate capacity of these insulating gases is above 17,280 pounds (lbs). The proposed project is not believed to trigger GHG reporting as required by this regulation.
- 40 CFR Part 52. Proposed Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V = Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently mandated to apply Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements to facilities whose stationary source C02e emissions exceed 75,000 tons per year (EPA, 2010b). The proposed project is not believed to trigger PSD permitting as required by this regulation.
State Regulations There are a variety of statewide rules and regulations which have been implemented or are in development in California which mandates the quantification or reduction of GHGs. Under CEQA, an analysis and mitigation of emissions of GHGs and climate change in relation to a proposed project is required where it has been determined that a project will result in a significant addition of GHGs. Certain Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) have proposed their own levels of significance. The NSAQMD, which has regulatory authority over the air emissions from this project, has not established a significance threshold.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-106 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Executive Order S-3-05 Executive Order S-3-05 was established by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in June 2006 Executive Order S-3-05 establishes statewide emission reduction targets through the year 2050:
- by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; - by 2020, reduce ORG emissions to 1990 levels; and - by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
This Executive Order does not include any specific requirements that pertain to the proposed project. However, actions taken by the State to implement these goals may affect the project, depending on the specific implementation measures that are developed.
Executive Order S-14-08 Executive Order S-14-08 was established by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in November 2008. Executive Order S-14-08 establishes a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) for all retail sellers of electricity. The specifics of this executive order include the following:
- Requires retail sellers of electricity shall serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020:
o Requires various state agencies to streamline processes for the approval of’ new renewable energy facilities and determine priority renewable energy zones; and o Establishes the requirement for the creation/adoption of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) process for the Mojave and Colorado Desert regions
This Executive Order does not include any specific requirements that pertain directly to the proposed project.
Assembly Bill 32 AB 32, also known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was established in 2006 to mandate the quantification and reduction of’ GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020. The law establishes periodic targets for reductions, and requires certain facilities to report emissions of GHGs annually. The bill also reserves the ability to reduce emissions targets lower than those proposed in certain sectors which contribute the most to emissions of GHGs, including transportation. Additionally, the bill requires:
- GHG emission standards to be implemented by 2012; and - CARD to develop an implementation program and adopt GHG control measures “to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions from sources or categories of sources.” CARB issued a draft Climate Change Scoping Plan in December 2008.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-107 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The Assembly Bill 32 Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will use to reduce the GHG that cause climate change. The scoping plan has a range of GHG reduction actions which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system, and an AB 32 cost of implementation fee regulation to fund the program. These measures have been introduced through four workshops between November 30, 2007 and April 17, 2008. A draft scoping plan was released for public review and comment on June 26, 2008 followed by more workshops in July and August, 2008. The proposed scoping plan was released on October 15, 2008 and approved at the Board hearing on December 12, 2008. Per CARB’s Updated Scoping Plan Fact sheet January 21, 2010, (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/facts/scoping_plan_fs.pdf), the following has occurred:
- 12 of 30 ARB regulations approved, including all nine Discrete Early Actions; - Approved measures provide approximately 70 MMTCO2e in 2020 40% of our 2020 goal of reducing 169 MMTCO2e; and - First year of Mandatory Reporting complete - 97% compliance rate.
Nevada County General Plan As part of the General Plan, Nevada County (1995) has adopted Goal EP-4.3 intended to improve greenhouse gas emissions.
- GOAL EP-4.3 To the extent feasible, encourage the reduction of Greenhouse Gas emissions during the design phase of construction projects. (Chapter 4: Circulation, Volume 1, Nevada County General Plan, 1995)
3.7.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS Table 3-7.1 and the section below discuss the potential project impacts relative to greenhouse gas emissions issues.
Table 3-7.1 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the
project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-108 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
The proposed project will not generate greenhouse gas emissions levels that either directly or
indirectly have significant impacts on the environment because of low project CO2 emission estimates and implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-01. In order to commence development and construction, some existing trees and vegetation will be removed and grading for new building sites and access roads will occur. A total of up to 4.5 acres of trees will be removed, which includes ~3 acres on the irrigation expansion site and 1.5 acres on the WWTP site. Trees removed from both sites will most likely be sold as lumber and used for general construction. Because the removed trees will be used for general construction, they will become a carbon sink and the tree removal will have a neutral impact to greenhouse gas emissions. Temporary construction activities and post-construction WWTP operation activities will be mitigated with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG- 01. Table 3-7 above summarizes the DSPUD WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Project carbon dioxide emissions estimates. Predicted project emissions are also well below CARB maximum allowable CO2 emissions levels.
In accordance with CARB’s 2008 preliminary recommended approaches for setting interim significance thresholds for greenhouse gases under CEQA, Mitigation Measure GHG-01 will be implemented. Mitigation Measure GHG-01 will ensure that minimum performance standards for construction and transportation related emissions will be met. Additionally, a URBEMIS Air Quality
Model was created to estimate projected project specific air emissions. Total Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels predicted to be emitted from construction, area, and operational emissions totaled 751.89 tons/year. This CO2 estimate is much lower than CARB’s thresholds 7000 metric ton of CO2 per year. Table 3-7 above summarizes the URBEMIS project specific air analysis findings. Therefore, with the total project CO2 emission estimates well below the CARB maximum allowable CO2 emissions and implementation of mitigation measure GHG-01, potential greenhouse gas emissions impacts are judged to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
The proposed DSPUD WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Project will not generate additional greenhouse gas emissions that would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. In accordance with CARB’s 2008 preliminary recommended approaches for setting interim significance thresholds for greenhouse gases under CEQA, Mitigation Measure GHG-01 will be implemented. Mitigation Measure GHG- 01 will ensure that minimum performance standards for construction and transportation related emissions will be met. Additionally, a URBEMIS Air Quality Model was created to estimate
projected project specific air emissions. Total Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels predicted to be emitted
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-109 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
from construction, area, and operational emissions totaled 751.89 tons/year. This CO2 estimate is much lower than CARB’s thresholds 7000 metric ton of CO2 per year. Table 3-7 above summarizes the URBEMIS project specific air analysis findings. Therefore, with the total project CO2 emission estimates well below the CARB maximum allowable CO2 emissions and implementation of mitigation measure GHG-01, potential greenhouse gas emissions impacts are judged to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
3.7.4 MITIGATION MEASURE
Mitigation Measure GHG -01: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Control Program Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) shall create a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Control Program and require that the selected contractor and post-construction WWTP operations staff implement a greenhouse gas emissions control program prior to, during, and after construction. The following will be conducted throughout the construction period to limit and control greenhouse gas emissions:
Construction workers living outside Soda Springs shall meet at staging areas and be transported (in carpools) to jobsites or encourage construction worker commuters to carpool or employ other means to reduce trip generation.
Unnecessary construction vehicle and equipment idling shall be minimized and vehicle and equipment idling shall not be allowed to exceed five minutes. Construction foremen shall include briefing to crews on vehicle use as part of pre-construction conferences. These briefings shall include discussion of best management construction practices (BMPs) to avoid unnecessary emissions (e.g., trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues would turn their engines off when not in use).
All off-road construction diesel engines shall meet Tier 2 California Emission Standards for Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines.
Ensure compliance with all Rules and Regulations of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the Nevada County General Plan in relation to Greenhouse Gas emissions. Mitigation Measure GHG-01 Implementation Responsible Party: DSPUD shall create a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Control Program and require that the selected contractor and post-construction WWTP operations staff implement a greenhouse gas emissions control program prior to, during, and after construction.
Timing: A Greenhouse Gas Emissions Control Program must be prepared and approved by DSPUD prior to construction and implemented during and after construction.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-110 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Monitoring and Reporting Program: During construction, regular inspections will be performed by a DSPUD representative and reports will be kept on file by DSPUD for inspection by the CARB or other interested parties.
Standards for Success: Greenhouse Gas emissions are kept to the lowest practicable level. The goal is to minimize greenhouse gas emissions during and after construction.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-111 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8.1 SETTING
Current operations at the Donner Summit Public Utility (DSPUD) wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) involve the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials. Hazardous chemicals onsite are currently stored in designated hazardous materials storage areas and are stored according to local, state, and federal regulations. Wastewater treatment operations typically involve the use of hazardous materials during routine operations for disinfection and treatment of wastewater and during routine facility maintenance, such as painting and diesel powered equipment maintenance.
The WWTP and irrigation disposal sites have not been listed by the U.S. EPA as hazardous materials sites (EPA, 2010). There are no sites in the treatment plant study area listed on the Cortese list (DTSC, 2010). According to SWRCB's Geotracker database, there are no LUSTs in the project area. The closest LUST location is the Vail Building located at 21455 Donner Pass Road within Soda Springs, which is approximately 0.8 miles from the WWTP site and about 0.5 miles from the irrigation disposal site (SWRCB, 2010). There are no SLIC sites located in the treatment plant study area (SWRCB, 2010).
DSPUD has developed and implemented a Spill Prevention Plan and Emergency Response Program. The plan includes all aspects of emergency response including adequate first aid and medical treatment, evacuations, notification of local emergency response agencies and the public and post- incident decontamination of affected areas. To ensure proper functioning, the emergency response equipment is regularly inspected and serviced. In addition, the Spill Prevention Plan and Emergency Response Program is promptly updated to reflect any pertinent changes taking place within the covered processes that would require a modified emergency response. The Truckee Fire Protection Department (TFPD) is located on the WWTP site so emergency response to spills and/or fires on the WWTP site would be quick.
Chlorine and Sulfur Dioxide Gases The existing disinfection process utilizes chlorine gas for effluent disinfection and sulfur dioxide gas to remove residual effluent at the end of the chlorine contact basin (dechlorination). The effluent is disinfected using chlorine from 150 pound cylinders, and dechlorinated using sulfur dioxide from 150 pound cylinders. For each gas, there is one group of six cylinders manifolded together for active use and another groups of six cylinders manifolded together on standby and ready for use through an automatic switchover system. All of the chlorine and sulfur dioxide feed and control facilities were recently upgraded. With upgrades to the WWTP, transport, use and storage of these hazardous chemicals will be eliminated with the new UV disinfection system in place.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-112 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Sodium Chloride The current Integrated Fixed Film Sludge (IFAS) system uses a high concentration of sodium chloride for ammonia removal. Sodium chloride is salt thus not considered toxic. It will release toxins if heated to extremely high temperatures. The new Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) system will replace the IFAS system, therefore eliminating the use of sodium chloride.
Ammonia Gas Ammonia gas is used to supplement influent ammonia concentrations during low load periods as needed during the biological treatment process. It is included on the OSHA list of hazardous chemicals. There are two existing ammonia feed systems, one for Plant 1 and one for Plant 2. Currently, there are six 150 pound ammonia cylinders connected to feed Plant 1 and four for Plant 2. The cylinders contain ammonia liquid and ammonia gas under pressure. Ammonia gas will continue to be used during the biological treatment process.
Micro-C Methanol could be used in the denitrification process; however, it is included on the OSHA list of hazardous chemicals. Methanol is a flammable liquid and requires special precautions be taken for storage, use, and transport. An approximate one month supply is currently stored onsite in two 2,000 gallon double-walled methanol storage tanks. The tanks are similar to those used to store diesel fuel and are located outdoors, away from the plant’s main traffic area to minimize dangers associated with the possibility of explosions caused by methanol fumes. As opposed to Methanol, Micro-C glycerin is an alternative nontoxic, nonflammable carbon source. Micro-C glycerin will replace Methanol as the carbon source to support denitrification during the biological treatment process partially due to its non-flammable nature, which would reduce potential hazards on site. All Micro-C glycerin fed during the denitrification process is consumed during the process and is not discharged to the South Yuba River thus improving water quality.
Soda Ash The soda ash feed system includes a storage silo, dry feeders, slurry tank, slurry pumps and related facilities. Soda ash is used to supplement influent alkalinity, as needed for nitrification and disinfection. The existing silo can hold approximately 35 tons of soda ash. There is one duty and one standby soda ash slurry pump, each rated at 5 gpm. Soda ash is not included on the OSHA list of hazardous chemicals and will continue to be used after the WWTP upgrades are completed.
The Soda Springs Ski Area irrigation disposal site does not have any hazardous materials stored on site as part of the irrigation expansion project.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-113 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.8.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Materials and waste may be considered hazardous if they are poisonous (toxicity), can be ignited by open flame (ignitability), corrode other materials (corrosivity), or react violently, explode or generate vapors when mixed with water (reactivity). Hazardous material is defined in law as any material that, because of quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment.
The use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes are subject to numerous laws and regulations at all levels of government. The Nevada County Department of Environmental Health is the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) that manages programs for hazardous materials storage and hazardous waste disposal.
Health and Safety Laws and Regulations
Hazardous State and federal laws require detailed planning to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, Materials used, stored, and dispose of, and in the event that such materials are accidentally released, to prevent or to Management mitigate injury to health or the environment. These laws require hazardous materials users to prepare written plans, such as Hazard Communication Plans, Hazardous Materials Business Plans, and Chemical Hygiene Plans. Laws and regulations require hazardous materials users to store these materials appropriately and to train employees to manage them safely. A number of agencies participate in enforcing hazardous materials management requirements. For the project area, the Solano County Environmental Health Services Division is the agency most involved. Hazardous The California Environmental Protection Agency's (Cal EPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control Materials (DTSC) regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous material Handling waste. These laws impose "cradle-to¬grave" regulatory systems that require generators of hazardous materials waste to handle it in a manner that protects human health and the environment to the extent possible. The DTSC permits and oversees hazardous materials waste treatment, long¬term storage, and disposal facilities. Hazardous The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates hazardous materials transportation between Materials states. Within California, the state agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing federal and state Transportation regulations and for responding to transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Together, federal and state agencies determine driver-training requirements, load labeling procedures, and container specifications. Although special requirements apply to transporting hazardous materials, requirements for transporting hazardous waste are more stringent, and hazardous waste haulers must be licensed to transport hazardous waste on public roads. Soil and The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and associated Superfund Groundwater Amendments provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) with the authority to identify Contamination hazardous sites, to require site remediation, and to recover the costs of site remediation from polluters. California has enacted similar laws intended to supplement the federal program. The DTSC is primarily responsible for implementing California's Superfund Law. Emergency California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by Response federal, state, and local government and private agencies. Responding to hazardous materials incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is administered by the State Office of Emergency Services (OES), which coordinates the responses of other agencies, including Cal EPA, CHP, the Department of Fish and Game, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the local fire department. The fire department provides first response capabilities, if needed, for hazardous materials emergencies within the project area. Source: ESA, 2005
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-114 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
State Regulations U.S. EPA has granted the State of California primary oversight responsibility to administer and enforce hazardous waste management to ensure that hazardous wastes are handled, stored, and disposed of properly to reduce risks to human health and the environment.
Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act of 1985 The Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act, also known as the Business Plan Act, requires businesses using hazardous materials to prepare a report that describes their facilities, inventories, emergency response plans and training programs. Hazardous materials are defined as raw or unused materials that are part of a process or manufacturing step. They are not considered to be hazardous waste. Health concerns pertaining to the release of hazardous materials, however, are similar to those relating to hazardous waste.
Other Laws, Regulations, and Programs
Various other state regulations have been enacted that affect hazardous waste management, including:
Safe Drinking Water and Toxic enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65), which requires labeling of substance known or suspected by the state to cause cancer
California Government Code Section 65962.5, which requires the Office of Permit Assistance to compile a list of possible contaminated sites in the state
State and federal regulations also require that hazardous materials sites be identified and listed in public records. These lists are:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites Resource Conservation and Recovery Act California Superfund List of Active Annual Work plan Sites Lists of state-registered underground and leaking underground storage tanks
Local Regulations In Nevada County, remediation of contaminated sites is performed under the oversight of Cal EPA and with the cooperation of SCEHD and RWQCB. At sites where contamination is suspected or known to occur, the responsible party is required to perform a site investigation and draw up a remediation plan, if necessary. For typical development projects, actual site remediation is done either before or during the construction phase of the project. For removal of underground storage tanks (USTs), SCEHD and the local fire department have regulatory authority.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-115 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Nevada County General Plan Safety Element The Safety Element of the Nevada County General Plan addresses a wide range of issues related to human safety and hazards, including hazardous wastes and materials and emergency preparedness. The overall intent of the Element is to protect persons and their property by identifying potential hazards within the community, minimizing these potential risks whenever possible, and providing for appropriate and timely response in cases of catastrophic events. The Safety Element contains the following pertinent policies:
. Goal HM-10.5: Protect the community’s health, safety, natural resources, and property through regulation of use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials.
. Policy HM-10.5.1.1: In siting on and off-site hazardous waste management facilities, the County shall follow the criteria and mitigation measures set forth by Nevada County
. Goal EP-10.1: Provide a coordinated approach to hazard and disaster response preparedness.
3.8.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS The potential for construction-related hazards and impacts from hazardous materials used during construction of the proposed project are qualified in Table 3-8 and discussed below.
Table 3-8 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project Specific Potential Impacts Relative to Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-116 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporation During construction trucks will travel to and from the site. These vehicles will include diesel powered trucks, excavators, backhoes, loaders, and other construction vehicles. All vehicles will be properly maintained in adherence to local, state and federal hazardous materials regulations as listed above. During construction hazardous materials handling, including use of lubricating fluids and solvents, and fueling and servicing of construction equipment will take place onsite. However, these types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, and disposal of these materials is regulated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the U.S. EPA, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), and the Truckee Fire Protection Department (TFPD). Although hazardous materials such as diesel, fuel and other construction materials would be transported, stored, and used onsite during construction activities, this would be temporary and all materials would be used and stored in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, including Cal-OSHA requirements and manufacturer’s instructions. There is risk of spilling diesel, oil, or other materials contained in construction vehicles that will be used during project construction. Therefore, DSPUD will ensure that project contractor will implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-01 and have a Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan in place during construction. With the incorporation of this mitigation measures, the potential impact is considered less than significant.
Note: A similar plan is already in place for operation, for which the DSPUD is responsible.
Operations at the WWTP with the addition of the UV disinfection system would result in elimination of the transport, use, and storage of both chlorine and sulfur dioxide gases, which are toxic chemicals, during the disinfection process. This is considered a beneficial aspect of the project since
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-117 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
it would be a major benefit to the South Yuba River and would lessen potential hazards on the site. DSPUD’s discharge to the South Yuba River includes by-products of the disinfection process. These compounds are formed as a result of reactions between organic compounds found in domestic wastewater and chlorine used by DSPUD to disinfect their effluent prior to discharge. While there is significant dilution of the effluent in the South Yuba River prior to any subsequent use of the water for potable purposes, these compounds can be human carcinogens. UV disinfection will require use of Micro-Cglycerin (Micro-C) which is a non-hazardous, non-flammable liquid chemical, and is classified by OSHA as a nonhazardous substance. Micro-C will replace the use of pure methanol during the denitrification. Therefore, this is considered a beneficial impact and reduces hazards to the public. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporation Please refer to the response to question a, above. Impacts are considered less than significant with Mitigation Measure HAZ-01 implemented. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: No impact The project sites are not located within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school to the project area is Donner trail Elementary School, which is approximately 8.3 miles west of the project site. Therefore, project construction would not result in emission of or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Finding: No Impact The project sites are not included on a USEPA list of hazardous materials sites. Based on USEPA records, there are also no hazardous materials sites in the vicinity of the WWTP improvement area or land disposal site (USEPA, 2010). Therefore, no impact would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: No impact The closest public airport to the WWTP project sites, Truckee-Tahoe Airport, is over 12 miles away. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-118 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Therefore, the project construction would not pose a safety hazard to residents or workers in the project area. Therefore, no impact would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: No impact There is one private airstrip in the area, Totem Pole Ranch Airport; however the airstrip is over 22 miles away from the project sites. Since the private airstrip is not located in the project vicinity, project construction would not pose a safety hazard to residents or workers in the project area. Therefore, no impact would occur. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding: Less than significant impact The County has adopted an Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) to ensure that communities in Nevada County are prepared for natural and human caused disasters. In addition to this plan the DSPUD has developed and implemented a Spill Prevention Plan and Emergency Response Program. No new hazardous materials would be used under the proposed project and the volume of hazardous materials proposed to be used would not increase; the use of most hazardous materials would be reduced under the proposed project (i.e., chlorine gas, sulfur dioxide gas, and sodium chloride).
The WWTP is located adjacent to the Truckee Fire Protection District (TFPD) and therefore, the TFPD would provide fire protection services to the WWTP and nearby effluent spray irrigation site. The current access road for the WWTP is Sherritt Lane which provides the only access from the WWTP and TFPD to Donner Pass Road and I-80. This road is a two lane paved access road shared by the TFPD and used to access private residences. This entrance will likely remain the primary entrance for construction traffic unless the proposed new WWTP access road is constructed. However, this road would be kept clear for emergency vehicle access during construction by implementing appropriate safety procedures (i.e. emergency vehicles would be given priority ingress/egress). The DSPUD already maintains normal ingress/egress for emergency vehicles on a daily basis during deliveries and when staff or visitors are entering and exiting the site, therefore procedures are already in place. Continual and careful communication also will be crucial between the Project Contractor and TFPD personnel to ensure emergency access is always maintained and any significant impacts are negated. Therefore, impact on emergency response is less than significant. h) Would the project 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 residences are intermixed with wildlands? Finding: Less than significant
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-119 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The DSPUD WWTP is surrounded by heavily forested lands that are in risk of wildfires. The Truckee Fire Protection District (TFPD) serves the WWTP. It is conveniently located within the WWTP site adjacent to DSPUD offices and therefore could provide immediate response to any fire hazards. The WWTP project site is in a relatively forested area with large trees, large rocks and boulders, and preexisting paved and unpaved roads. The WWTP site includes treatment structures, office space, and the DSPUD, making the site partially developed. The nearest closest residences in the vicinity of the WWTP project site are houses located approximately 650 feet south of the WWTP and 950 feet northeast of the WWTP. It is possible that a spark from a piece of construction equipment could ignite combustible materials or vegetation, resulting in a fire; however, this would only occur within the WWTP secured area. Furthermore, the selected contractor will be required to have fire suppression equipment onsite for use in the unlikely event that a fire was started during construction. Therefore, the potential impact is considered less than significant.
3.8.4 MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure HAZ-01: Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan to Avoid/Minimize Potential Impacts from Material or Vapor Release
Preparation
The contractor shall develop a Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan prior to construction. Site workers will learn about Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan before construction is initiated, and will be trained in the deployment of the containment and cleanup equipment. Containment and cleanup equipment (e.g., absorbent pads, mats, socks, granules, drip pans, shovels, and lined clean drums) will be located at the staging areas and construction site for use, as needed. Staging areas where refueling, storage, and maintenance of equipment will occur will not be located within 100 feet of drain inlets or drainage swales to reduce the potential contamination by spills.
Construction/Controls
Construction equipment will be maintained and kept in good operating condition to reduce the likelihood of line breaks or leakage. Fluids drained from machinery during servicing at staging areas will be collected in leakproof containers and disposed of at appropriate disposal or recycling facilities. No refueling or servicing will be done without absorbent material (e.g. absorbent pads, mats, socks, pillows, and granules) or drip pans underneath to contain spilled material. If these activities result in an accumulation of materials on the soil, the soil will be removed and properly disposed of as hazardous waste. Fluids generated from drilling and pump testing the wells will be treated and discharged to the local sanitary sewer. A sanitary sewer manhole is located near the entrance to the project site.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-120 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Response
If a spill is detected, activities will cease immediately and the procedures described in the Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan will be immediately enacted to safely contain and remove spilled materials. Simultaneous to implementing the containment measures, construction crews will contact the Truckee Fire Protection District (TFPD) and other appropriate resource agency personnel. Spill areas will be restored to pre-spill conditions, as practicable. Spill documentation and reporting will be carried out.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-01 Implementation
. Responsible Party: DSPUD will ensure the Project Contractor develops and implements the Spill Prevention Plan and Emergency Response Program
. Timing: During all ground disturbing activities.
. Monitoring and Reporting Program: DSPUD will be required to ensure the contractor has the Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan on site at all times during construction and that the Plan is being followed.
. Standards of Success: Minimization of spills and full containment of any spills if they do occur.
Note: A similar plan is already in place for operation, for which the DSPUD is responsible.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-121 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9.1 SETTING The Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and irrigation disposal expansion area are located within the Mountain Counties area of the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region and specifically within the Lake Van Norden Planning Watershed (PWS); of the Soda Spring Super Planning Watershed (SPWS); of the Lake Spaulding Hydrologic Sub-area (HSA); of the South Yuba River Hydrologic Area (HA) of the Yuba River Hydrologic Unit (HU) (CA Department of Conservation, 2011). The entire SPWS is 37,591 acres, while the watershed area above the WWTP is approximately 8,750 acres (USDA/NRCS NCGC, 1999). In the vicinity of the project area the South Yuba River is seasonal, with flows derived from precipitation events and snow melt. Average annual precipitation is about 52 inches with the majority occurring between November through March as snow (DSPUD Wastewater Facilities Plan, May 2010). Peak river flows are generally associated with runoff derived from snow melt and generally occur annually sometime between April and June. Peak flows in the South Yuba River near Cisco (the nearest gauging station) typically exceed 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) (ECO:LOGIC, 2009). Based on the location of the Cisco gauging station, flows reported there generally reflect those derived from the entire Soda Springs SPWS. The location of Lake Van Norden upstream of the WWTP affects the natural hydrology of the watershed such that drawing correlations between the Cisco gauging station flows reported and actual flows at the DSPUD discharge point to the South Yuba River is difficult.
The DSPUD discharges effluent to the South Yuba River during wet periods in accordance with orders issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board). The discharge is located at latitude 39°, 20’, 04”N and longitude 120°, 24’, 09”W which is approximately 0.8 miles to the northwest of the DSPUD WWTP. During August and September, the DSPUD is required to discharge to land to an effluent irrigation area located in the Soda Springs area. The river discharge point, effluent irrigation area and WWTP are shown in Figure 2-3.1 and Figure 3-9.1.
Soils found in the area are discussed in Section 3.6, and generally, the soils are associated with moderate to high runoff as exhibited by their hydrologic grouping typically in group C and D. The hydrologic group of a soil is based on properties that affect the soils ability to retain and drain applied water. Soils capable of rapid infiltration and drainage of surface water are placed in hydrologic group A and are characterized by low runoff, while those soils of low permeability are placed in hydrologic group D and generally characterized by high runoff. Although soils in the area are predominantly well drained, their shallowness to an impermeable zone increases their runoff potential.
The relatively shallow soils and hard bedrock in the area limit the potential for establishment of recoverable groundwater. The occurrence of recoverable groundwater is highly variable and generally confined to fractures in bedrock although some groundwater is present in unconsolidated sediment found in meadow-like settings associated with lakes (or historic lakes) in the area, such as around Lake Van Norden. Saturated conditions likely occur along the soil and bedrock interface
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-122 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
during the spring snow melt period; however, such groundwater is likely transient and not available in feasible quantities for development. A Groundwater Monitoring Study (ECO:LOGIC, 2010, attached as Appendix B) conducted of the existing DSPUD irrigation area concluded that:
“A regional groundwater aquifer is not present; and due to the anticipated low permeability of the agglomerates, it is uncertain if any significant groundwater would exist below the soil/agglomerate interface.
The area receives significant precipitation, mostly as snow. Spring snowmelt forms a seasonal perched water table at the interface of the soil/glacial materials and the underlying volcanic agglomerates. The bulk of this seasonal perched water table drains away quickly each spring as evidenced by area stream channels and the South Yuba River being mostly dry by mid-summer.”
Further, it was determined that any “background” monitoring well in the seasonal perched water table would likely go dry by late summer. Any impacts to this perched groundwater quality from irrigation disposal were anticipated to be seasonal due to the seasonal flushing of the soils by snow melt runoff.
Generally, surface water in the area is of high quality with potential impairments being associated with sedimentation, dissolution of naturally occurring minerals, and pathogenic bacteria. These impairments exist naturally, and may be elevated due to anthropogenic sources, such as erosion from logging activities and pathogens from poorly functioning septic systems. The project itself is associated with the discharge of treated residential and resort wastewater (i.e., “municipal” wastewater: termed “effluent”) to the South Yuba River, and is necessary to reliably meet discharge limitations established to be protective of water quality. The regulations associated with this discharge are discussed in the Regulatory Setting section below, while background information about the area, water quality, and the effluent being discharged are discussed in this section.
The WWTP is operated under three drastically different wastewater conditions; 1) a variable period associated with the transient “ski season” community where weekend/holiday periods have high flow and load (e.g. wastewater strength) and midweek periods exhibit low flow and load; 2) a spring snowmelt period where flows are high and load is low; and 3) a low flow low load period associated with the lower occupancy community in the “off season” summer months. Since municipal wastewater treatment is largely a biological process, both the daily to seasonal variability in wastewater characteristics and the low temperature environment of peak loads pose special problems for the treatment process requiring special treatment measures. The existing WWTP is not able to reliably meet Final Effluent limitations (see Table 3-9.1) contained in the recently adopted waste discharge requirements for the WWTP, largely as a result of these variable conditions. The project is primarily an upgrade to the WWTP to reliably meet certain of these limitations, including: ammonia, nitrate, metals, and disinfection byproducts.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-123 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The project area is not located in a 100-year floodplain, as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The nearest 100-year floodplain occurs along Lake Van Norden east of Soda Springs Road and south of Donner Summit Road (see Figure 3-9.2).
At the WWTP, locally generated storm water is managed to prevent contact with wastewater and additional pollutants associated with operation of the facility. The site has a snow storage area to accommodate snow removal from the site and adjacent roadways. The melting snow in the storage area and locally generated stormwater are conveyed off site and allowed to flow into natural drainage ways.
At the irrigation disposal expansion area, stormwater runoff occurring outside of the irrigation season (i.e. natural seasonal runoff) will continue to flow into natural drainage ways maintaining natural hydrologic conditions of the site, including supplying water to alder/willow wetlands located down slope (northern end) of the proposed irrigation expansion area. The natural seasonal runoff is generally of high quality; however, it can be torrential in volume at times, as observed in peak flows in the South Yuba River as high as 5,000 cfs at Cisco. These peak flows are associated with snowmelt runoff, and can be highly erosive. The landscape has been shaped by these seasonal runoff periods. The Soda Springs Ski Area (Boreal Ski Corporation site) has implemented some erosion and runoff control measures at the existing irrigation disposal site and for their ski operations to minimize erosion on and off site due to these seasonal runoff periods. Further, disturbances to the current landscape condition will be susceptible to reworking by the highly erosive seasonal runoff.
During the effluent irrigation season, runoff and erosion potential will be negligible, especially when compared to the natural seasonal runoff. The irrigation system will be designed to apply wastewater effluent at rates that do not exceed the infiltrative capacity of the soil, and the system will be operated to apply sufficient moisture for vegetation growth so that soils do not become over saturated. The existing NPDES Permit, under which the WWTP is permitted to discharge its effluent to the South Yuba River and to the irrigation disposal site, limits irrigation disoposal to when soils are not saturated; therefore, not creating runoff on the site. Thus, runoff is not anticipated from normal operation of the upgraded and expanded system. However, a runoff containment system is included in the project design, consisting of natural drainage paths and earthen trenches, to collect and store any runoff, primarily for cases of catastrophic failure (e.g. broken pipe or sprinkler head) or in cases of an unforeseen rainstorm. Any collected runoff is stored on site in the existing irrigation runoff recovery pond for reuse and/or can be returned to the WWTP for retreatment.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-124 WWTP Upgrade Project Discharge Point Lat. 39° 20’ 4” N Lon. 120° 24’ 9” W
DSPUD WWTP Site 80 Lat. 39° 19’ 36” N Lon. 120° 23’ 35” W
80 Land Disposal Area Lat. 39° 19’ 8” N Lon. 120° 22’ 57” W
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000
V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_facilities_locations.ai 1-25-2011 mlm Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_facilities_locations.ai 1-25-2011 V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Figure 3-16 DSPUD Facilities Locations and South Yuba River Discharge Point DSPUD WWTP Site Parcel No. 47-021-04
Irrigation Expansion Site Parcel No. 47-021-51 V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_flood_rate_map.ai 1-24-2011 mlm Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_flood_rate_map.ai 1-24-2011 V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
Figure 3-17 Flood Insurance Rate Map Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.9.2 REGULATORY SETTING Clean Water Act Waters of the United States are regulated by the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). The Clean Water Act (CWA) established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for regulating effluent discharges to surface waters such as the South Yuba River. Specifically, the CWA prohibits the discharge of any waste into surface waters without a permit, requires the establishment of water quality standards for contaminants, and grants authority to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement pollution control programs. The EPA has delegated the authority to administer and enforce the CWA and the NPDES program to the State of California. However, section 404 of the CWA is under the jurisdiction of and administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and regulates the discharge of fill or other materials to waters of the United States.
Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act The State of California established the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which oversees nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne). Through the enforcement of the Porter Cologne Act, the SWRCB determines the beneficial uses of the waters (surface and groundwater) of the state, establishes narrative and/or numerical water quality standards, and initiates policies relating to water quality. The SWRCB and, more specifically, the Regional Water Boards, are authorized to prescribe Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for the discharge of waste, which may impact the waters of the State, including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits for discharge directly to waters of the State.
Anti-degradation Policy In 1968, the SWRCB adopted Resolution No. 68-16, Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California (aka, the Anti-degradation Policy). The Anti-degradation Policy requires that whenever the quality of water is better than the water quality standards or water quality goals, and a discharge does or reasonably has the potential to degrade the high quality water, then such degradation must:
Not unreasonably affect beneficial uses, i.e., cause the water to exceed water quality standards or water quality objectives. Be consistent with the best practicable treatment and control technology such that pollution or nuisance does not occur and the highest water quality is maintained consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State. The Anti-degradation Policy applies to surface water and groundwater.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board The DSPUD is located within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) and within the Sacramento River Basin. The Regional Board has developed Water Quality Control Plans and has issued water quality orders, such as NPDES permits and WDRs, to protect water quality. The Water Quality Control Plan, Fourth Edition, for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan) establishes beneficial uses and water quality
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-127 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
standards for waters within the basin, including tributaries to listed waters. The Regional Board has also adopted WDR Order No. R5-2009-0034 (NPDES permit No. CA0081621) and Cease and Desist Order (CDO) No. R5-2009-0035 to regulate the DSPUD discharge. Both were adopted in 2009 and both have requirements (including new requirements) on the continued lawful operation of the WWTP and its effluent disposal practices.
Basin Plan The Basin Plan establishes beneficial uses and water quality standards for waters within the basin. The WWTP discharges treated effluent directly into the South Yuba River, which is tributary to the Yuba River, sources to Englebright Reservoir which has the following existing beneficial uses:
Municipal and Domestic Supply Agriculture Irrigation and Stock Watering Power Generation Contact Recreation Including Canoeing and Rafting Non Contact Recreation Cold Freshwater Habitat Cold Water Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development Wildlife Habitat
Additionally, the Basin Plan considers all groundwater as suitable for Municipal and Domestic Supply, Agricultural Supply, Industrial Service, and Process Supply, unless otherwise designated. In addition to establishing beneficial uses, the Basin Plan establishes Water Quality Objectives to protect the beneficial uses of the water. The Water Quality objectives in the Basin Plan are used to establish objectives for WDRs.
Water Quality Orders Generally, surface water discharges are regulated by a single NPDES/WDR permit that is typically renewed every five years. The Donner Summit PUD discharge is currently permitted by two Water Quality Orders. for up to 0.52 million gallons per day average dry weather flow. The first of which, Order No. R5-2009-0034, is the WDR which regulates the discharge and prescribes final effluent limitations. As mentioned previously, the existing treatment process is not capable of reliably meeting the final effluent limitations contained in the new 2009 Order and schedules have been issued for the discharge, which prescribe interim effluent limitations while WWTP improvements are made to achieve compliance with new requirements. With the exception of aluminum (contained in the WDR), the compliance schedules are prescribed in the CDO No. R5-2009-0035. The constituents for which the WWTP is out of compliance are presented in Table 3-9.1. The interim effluent limits, which the discharge must comply with immediately, and the final effluent limitations, which will require an upgrade to the WWTP (i.e. the proposed project) for compliance, are also presented in Table 3-9.1. Although these limitations apply only to the discharge of effluent to the South Yuba River and the irrigation disposal has less stringent discharge specifications, it is generally infeasible for the WWTP to produce two different quality effluents. Therefore, the irrigation discharge is of as high a quality as the river discharge.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-128 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The WWTP needs to be upgraded in order to achieve reliable compliance with the final effluent limitations, which is the basis for this proposed project. The current design of the upgrade has taken into account compliance issues, and has incorporated treatment strategies to achieve compliance.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) - Stormwater Quality and Erosion Control Regulations A Statewide General Construction Stormwater Discharge (GCSD) Permit has been adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) with an erosion control component for construction projects that disturb greater than one acre or have the potential to impair water quality. The current GCSD was adopted on September 2, 2009 by the State Water Resources Control Board as Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. An order amending the GSCD was adopted on November 16, 20100 as Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ (herein referred to as the General Order). The project will require coverage under this permit.
The Legally Responsible Person (LRP), or their authorized representative, as defined by the General Order, is required to obtain coverage under the General Order when the construction project involves land disturbance of equal to or greater than one acre. The proposed project will disturb more than 1 acre during construction, therefore it will be subject to the General Order. The General Order requires electronic Permit Registration Documents (PRD) to be submitted, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be developed and implemented, monitoring to be conducted and compliance with Post-Construction Standards.
The SWPPP must contain best management practices (BMPs) and other measures to prevent pollution and a construction timeline. The SWPPP shall demonstrate compliance with erosion and sediment control standards and identify responsible parties. Furthermore, a BMP maintenance program is required by the SWPPP, which should include proper installation and thorough and frequent inspection to ensure the effectiveness of specific BMPs.
The project design and construction must incorporate measures to comply with Post-Construction Standards listed in the General Order. These measures can be non-structural or structural, with non- structural measures preferred. Compliance with Post-Construction Standards included in the General Order will be mandatory effective October 2012. The Post-Construction Standards require the replication of the pre-project water balance (defined as the volume of rainfall that ends up as runoff) for the smallest storms up to the 85th percentile storm event (or the smallest storm event that generates runoff, whichever is larger.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-129 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Table 3-9.1 Constituents with Reasonable Potential to Exceed Final Effluent Limitations and Interim Effluent Limitations for the Donner Summit PUD WWTP Discharge to the South Yuba River as Determined and Prescribed in the WDR and CDO
Constituent Units Maximum Observed Interim Limitations Final Effluent Limitations Effluent Instantaneous Concentration Maximum Daily Average Monthly Maximum Daily Maximum Annual Average 45.2 Ammonia (as N) mg/L 39 2.1 5.6 ‐‐ ‐‐ 80 Nitrate (as N) mg/L 53 10 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.2 Dichlorobromomethane µg/L 5.7 0.56 1.2 ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.8 Copper, Total Recoverable µg/L 24 1.5 3.1 ‐‐ ‐‐ 33 Cyanide, Total Recoverable µg/L 103 4.3 8.5 ‐‐ ‐‐ 30.8 Zinc, Total Recoverable µg/L 96 15 30 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.005 Aldrin µg/L 0.016 ‐‐ ‐‐ ND ‐‐ 0.044 Alpha BHC µg/L 0.14 ‐‐ ‐‐ ND ‐‐ 88.4 Manganese µg/L 275 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 50 620 Aluminum µg/L 1930 71 143 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.26 Siliver µg/L 0.81 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.23 ‐‐
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-130 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.9.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS The potential impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality are qualified in Table 3-10 and discussed below.
Table 3-10 Checklist for Assessing Project Specific Potential Impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there should be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-131 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporation The proposed project consists of upgrading the WWTP to reliably achieve final effluent limitations prescribed in the WDR and CDO. As can be seen in Table 3-9.1, the existing effluent has the potential to violate water quality standards and waste discharge requirements (WDR). However, the WDR and CDO provide the DSPUD with a compliance schedule and interim effluent limitations to allow for the upgrade to occur without violating the WDR for exceeding final effluent limitations. Thus, completion of the proposed project will likely improve water quality and will not result in a violation of current water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Specific elements of the upgrade include:
Improved nitrogen removal potential to meet ammonia and nitrate limits
Conversion to UV disinfection removing chlorination byproducts including dichlorobromomethane from the discharge, and minimizing cyanide generation during disinfection.
Equalization storage minimizing peak flows and loads, enhancing treatment processes, and potentially minimizing maximum effluent concentrations of many constituents listed in Table 3-9.1.
The only component of the proposed project that could violate a water quality standard other than violations potentially occurring without the proposed project is the construction process. Construction period activities will be conducted in accordance with a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and a spill prevention program to ensure that there are no transient impacts to water quality during the construction process. Therefore, the potential impact is considered less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures HYD-01 and HYD-02.
Although, this project will address compliance with effluent limitations for ammonia, nitrate and disinfection byproducts, it is not expected that effluent aluminum concentrations, or concentrations of other constitutens listed in the CDO will be reduced considerably. The DSPUD has developed pollution prevention plans for these constituents which identify the methods to be implemented to bring the DSPUD into compliance for those constituents. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there should be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Finding: No Impact The presence of groundwater is highly variable in the vicinity of the project and largely confined to fractures in bedrock. The project will not use groundwater nor significantly affect groundwater recharge in the area. Therefore, no impacts are expected.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-132 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporation The proposed project contains elements that will alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. At the WWTP, grading activities necessary for constructing the facilities and access roads will affect site drainage characteristics primarily due to the increase in impervious areas, such as pavement and buildings; however, grading and facilities design will be conducted to minimize runoff generation to the extent practical without compromising WWTP process performance, utilize natural flow paths to convey stormwater, and minimize on or off site erosion potential. In accordance with a construction period SWPPP and/or local grading plan, stormwater discharge points will be stabilized to minimize erosion potential. No construction activities will occur within 100 feet of the South Yuba River.
At the irrigation expansion area, a runoff collection system will be created which will substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site; however, the runoff collection system will be designed to allow natural seasonal runoff to bypass the collection system and flow along existing drainage courses. Since the majority of runoff at the site occurs in the winter and spring and outside of the irrigation period, natural runoff will continue along the existing drainage pattern. Some construction activities will be necessary in existing drainages to install diversion/bypass appurtenances and stabilize drainages to prevent them from meandering into the new irrigation area. These activities will be conducted in compliance with Clean Water Act sections 404 and 401 and in conjunction with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code 1600 et seq Compliance (Streambed Alteration Agreements and consultations for potential impacts to State listed species and State species of concern), where necessary.
Moreover, the construction is not designed to materially change the natural hydrology of the drainage, and the design of the modifications will be based on minimizing erosion within the drainages and adjacent to diversion features. Although requiring periodic maintenance, the existing runoff control system on the existing irrigation disposal site directly adjacent to the east of the irrigation expansion site has been operating in similar fashion and successfully since the late 1980’s. Therefore, DSPUD is confident in implementing the same type of runoff control system on the irrigation expansion site since it is operating effectively on the existing irrigation disposal site to control erosion and minimize effects on surface waters. Thus, alterations of drainage paths at the irrigation expansion site will likely not increase erosion on site. Further, grading of the site for irrigation system installation will be conducted in accordance with a SWPPP and the Nevada County Grading Code, including erosion control measures, and will be designed to incorporate long term runoff and erosion control features as developed in the sites Erosion Control Program. Mitigation Measures HYD-01 and HYD-02 will be implemented to minimize potential erosion and siltation impacts. Therefore, impacts that substantially increase erosion or siltation are considered less than significant.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-133 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporation The project will not cause exceedance of the currently permitted discharge of 0.52 Mgal/d, average dry weather flow, of effluent to the South Yuba River. Based on peak daily wastewater flows of 0.97 Mgal/d, the discharge would add approximately 1.5 cfs to South Yuba River flows, and given that equalization storage will attenuate peak flows even as wastewater flows increase to the permitted level, peak flows after the project will be similar to historic peak flows. Since peak daily wastewater flows largely occur as a result of infiltration and inflow from stormwater and snowmelt runoff, peak wastewater flows typically occur during peak river flows, which can exceed 1,000 cfs at the gauging station at Cisco. Thus, the direct effect of the discharge on South Yuba River flows would be negligible (<0.5% increase in stream flow from the additional discharge).
The project contains elements that will alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. At the WWTP, grading activities necessary for constructing the facilities and the facilities themselves will affect site drainage characteristics including increased runoff generation; however, grading and facilities design will be conducted to minimize runoff generation, utilize natural flow paths to convey stormwater, and minimize on or off site flooding potential. In accordance with the facilities grading plan and Nevada County Grading Code, stormwater conveyance will be designed to provide adequate drainage for the site and to not overflow existing drainage ways.
At the irrigation expansion site, modifications to existing drainages will occur temporarily when crossing them during the burial/construction of irrigation laterals across the proposed irrigation disposal expansion area and with the placement of a runoff collection trench across drainages below the expanded disposal area. However, this will have a minimal effect on natural seasonal runoff amounts or rates since a small area of trees will be cleared and the natural drainages will remain clear during the season when irrigation effluent is not be applied to the land. The runoff collection trench across drainages will include a mechanism to allow natural seasonal precipitation and runoff to occur when irrigation disposal is not being applied (similar to what is occurring on the existing irrigation disposal site where drainages to the South Yuba River are closed off during the irrigation season and opened at all other times of the year).
The conversion of the up to 3 acres from a forested area to a dominantly grassy/vegetated area could potentially increase runoff during rain storms, primarily associated with the loss of canopy cover. Much of the irrigation expansion area is currently sparsely covered except for trees, and the project will maintain vegetative cover, or re-establish it where initial clearing is necessary, to intercept rainfall and runoff across the entire irrigation area, which may reduce runoff in the sparsely covered areas. So, material changes to the rate or amount of runoff during individual storms will likely be minimal across the site. Additionally, the irrigation expansion system will be designed and operated to prevent runoff during operation of the effluent irrigation system, and in the case of a catastrophic event a runoff containment system is included to capture any runoff. Mitigation Measures HYD-01 and HYD-02 will
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-134 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
be implemented to minimize potential stormwater related impacts, so the potential impact to stormwater-related flooding is less than significant. e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Finding: Less than significant The WWTP facility upgrade will be designed to have adequate stormwater drainage, and the DSPUD will continue to operate in a manner that minimizes stormwater pollution. The project does not tie into an existing or planned stormwater drainage system. During construction activities a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) will be implemented to minimize the risk of stormwater pollution from construction materials and exposed sediment. Operations of the irrigation area will be conducted with a long term Erosion Control Program, to minimize erosion related stormwater pollution, and effluent applications will be contained onsite through employment of the seasonal runoff collection system. Impacts to stormwater drainage quantity and pollutant load are judged less than significant. f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporation Compliance with the CDO allows DSPUD to exceed the final effluent limitations in the WDRs until the project is completed or a period of five years, whichever is less. This degradation would occur even without implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project consists of an upgrade to the treatment process in order to reliably meet final effluent limitations for ammonia, nitrate and disinfection byproducts (see Table 3-9.1), and the discharge to the South Yuba River will improve water quality when compared with current conditions.
Some degradation of water quality may occur with the project, in compliance with Resolution 68-16 of the State Water Resources Control Board, also known as the Antidegradation Policy. The Antidegradation Policy allows for some degradation of water quality as long as the discharge does not exceed a water quality standard, or background water quality, provides the maximum benefit to people of the State, and the discharger implements the best practicable treatment and control of the constituent causing degradation. As such, degradation associated with the discharge from the project will be insignificant since DSPUD intends to upgrade the WWTP process to come into compliance with final effluent limitations.
Implementation of the project will improve water quality with respect to consistently producing an effluent with nitrogen and ammonia content below the final effluent limitations and applicable water quality standards; removing chlorination byproducts from the discharge; and potentially attenuating concentrations of other constituents during the treatment process that would reduce their maximum concentration in the discharge. Additionally, Mitigation Measures HYD-01 and HYD-02 will be implemented to minimize potential impacts to water quality. Thus, the potential for substantial degradation of water quality is considered less than significant.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-135 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Finding: No impact The project proposes upgrades to the DSPUD WWTP and irrigation expansion area. No housing is planned as part of the project. Therefore, no impact would occur. h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Finding: No Impact The project area is not within the 100-year flood hazard area as depicted on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map Number 06057C0500E with an Effective Date of February 3, 2010 (see Figure 3-9.2). Therefore, no impact would occur. i) Would the project 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? Finding: Less than significant The proposed project would not impede or contribute to existing surface water flow patterns substantially to cause flooding. The proposed project does involve controlling the flow of wastewater in tanks and cement basins in order to treat the wastewater, such facilities will be designed and constructed to contain the wastewater. The existing runoff collection system at the irrigation area includes a concrete storage pond, which has been designed to contain its full volume. Current operations result in minimal accumulation of runoff in the pond during the irrigation period, and similar minimal runoff volumes are anticipated from the expansion irrigation area. Additionally, the pond can be drained back to the WWTP to maintain the level and ensure that the pond does not overflow. Removal of tree cover to allow installation and operation of the irrigation expansion area will result in an increased runoff coefficient in that area. However, the area affected in relation to the overall watershed area is considered negligible. The facilities will be designed and constructed to contain the water without risk of flood. Therefore, the impact to people and structures as a result of flooding is less than significant. j) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death as a result of inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Finding: Less than significant The proposed project’s inland location eliminates the risk of tsunami. The project does not create a large water body and risk of seiche is low and not changed from existing conditions. The site is not located in an area of active landslides, including mudflows, as reported in the Geotechnical Pre-Design Report, prepared by Blackburn Consulting, Inc. Moreover, no activities are planned to cause slope instability, and the risk of mudflow is minimal. Therefore, the risk to people and structures from these natural events is minimal. Impact is judged less than significant.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-136 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.8.4 MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure HYD-01: Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures The Contractor shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for all grading activities exceeding one acre of soil disturbance, to ensure erosion and sedimentation from the project is kept to a minimum and to prevent impacts to water quality. The Contractor shall prepare and implement the SWPPP and standard erosion and sediment control practices will be used during and after construction to control accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation and ensure it will not adversely affect the South Yuba River, or other associated drainages.
Straw bales, coir rolls, hydroseeding and other best management practices (BMPs) will be used in areas of bare soil, and in drainages near all areas of disturbance to reduce surface runoff velocities and to prevent sediment from entering drainages.
Maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures will be conducted on a weekly basis. The re- vegetation of all graded and disturbed areas of bare soil will be completed within six months, or prior to the rainy season. Seed mixes will be used to replicate the naturally occurring vegetation, with the exception that the irrigation area will be seeded with grass species suitable for extensive soil cover, climatic conditions, and irrigation, such as mountain timothy and tufted hairgrass. Innitial seeding of the irrigation area will occur immediately after sprinkler installation, and the site will be irrigated to establish cover prior to the winter “wet” season.
The project design will incorporate the necessary improvements to comply with the Post-Construction requirements of the General Order, as well as provide source material for the PRD package.
Additionally, the project will be in accordance with the Nevada County Grading Code which requires the project be designed with the primary concern of long-term erosion and sedimentation control. The WWTP and irrigation area will be designed to minimize runoff generation and control erosion and sedimentation. DSPUD will inspect the performance of these inherent control practices annually and maintain, repair, and/or augment where necessary.
Mitigation Measure HYD-01: Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures Responsible Party: The DSPUD will require the contractor to develop and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), re-vegetate the site, and comply with requirements of the General Order. This includes required monitoring, reporting and provision of a qualified LRP. The DSPUD will incorporate into their facility design the necessary improvements to comply with the Post-Construction requirements of the General Order for post- construction runoff volumes.
Timing: During design incorporate measures to comply with the Post-Construction Standards of the General Order. During and immediately after construction activities in the vicinity of the South Yuba River or its tributaries, implement the SWPP as well as any other erosion and sediment control practices necessary to ensure no adverse water quality impacts due to soil erosion. Re-vegetate the site immediately upon construction completion.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-137 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Monitoring and Reporting Program: The monitoring, reporting and evaluation requirements of the General Order will be addressed by the LRP.
Standards of Success: Prevent introduction of significant amounts of sediment into any stream or drainage course tributary to the South Yuba River.
Mitigation Measure HYD-02: Avoid and Minimize Potential Water Quality Impacts from Construction Material Release Prior to construction the selected contractor shall develop a Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan for any grading activities. The spill contingency plan can be a part of the contractor’s stormwater pollution prevention plan.
Containment and cleanup equipment (e.g., absorbent pads, mats, socks, granules, drip pans, shovels, and lined clean drums) will be available onsite at the staging areas and construction site for use, as needed in an emergency.
Staging areas where refueling, storage, and maintenance of equipment occur will not be located within 100 feet of drainages or the stream bed of the South Yuba River to reduce the potential contamination by spills.
Construction equipment will be maintained and kept in good operating condition to reduce the likelihood of line breaks or leakage
No refueling or servicing will be done without absorbent material (e.g. absorbent pads, mats, socks, pillows, and granules) or drip pans underneath to contain spilled material. If these activities result in an accumulation of materials on the soil, the soil will be removed and properly disposed.
If a spill is detected, construction activity will cease immediately and the procedures described in the Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan will be immediately enacted to safely contain and remove spilled materials.
Simultaneous to implementing the containment measures, construction crews will contact the DSPUD and other appropriate resource agency personnel.
Spill areas will be restored to pre-spill conditions.
Spills will be documented and reported to the DSPUD and appropriate resource and regulatory agency personnel.
Mitigation Measure HYD-02: Implementation Responsible Party: The DSPUD will require the construction contractor to develop and implement erosion control BMPs and a Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan for all activities. For grading activities impacting larger than one acre, a SWPPP will also be prepared and implemented.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-138 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Timing: The BMPs and Plans will be implemented prior to and during all phases of construction.
Monitoring and Reporting: Evaluation of BMPs and Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan (and SWPPP) will be conducted by the DSPUD construction manager. Reports of spills will be documented daily and kept on file at the DSPUD office.
Standard of Success: Prevention of construction material spills in stream and ephemeral drainage.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-139 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.10 LAND USE PLANNING 3.10.1 SETTING The Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) is proposing upgrades and improvements to its wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and spray irrigation disposal system. The proposed project is located in Soda Springs in Nevada County. Project activities are planned on two separate parcels.
The ten-acre WWTP site, which is partly developed, is situated on land under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service south of the South Yuba River and north of Interstate 80. Much of this parcel is covered by the existing WWTP along with forest and boulders. The DSPUD plans to upgrade its facilities in order to bring the WWTP into compliance with its NPDES permit. The WWTP site is designated as “Public” land use by the 1995 Nevada County General Plan (see Figure 3-10.1).
The irrigation expansion site is a 25-acre parcel located on land south of Interstate 80 and owned by Boreal Ski Corporation. It is bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad on the north and the Nevada- Placer County line on the south. Improvements on this parcel involve the expansion of the existing effluent spray disposal system. The spray irrigation expansion site is designated a “Forest” land use by the Nevada County General Plan. A Nevada County land use map of both project sites can be found in Figure 3.10-1 (Land Use, Nevada County General Plan, 1995).
DSPUD currently serves the following number of EDUs (Equivalent Dwelling Units): Sierra Lakes County Water District (SLCWD) current EDUs are 818 - 796 residential EDU - 22 commercial EDU DSPUD current EDUs are 818.5 Total EDUs Currently Served by DSPUD WWTP: 1,635.5 (Source: DSPUD, 2011)
The proposed project could increase EDUs by the following maximum amount: SLCWD could increase their EDUs by 260 DSPUD could increase their EDUs by 471 Total maximum increase associated with the WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Project is 731 EDUs (Source: DSPUD, 2011) The proposed upgrades and expansion of the DSPUD WWTP has been designed to accommodate land use development and growth in accordance with the adopted general plans for the land use jurisdictions within its service area. For example, DSPUD could serve additional 260 EDUs within the SLCWD, and these 260 EDUs are within an existing approved subdivision and approved lots, but those 260 EDUs have never connected to the DSPUD WWTP due to lack of capacity at the existing WWTP; therefore, the proposed expansion of the WWTP will allow approved lots to be buildable once they connect to the proposed upgraded and expanded WWTP. DSPUD has also reserved 109 EDUs for hook up to the WWTP once the upgrades and expansion occur. The remaining potential increase in EDUs would be reserved for existing landowners that currently do not have a hook up to the WWTP and therefore, their existing parcel is not developable until they receive a hook up. This is due to a lack of capacity at the existing WWTP.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-140 WWTP Upgrade Project DSPUD WWTP Site Parcel No. 47-021-04
WESTBOUND I-80 SHERRITT LANE
WESTBOUND I-80 EASTBOUND I-80
EASTBOUND I-80
DONNER PASS ROAD
DONNER PASS ROAD
DONNER PASS ROAD WESTBOUND I-80
EASTBOUND I-80
Soda Springs
Irrigation Expansion Site
Soda Springs Parcel Ski Area No. 47-021-51
SODA SPRINGDS ROAD
Lake Van Norden
Legend Public (PUB) Forest (FOR) V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_land_use.ai 1-24-2011 mlm Summit\184030047\ceqa_figures\donner_ceqa_fig_land_use.ai 1-24-2011 V:\1840\business_development\ECOPRESS\Project_Graphics\Donner
0 200 400 600 800 1000 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
Figure 3-18 Land Use Designations Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The local jurisdictions regulate land use growth, and the location of development; land use decisions do not lie within the authority of DSPUD. In this sense, the upgrades and expansion of the WWTP represents an accommodation to growth and compliance with Nevada and Placer County policies for provisions of superior levels of facilities and services prior to or concurrent with planned development.
The local jurisdictions regulate land use planning through adoption of general plans, zoning regulations, and pertinent amendments. While wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services may be provided by DSPUD to levels set in general plans, local jurisdictions may change their plans independent of DSPUD. It is possible that the local jurisdiction could rezone and amend their currently adopted general plans and thereby influence higher or lower levels of growth. DSPUD could then implement expansion of a faster or slower basis to accommodate the actual levels of growth.
3.10.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Nevada County General Plan Both project sites are located in Nevada County and would therefore be governed by the County’s General Plan.
The Nevada County General Plan Land Use element states, “The extent of public land is a major factor in the County's land use pattern. About 169,045 acres land in Nevada County is owned by the Federal Government for the Tahoe National Forest, operated by the U. S. Forest Service. The U.S. Forest Service lands are primarily located on the summit and north of Truckee” (Chapter 1: Land Use, Volume 1, Nevada County General Plan, 1995). The Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) serves customers in the Soda Springs area (Nevada County General Plan EIR, 1995).
The Land Use Element of the Nevada County General Plan includes the following specific objectives and policies that are applicable to the proposed project:
Objective 1.4 Encourage future improvements of public and private facilities/services to that which will enhance the specific character and lifestyle of Rural Regions.
Objective 1.10 Establish a land use pattern which provides for open space, environmentally sensitive land, resource management areas and appropriate transitions.
Objective 1.11 Implement development standards which incorporate open space, protect environmentally sensitive land, and allow for resource management.
(Chapter 1: Land Use, Volume 1, Nevada County General Plan, 1995)
Nevada County Zoning Ordinances
Both project sites are located in Nevada County and would therefore be governed by the County’s Zoning Ordinances. The Nevada County Zoning Ordinances includes the following definitions of land use types that are applicable to the proposed project:
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-142 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
P (Public). The P District provides for areas occupied by Federal, State and local government agencies, or by a private entity under contract, agreement or franchise with a governmental agency if the use is a service or function normally provided by the agency entering into a contract or agreement, or issuing a franchise.
FR (Forest). The FR District provides areas for the protection, production and management of timber, timber support uses, including but not limited to equipment storage and temporary offices low intensity recreational uses, and open space.
3.10.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Potential land use and planning related impacts are summarized in Table 3-11 and discussed below.
Table 3-11 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Impacts to Land Use Planning
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities’ conservation plan? a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Finding: No impact The proposed DSPUD WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Project will be located on two difference project sites, 1) the ten-acre WWTP site, and 2) the 25-acre spray irrigation expansion site. The WWTP site is designated as Public land use by the Nevada County General Plan and the spray irrigation expansion site is designated as Forest land use by the Nevada County General Plan.
There are no established communities within on or immediately adjacent to the project sites. The areas surrounding the project sites are largely rural, forested areas with very few homes and businesses. The project would not change the land use of or divide an established community. Therefore, no impact would occur.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-143 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: Less than significant The Nevada County General Plan designates land use within the County. The WWTP is designated as “Public” land use and the spray irrigation expansion site is designated as “Forest” land use. The proposed project would improve the existing facilities, and is consistent with the current zoning as Public land within the Nevada County General Plan (Chapter 1: Land Use, Nevada County General Plan, 1995). The project would not conflict with the policies or regulations of the Nevada County General Plan or Zoning Ordinances. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities’ conservation plan? Finding: Less than significant The Nevada County General Plan includes Land Use, Recreation, Open Space, Wildlife and Vegetation, Forest, and Aesthetics Elements, which include measures to preserve and manage land use and natural resources. However, there are no applicable habitat conservation plans or natural communities’ conservation plans in Nevada County. The project will implement mitigation measures to protect state and federally protected species (see Biological Resources Section 3.4 in this document). Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with a habitat conservation plans, natural communities’ conservation plans, or the Nevada County General Plan and impacts would be less than significant.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-144 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 3.11.1 SETTING Nevada County has significant mineral resources, including gold, which have played a major role regionally, across the State, and nationally. Gold was discovered in California during 1849, and the “Gold Rush” and subsequent mining activities largely shaped the development of Nevada County. Several rich deposits were found in Nevada County, and the major urban centers have developed around these deposits. Additionally, mining has left its mark on the landscape as well with tailings deposits, steep cliffs from placer mining, and remnants of old canals. Most gold was found at and below the town of Washington on the South Yuba River, and mining and mineral resources, as well as urban development, were largely concentrated in the western portion of the County.
Significant mineral resources in the County include gold (in various forms), silver, copper, zinc, lead, chromite, tungsten, manganese, barite, quartz, limestone, asbestos, clay, mineral paint, sand, gravel, and rock (NCGP, 1995). The mineral resources are most concentrated in the western part of the County, and there are few areas of significant mineral resources in the eastern part of the County where the project area is.
3.11.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) The State of California enacted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) in 1975 in part to identify the location of and preserve access to significant mineral deposits. The state geologist is required by SMARA to prepare maps that identify Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) including areas of presence or likely presence of significant mineral deposits (MRZ-2). Areas that may have mineral resources, but there presences cannot be determined from available information are also identified as MRZ-3. Additionally, SMARA requires local governments to evaluate the presence of mineral resources in their General Plans and when making land use decisions. Moreover, the Nevada County General Plan (1995) indicates that there are no MRZ identified within 10 miles of the project area, with the closest being sand and gravel deposits along the Truckee River east of the town of Truckee (NCGP,1995).
Nevada County General Plan Nevada County’s General Plan (NCGP) considered the presence of mineral resources and includes several goals and policies related to mining. Given the County’s heritage in mining and that its urban centers are generally associated with mineral resources, several of these policies are associated with preventing conflicts between the incompatible uses of residential growth and mining activities. This condition is codified in Goal 17.1 which states, “Recognize and protect valuable mineral resources for current and future generations in a manner that does not create land use conflicts.” The General Plan allows recreational mining throughout the County but limits commercial mining to areas of compatible land use. Additionally, a Use Permit is required for commercial mining. The General Plans requirements for mining, including the Use Permit process, are not applicable on U.S. Forest Service
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-145 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
lands; however, compliance with the County’s health, sanitation, building, and environmental regulations is still required (NCGP, 1995).
As stated previously, there are no MRZ identified within 10 miles of the project area, with the closest mineral resources being sand and gravel deposits along the Truckee River east of the town of Truckee (NCGP,1995). Additionally, agriculture is a compatible use for mining in the General Plan.
3.11.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS The potential impacts to mineral recourses are addressed in Table 3-12 and analyzed below.
Table 3-12 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Impacts to Mineral Resources
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Finding: No impact There is no mineral source classified as MRZ-2 located at or near the project site (NCGP, 1995). Therefore, the project would not cause the loss of availability of known mineral resources. No impact would occur. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Finding: No impact The project area contains no known mineral resource of local importance, based on maps presented in the Nevada County General Plan (NCGP, 1995). Therefore, the project would not cause the loss of availability of locally important minerals. No impact would occur.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-146 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.12 NOISE 3.12.1 SETTING The Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) is proposing upgrades and improvements to its existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and spray irrigation disposal system. The proposed project is located in Soda Springs, California in Nevada County. Project activities are planned on two separate parcels. The ten-acre WWTP site, which is partly developed, is situated on land under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service (Tahoe National Forest) south of the Yuba River and north of Interstate 80. Much of this parcel is covered by the existing WWTP. The general noise environment of the WWTP site is that of light industry. Proposed improvements to the existing WWTP include increased capacity for flow equalization storage (new equalization storage tank), headworks upgrades, ammonia feed system, Micro-C feed system, Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) filters, ultraviolet (UV) disinfection systems, boiler and recirculation pumps to heat the influent during certain times of the year, among others (see Table 3-1). The project construction is expected to last approximately 2 years from 2012 to 2013.
The second project location includes a 25-acre parcel located on land south of Interstate 80 and owned by Boreal Ski Corporation. It is bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad on the north, the Nevada-Placer County line on the south, the existing irrigation disposal site and Soda Springs Ski Area to the east, and a U.S. Forest Service parcel to the west. Improvements on this parcel involve the expansion of the existing effluent spray field, which will include the extension of a water main, a possible pump station, and new sprinkler system. Improvements on this parcel involve the expansion of the existing effluent spray field, which currently operates on the Soda Spring Ski Area. The general noise environment of the effluent spray field is characteristic of a rural forested area. The project construction related to the irrigation expansion site is expected to last approximately 1 construction season during 2013.
The location of the proposed upgrades are close enough to both Interstate 80 and the Union Pacific Railroad that noise from project construction and subsequent operation of both sites would not add substantially to the current noise environment in either project location. Construction-related noise levels would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment (see Table 3.12-1 for project construction equipment overview). Noise levels from typical individual pieces of construction equipment range from about 70 to 90 dBA at a distance of approximately 50 feet (Chapter 9.4 Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges, Construction Noise Handbook, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006). Due to the large amounts of granite rock at both sites, blasting during construction is expected in order to prepare the sites for construction. The most significant blasting could occur on the WWTP site since mass grading (>1 acre) will be necessary and due to the large rocks and boulders that occur there. Blasting during construction is considered to be the largest noise impact of the project. Additionally, construction equipment such as chainsaws for tree removal, graders, haulers, excavators, etc has been factored into the analysis of noise impacts from the proposed project. Mitigation to minimize noise impacts during project construction is listed in the impact analysis below.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-147 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Heavy equipment will be restricted from sensitive habitats (determined by biological, archaeological, and historical resource surveys completed in summer of 2010). There will also be a 100 foot minimum setback from the South Yuba River where no vegetation removal or disturbance will occur within that conservation area. Each new structure added to the project sites will be in compliance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code which requires noise insulation. As part a part of Best Management Practices (BMPs), DSPUD will implement the following BMPs to minimize noise impacts during all construction activities:
All construction activities and material delivery will be limited to 7am through 7pm on weekdays and Saturdays
The WWTP site is zoned as a ‘Public’ land use and the irrigation expansion site is zoned as a ‘Forest’ land use in the 1995 Nevada County General Plan. The 1995 Nevada County General Plan cites typical noise levels for ‘Public’ and ‘Forest’ land use as a minimum of 55 dBA to and a maximum of 75 dBA. The current ambient noise environment near the project sites includes noise from local vehicular and truck traffic on I-80, the Union Pacific railroad, and existing WWTP and spray irrigation field operations. These noise sources generally have noise levels in the range of 55 to 75 dbA (Chapter 9: Noise, Volume 1, Nevada County General Plan, 1995). The nearest noise receptor in the vicinity of the WWTP project site that would be affected by construction generated noise are houses and businesses located approximately 650 feet south of the WWTP (across I-80) and 950 feet northeast of the WWTP. Current WWTP operations are audible from the WWTP property line, but are not distinguishable from background noise levels at the locations listed above.
The nearest noise receptors in the vicinity of the spray irrigation expansion project site that would be affected by construction generated noise are the various homes and businesses along Donner Pass Road and Soda Springs Road, the closest of which is approximately 450 feet north of the existing and future spray irrigation sites. However, the spray irrigation operations are not expected to be audible from these noise receptors and will not be distinguishable from background noise levels at the locations listed above. Therefore, no noise sensitive receptors are found in the immediate vicinity of either project site.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-148 WWTP Upgrade Project Table 3-12.1 DSPUD WWTP Upgrade Project Overview and Proposed Schedule
# of equipment in use Estimated Improvement Principal Construction Activities Equipment per day Location Average Trips Estimated Date of Construction (All equipment used 8 hours/day) per Day
WWTP General Site Preparation Dozer WWTP Site Construction: May 2012 (Estimated Duration = 2 Weeks) Upgrades Tree Removal Skidder Spray Irrigation Site Construction will take place during Construction Season Phase 1 Pioneering 2 Loaders 4 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day WWTP Site/ 2013 Spray Irrigation 25 Chipping Small Crew Trucks Site 4 Tractors Chainsaws
WWTP Mass Excavation 3-4 Scrapers WWTP Site Construction: May/June 2012 (Estimated Duration = 1 Month) Upgrades Fine Site Grading Blade Spray Irrigation Site Construction will take place during Construction Season Phase 2 Cut/Fill Operations 2 Loaders 2013 Blasting (1 Week) 4 Dozers WWTP Site/ 10 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day Spray Irrigation 25 Demolition 4 Tractors Site Small Crew Trucks Excavator Backhoe
WWTP Underground Work Backhoes June/July 2012 (Estimated Duration = 1 Month) Upgrades Utility Installation Loaders Phase 3 Piping Delivery Underground Utility Equipment 5 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day WWTP Site 25 Bedding/ Backfill Material Dump Trucks 4 Tractors Small Crew Trucks
WWTP Building Construction Dump Trucks July-October 2012 Upgrades Installation of Mechanical Backhoes May-October 2013 Phase 4 Equipment Excavators 3 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day (Estimated Duration = 8-10 Months) Underground Infrastructure Loaders WWTP Site 15
Crane
Hand Tools Small Crew Trucks
WWTP Finish Grading (3 Weeks) 1 Scraper September/ October 2013 (Estimated Duration = 1 Month) Upgrades Finish Paving (1 Week) 1 Blade 3 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day Phase 5 5 Dump Trucks WWTP Site 10
Paving Equipment Small Crew Trucks
Spray Irrigation Pump Station (2 months) Backhoes Spray Irrigation Site Construction will take place during Construction Season Upgrades and Irrigation Piping/ Pipeline (90 days) 2 Loaders 2013 Expansion Hook into Existing Main and Pond Underground Utility Equipment Estimated Duration = 5 Months Dump Trucks Occurring Simultaneously with WWTP Construction Spray Irrigation 4 Tractors 3 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day 10 Site 3-4 scrapers Blade 4 Dozers Small Crew Trucks Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.12.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Nevada County General Plan Noise in Nevada County is generated primarily by traffic on major roadways, railroad operations, airports, and localized noise sources. Future noise problems in Nevada County are predicted to continue to be transportation related. Overall noise levels in the County generally do not surpass background noise levels. Table 3-12.2 from the Nevada County General Plan, lists the County’s exterior noise limits according to land use. The spray irrigation site qualifies under Forest (FOR) and the WWTP site is designated a Public (PUB) land use. Table 3-12.3 summarizes typical environmental noise levels. Table 3.12-4 was compiled by the U.S. Department of Transportation and summarizes construction equipment noise emissions (Chapter 9: Noise, Volume 1, Nevada County General Plan, 1995 & Section 3: Noise Analysis, Volume 2, Nevada County General Plan, 1995).
Table 3-12.2 Exterior Noise Limits Land Use Noise Level, dBA Zoning Districts Time Period Category Leq Lmax Rural “A1” “TPZ” 7am - 7pm 55 75 “AE” “OS” 7pm – 10pm 50 65 “FR” “IDR” 10pm – 7am 40 55 Residential and “RA” “R2” 7am - 7pm 55 75 Public “R1” “R3” 7pm – 10pm 50 65 “P” 10pm – 7am 45 60 Commercial and “C1” “CH” “CS” 7am – 7pm 70 90 recreation “C2” “C3” 7pm – 7am 65 75 “OP” “REC” Business Park “BP” 7am – 7pm 65 85 7pm – 7am 60 70 Industrial “M1” “M2” any time 80 90 (Source: Chapter 9: Noise, Volume 1, Nevada County General Plan, 1995)
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-150 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Table 3-12.3 Typical Environmental Noise Levels Subjective Interpretation/ Noise Source Sound Level (dBA) Human Response Civil defense siren (at 100 feet) 130 Pain Threshold
Jet Takeoff (at 200 feet) 120 Deafening
Rock concert (at 50 feet) 110
Pile Driver (at 50 feet) 100 Very loud
Ambulance siren (at 100 feet) 90
Diesel locomotive (at 25 feet) 85 Loud
Pneumatic drill (at 50 feet) 80
Freeway (at 100 feet) 70 Moderately Loud
Vacuum cleaner (at 10 feet) 60
Light traffic (at 100 feet) 50
Large transformer (at 200 feet) 40 Quiet
Quiet urban nighttime 40
Soft Whisper (at 5 feet) 30
Quiet rural nighttime 20-30
Threshold of hearing 0 Threshold of hearing (Source: IFC J&S, Draft Environmental Impact report NID DS Canal Flume Replacement Project, 2009)
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-151 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Table 3-12.4 Noise Emission Levels
Actual Measured L @ 50 feet (dBA, slow) (Samples Equipment Description max Averaged) All Other Equipment > 5 HP N/A Auger Drill Rig 84 Backhoe 78 Bar Bender N/A Blasting N/A Boring Jack Power Unit 83 Chain Saw 84 Clam Shovel (dropping) 87 Compactor (ground) 83 Compressor (air) 78 Concrete Batch Plant N/A Concrete Mixer Truck 79 Concrete Pump Truck 81 Concrete Saw 90 Crane 81 Dozer 82 Drill Rig Truck 79 Drum Mixer 80 Dump Truck 76 Excavator 81 Flat Bed Truck 74 Front End Loader 79 Generator 81 Generator (<25KVA, VMS Signs) 73 Gradall 83 Grader N/A Grapple (on backhoe) 87 Horizontal Boring Hydraulic Jack 82 Hydra Break Ram N/A Jackhammer 89 Man Lift 75
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-152 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Actual Measured L @ 50 feet (dBA, slow) (Samples Equipment Description max Averaged) Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 90 Pavement Scarifier 90 Paver 77 Pickup Truck 75 Pneumatic Tools 85 Pumps 81 Refrigerator Unit 73 Rivit Buster/Chipping Gun 79 Rock Drill 81 Roller 80 Scraper 84 Slurry Plant 78 Slurry Trenching Machine 80 Soil Mix Drill Rig N/A Tractor N/A Vacuum Excavator (Vac-Truck) 85 Vacuum Street Sweeper 82 Ventilation Fan 79 Vibrating Hopper 87 Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 Welder/Torch 74 (Source: Chapter 9.4 Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges, Construction Noise Handbook, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006)
The Noise Element includes the following specific goals, objectives, and policies that are applicable to the proposed Project:
Goal 9.1 Provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of Nevada County through a set of policies designed to encourage an environment free of unnecessary and annoying noise.
Objective 9.1 Determine the existing noise environment and continue to reassess this environment so that a realistic set of noise standards can be developed reflecting the varying nature of different land uses.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-153 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
o c. The above standards shall be measured only on property containing a noise sensitive land use as defined in Policy 9.8 and may be measured anywhere on the property containing said land use. However, this measurement standard may be amended to provide for measurement at the boundary of a recorded noise easement or as determined in a recorded letter of agreement between all affected property owners and approved by the County.
o f. The above standards shall not apply to those activities associated with the actual construction of a project or to those projects associated with the provision of emergency services or functions.
o g. The standards of this policy shall be enforced through compliance inspections and/or complaints.
Objective 9.2 Encourage public awareness of noise and its hazards and means to minimize its existing and future impacts.
Policy 9.5 Encourage heavy truck traffic to those routes outside residential areas.
Objective 9.3 Develop a realistic policy framework designed to function as a guide to planning for appropriate land uses in relation to hazardous and annoying noise.
Policy 9.8 Strongly encourage future noise sensitive land uses, including residences, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, churches, and libraries, to those location of the County where the impact of noise generators is limited so that compliance with standards found in Policy 9.1 will be maintained. This policy shall apply to the approval of all tentative maps for residentially zoned parcels. As an additional guide in evaluating land use compatibility, those standards as found in Figure 1 shall be used.
Policy 9.11 Provide for adequate design controls to assist in mitigating on-site the significant adverse impacts of future noise generating land uses through increased setbacks, landscaping, earthen berms, and solid fencing.
Policy 9.12 Strictly enforce the noise insulation standards for new construction as required by Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
Policy 9.13 Minimize the noise impact from automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and off-road vehicles by continuing to request enforcement of those sections of the California Vehicle Code relative to vehicle exhaust system maintenance by the County Sheriff and State Highway Patrol.
Policy 9.16 Encourage the minimization of noise emission from all County-controlled activities consistent with Policy 9.1 standards.
(Chapter 9: Noise, Volume 1, Nevada County General Plan, 1995 & Section 3: Noise Analysis, Volume 2, Nevada County General Plan, 1995)
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-154 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Nevada County Zoning Regulations
Article 4.0: Comprehensive Site Development Standards Section L-II 4.1.7 Noise A. Purpose. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that future development minimizes unnecessary and annoying noise, by establishing maximum noise levels and standards for evaluating potential noise impacts. B. Applicability. Noise standards shall apply to all discretionary projects, including Development Permits and Use Permits, unless otherwise excepted in this Section. C. Definitions. o 1. dBA - The “A-weighted” scale for measuring sound in decibels (a unit used to express the relative intensity of a sound as it is heard by the human ear). This logarithmic scale reduces the effects of low and high frequencies in order to simulate human hearing. o 2. Leq - The energy equivalent level, defined as the average sound level on the basis of sound energy (or sound pressure squared). It is the level of constant sound which, in a given situation and time period, has the same sound energy as does a time varying sound. o 3. Lmax - The maximum sound pressure level for a given period of time. D. Noise Standards. All land use projects requiring a Development Permit or a Use Permit shall comply with the noise standards provided herein. Permitted residential land uses, including parcel and tentative maps, are not subject to these standards. o 1. A comprehensive noise study shall be prepared for all projects requiring a Development Permit or a Use Permit and which have a potential to create noise levels inconsistent with the standards contained herein. The study shall be prepared in accordance with the methodology identified in the Noise Element Manual contained in General Plan, Volume 2, Section 3 – Noise Analysis Appendix A, Table A-1. o 2. Projects with the potential for generating noise impacts shall incorporate design controls that assist in minimizing the impacts through the use of increased setbacks, landscaped earthen berms, solid fencing, placement of structures or other effective means. o 3. Compliance with the above standards shall be determined by measuring the noise level based on the mean average of not less than three 20 minute measurements for any given time period. Additional noise measurements may be necessary to ensure that the ambient noise level is adequately determined. All measurements shall be conducted by a qualified person experienced in the field of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics. o 4. Where 2 different zoning districts abut, the standard applicable to the lower, or more restrictive, district plus 5 dBA shall apply. o 5. The above standards shall be measured only on property containing a noise sensitive land use, including residences, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, churches, and libraries, and may be measured anywhere on the property containing said land use. However, this measurement standard may be amended to provide for measurement at the boundary of a recorded noise easement or as determined in a recorded letter of agreement between all affected property owners and approved by the County. o 6. If the measured ambient level exceeds that permitted, then the allowable noise exposure standard shall be set at 5 dBA above the ambient.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-155 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
o 7. Because of the unique nature of sound, the County reserves the right to provide for a more restrictive standard than shown in the Exterior Noise Limits Table. The maximum adjustment shall be limited to be not less than the current ambient noise level and shall not exceed the standards of this Section. Imposition of a noise level adjustment shall only be considered if one or more of the following conditions are found to exist: . a. Unique characteristics of the noise source: 1) The noise contains a very high or low frequency, is of a pure tone (a steady, audible tone such as a whine, screech, or hum), or contains a wide divergence in frequency spectra between the noise source and ambient level; 2) The noise is impulsive in nature (such as hammering, riveting, or explosions), or contains music or speech; 3) The noise source is of a long duration, defined as a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour. . b. Unique characteristics of the noise receptor when the ambient noise level is determined to be 5 dBA or more below the standard of the Exterior Noise Limits Table for those projects requiring a General Plan amendment, rezoning, and/or Use Permit. In such instances, the new standard shall not exceed 10 dBA above the ambient or the Exterior Noise Limits Table standard, whichever is more restrictive. o 8. The above standards shall not apply to those activities associated with the actual construction of a project or to those projects associated with the provision of emergency services or functions. o 9. The standards of this Section shall be enforced through compliance inspections and/or complaints. o 10. A legal nonconforming use inconsistent with the noise standards of this Section shall be required to comply with said standards in the event it upgrades, enlarges, intensifies, extends, moves, or recommences after abandonment or discontinuance of a period of 180 days or more. In the event such a use is changed or modified through the permit process, the noise standards in this Section shall be applied only to that portion of the land use requiring approval, provided, however, that in no event shall the noise cumulatively generated from the entire use on the site after the change or modification exceed the pre-permit ambient noise level. All such projects that have a potential to create noise levels inconsistent with the standards in this Section will require a noise study consistent with this Section.
(Nevada County Land Use and Development Code, Chapter II: Zoning Regulations, Adopted 10/23/07, Amended 06/08/10)
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-156 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.12.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS Potential noise impacts from construction activities area addressed in Table 3-12.5 and discussed below.
Table 3-12.5 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Noise Impacts
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport of public use airport, would the project 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? a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporation The location of the proposed upgrades are close enough to both Interstate 80 and the Union Pacific Railroad that noise from project construction and subsequent operation at both sites would not add substantially to the current noise environment. Construction-related noise levels would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment. Noise levels from typical individual pieces of construction equipment range generally from 70 to 90 dBA at a distance of approximately 50 feet (Chapter 9.4 Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges, Construction Noise Handbook, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006). Due to the large amounts of granite rock at both sites, blasting during construction is expected especially at the WWTP
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-157 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
site. Blasting during construction is considered to be the largest potential noise impact caused by the project.
The construction of the proposed WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Project would entail the use of construction related equipment, including but not limited to, chainsaws for tree removal, grading equipment, haulers, excavators, etc. during a period of two construction seasons (2012-2013). As part a part of Best Management Practices (BMPs), DSPUD will implement the following BMP to minimize noise impacts during all construction activities:
All construction activities and material delivery will be limited to 7am through 7pm on weekdays and Saturdays
At both project sites, it is unlikely that equipment noise would exceed OSHA's regulatory PEL for noise of 90 dBA. The nearest noise receptor in the vicinity of the WWTP project site that would be affected by construction generated noise are houses located approximately 650 feet south of the WWTP and 950 feet north east of the WWTP. Current WWTP operations are audible from the WWTP property line, but are not distinguishable from background noise levels at the locations listed above.
The nearest noise receptor in the vicinity of the spray irrigation expansion site that would be affected by construction generated noise include the various homes and businesses along Donner Pass Road and Soda Springs Road located at the closest point approximately 450 feet north of the spray irrigation site. However, the spray irrigation expansion construction and operations is not expected to be audible from these noise receptors and will not be distinguishable from background noise levels at the locations listed above. Therefore, no noise sensitive receptors are found in the immediate vicinity of the project sites. Overall, the closest sensitive receptors to both project sites are over 450 feet away and noise impacts would be minimal at that distance (see Tables 3.12-3 & 3.12-4).
Although construction activities are not expected to generate noise levels in excess of the Nevada County General Plan, County Zoning Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, DSPUD will make every effort to reduce the impacts to neighbors from noise. Due to heightened noise levels generated by blasting and overall noise generated from construction activities, Mitigation Measures NOISE-01 and NOISE-02 will be implemented. Mitigation Measure NOISE-01 specifically requires noise attenuating structures to assist in keeping noise levels for surrounding residents at acceptable levels during construction that requires blasting. Therefore, impacts are expected to be less than significant with mitigation incorporation. b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporation Construction-related noise levels would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment but would only take place between 7am and 7pm on weekdays and Saturdays. Noise levels from typical individual pieces of construction equipment range generally from 70 to 90 dBA at a distance of approximately 50 feet (Chapter 9.4 Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges, Construction Noise Handbook, U.S. Department of
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-158 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Transportation, 2006). Construction equipment used during the project such as chainsaws for tree removal, grading equipment, excavators, backhoes, haulers, cement trucks, dump trucks and other equipment has been factored into potential noise impacts from the project and may generate localized ground borne vibration or noise levels. Due to the large amounts of granite rock at both sites, especially at the WWTP site, blasting during construction is expected. Blasting during construction is considered to be the largest potential noise impact from project construction. However, the closest sensitive receptors to both project sites are over 450 feet away and noise impacts would be minimal at that distance (see Tables 3.12-3 & 3.12-4). Potential ground borne vibrations or noise would be temporary and would occur during daylight hours. Furthermore, any potential ground borne vibrations or noise would be mitigated with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-01 and NOISE-02. Therefore, ground borne noise and vibration impacts are expected to be less than significant with mitigation incorporation. c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Finding: Less than significant The operation of the project will be similar to existing operations. The project is not expected to cause a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. The proposed WWTP equipment would be operated continuously over a 24- hour period, with operation slowing slightly during the nighttime hours in connection with decreased wastewater flows. Noise generated from the operation of the proposed spray irrigation field (in combination with the existing noise environment) would be negligible and is not considered a permanent substantial impact on ambient noise levels at off-site sensitive receptor locations due to the distance from the both project sites to the nearest receptors. Therefore, impacts are expected to be less than significant. d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Finding: Less than significant with Mitigation Incorporated Current ambient noise in the improvement area ranges from 50-70 dBA from light traffic and freeway noise (see Table 3.12-3). The daily operation of the WWTP generates relatively little noise when compared to background noise levels. Construction-related noise levels would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment. Noise levels from typical individual pieces of construction equipment generally range from 70 to 90 dBA at a distance of approximately 50 feet (Chapter 9.4 Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges, Construction Noise Handbook, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006). Construction will occur over two construction seasons (2012-2013) and will be temporary in nature, so noise levels will return to ambient levels after construction is completed. Construction equipment used during the project such as chainsaws for tree removal, grading equipment, excavators, backhoes, haulers, cement trucks, dump trucks and other equipment has been factored into potential noise impacts of the proposed project.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-159 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The nearest noise receptor in the vicinity of the WWTP project site that would be affected by construction generated noise are houses located approximately 650 feet south of the WWTP and 950 feet north east of the WWTP. Current WWTP operations are audible from the WWTP property line, but are not distinguishable from background noise levels at the locations listed above; therefore, nopise levels at the closest receptors should be minimized during daytime hours.
The nearest noise receptor in the vicinity of the spray irrigation expansion site that would be affected by construction generated noise include the various homes and businesses along Donner Pass Road and Soda Springs Road located at the closest point approximately 450 feet north of the spray irrigation field site. However, the spray irrigation operations is not expected to be audible from these noise receptors and will not be distinguishable from background noise levels at the locations listed above.
Due to the large amounts of granite rock at both sites, blasting during construction is expected. Blasting during construction is considered to be the largest noise impact of the project. Mitigation Measures NOISE-01 and NOISE-02 will be implemented to assist in keeping noise levels for surrounding residents at acceptable levels during construction. Mitigation Measure NOISE-02 specifically requires all project components for plant operation to be rated for less than 75 dBA to comply with the 1995 Nevada County General Plan exterior noise limits in “Public” and “Forest” land use designation areas. WWTP operations are expected to be less than the ambient noise levels created by light traffic and Interstate 80 (see Table 3.12-3).
Additionally, construction equipment will be rated for less than 90 dBA for no more than 8 hours per workday to meet OSHA requirements. If any equipment exceeds 90 dBa, the contractor shall install noise attenuating structures in order to comply with OSHA requirements. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project with the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-01 and NOISE-02. Impacts are expected to be less than significant with Mitigation Incorporated. 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 of public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: No impact The proposed project sites are not located within an airport land use plan (Nevada County General Plan, 1995), or within two miles of a public airport. There are three public airports near the DSPUD WWTP upgrade project sites; however, the closest public airport to the project sites, Truckee-Tahoe Airport, is over 12 miles away (Google Earth Pro, 2010 & airnav.com).
The proposed project includes upgrades to an existing WWTP and spray irrigation expansion and does not include residential or commercial development that would place people in the vicinity of the project. Furthermore, construction-related noise will be temporary, lasting two construction seasons. Therefore, the project would not expose people living or working in the area to excessive noise. Therefore, no impact would occur.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-160 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
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? Finding: No impact There is one private airstrip in the area, Totem Pole Ranch Airport; however the airstrip is over 22 miles away from the project sites (Google Earth Pro, 2010 & airnav.com). DSPUD is proposing upgrades and improvements to its existing WWTP and expansion of its spray irrigation disposal system and thus would not interfere with the use of these airstrips.
Noise associated with the construction of these upgrades would be of short duration, lasting approximately two construction seasons. Permanent operational noise is minimal compared to existing background noise levels in the area. Therefore, the project would not expose people living or working in the area to excessive noise. Therefore, no impact would occur.
3.12.4 MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure NOISE-01: Blasting Noise Control Plan The Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) shall require that the selected contractor implement the following Noise Control Plan when blasting at both project sites. The following will be conducted prior to and during blasting to control noise levels:
Notify residents and businesses via mail and door hangers within 1,500 feet of both project sites of planned blasting 10 days prior to commencement of blasting. Samples of the letter and door hanger shall be approved by the DSPUD prior to public release. The blaster shall install noise attenuation barriers around the blasting activities and around key portions of tanks at the WWTP site to reduce the direct and ricocheted noise impacts to neighbors.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-01 Implementation Responsible Party: DSPUD would require that the contractor(s) implement the Blasting Noise Control Plan Timing: The contractor must notify residents and businesses within 1,500 feet of both project sites of continuous blasting 10 days prior to commencement of blasting. Monitoring and Reporting Program: During blasting, inspections will be performed by a DSPUD representative and reports will be kept on file by the DSPUD for inspection by residents or other interested parties. Standards for Success: The goal is to limit excessive noise for surrounding residents and businesses and to warn residents and businesses if noise levels will exceed the normal daytime construction hours due to blasting; therefore, minimizing complaints from the public.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-02: Construction Noise Control Plan The DSPUD shall require that the selected contractor implement the following Construction Noise Control Plan during construction. The following will be put in place during all construction activities to control noise levels:
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-161 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
All project components for plant operation shall be rated for less than 75 dBA to comply with the 1995 Nevada County General Plan exterior noise limits in Public and Forest Land Use areas.
Construction equipment shall be rated for less than 90 dBA for no more than 8 hours per workday to meet OSHA requirements. If any equipment exceeds 90 dBa, the contractor shall install noise attenuating structures in order to comply with OSHA requirements.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-02 Implementation Responsible Party: DSPUD will be responsible to ensure the project contractor(s) will install noise attenuating structures, where practical. Timing: During construction (specifically during blasting activities). Monitoring and Reporting Program: During construction, impromptu inspections will be performed by a DSPUD representative. Standards for Success: The goal is to limit excessive noise for surrounding residents and businesses and minimize complaints from the public.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-162 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.13.1 SETTING
The Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is located in Soda Springs in Eastern Nevada County. Nevada County encompasses 978 square miles. According to the US Census Bureau, the projected 2009 population in Nevada County is 97,751. Nevada County averaged roughly 0.62 percent annual population growth from 1994 to 2008.
Eastern Nevada County development, where the proposed project will take place, is more consolidated but has grown at a similar pace to western Nevada County. With less than 300 residences, Soda Springs is considered a small rural community. DSPUD serves a total of 545 customers through the treatment of their wastewater at the existing WWTP. DSPUD also supplies water for snow making to Boreal Ridge, Soda Springs, and Sugar Bowl (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) (Nevada County Website, 2010) (Volume 1, Nevada County General Plan, 1995, 2009). The DSPUD proposed project will be implemented in Nevada County at both the WWTP and irrigation expansion sites, but serves customers in both Nevada and Placer Counties.
3.13.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Nevada County General Plan Both project sites are located in Nevada County and would therefore be governed by the County’s General Plan. The Nevada County General Plan (1995, 2009) includes the following specific objectives and policies that are applicable to the proposed project as it relates to population and housing:
Objective 1.6 Maintain a land use pattern based upon criteria that establish the amount of land use types necessary to meet the needs of the population/employment levels, while recognizing the unique character of each Community Region.
Policy 1.7 Within the Rural Regions, Rural Places are established to define places as centers of activity for the surrounding rural areas. Rural Places are established for Alta Sierra, Cascade Shores, Cedar Ridge, Chicago Park, Red Dog/You Bet, Rough and Ready, North San Juan, Washington, Soda Springs, and Hirschdale. The pattern of development for each Rural Place as shown on the General Plan Land Use Maps shall reflect its specific character providing for recognition of the existing focus and function.
Policy 1.22 The General Plan shall provide for population densities in the respective land use designation based upon the maximum number of dwelling units or persons per acre for the minimum parcel area per dwelling.
GOAL RC-8.1 Decrease governmental constraints and streamline the processing of housing development to expedite development of affordable housing and reduce the costs of development without compromising other General Plan objectives.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-163 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
GOAL RC-8.2 Mitigate non-governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement and development of housing to the extent possible.
GOAL HD-8.1 To provide for a variety of housing types by tenure and price in all residential areas for all income segments, special needs groups, and the County’s workforce for both existing Nevada County residents, as well as potential future residents, commensurate with the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) Plan and the County’s quantified objectives.
GOAL HD-8.3 Ensure that appropriate types and higher density housing development are directed to Community Regions and Rural Centers.
(Chapter 1Land Use (1995) and Chapter 8 Housing (2009), Volume 1, Nevada County General Plan)
3.13.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS The potential impacts to population and housing are qualified in Table 3-13 and are discussed below.
Table 3-13 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Population and Housing Impacts
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Finding: Less than significant impact
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-164 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
DSPUD provides wastewater treatment capacity to serve total population growth in the service area (see Figure 2-4 for service area served). Without adequate wastewater treatment capacity, population growth could be constrained in the DSPUD area of service. Therefore, DSPUD’s actions have an influence on regional growth, specifically within their service area.
DSPUD currently serves the following number of EDUs (Equivalent Dwelling Units): Sierra Lakes County Water District (SLCWD) current EDUs are 818 - 796 residential EDU - 22 commercial EDU DSPUD current EDUs are 818.5 Total EDUs Currently Served by DSPUD WWTP: 1,635.5 (Source: DSPUD, 2011)
The proposed project could increase EDUs by the following maximum amount: SLCWD could increase their EDUs by 260 DSPUD could increase their EDUs by 471 Total maximum increase associated with the WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Project is 731 EDUs (Source: DSPUD, 2011)
The proposed upgrades and expansion of the DSPUD WWTP has been designed to accommodate land use development and growth in accordance with the adopted general plans for the land use jurisdictions within its service area. For example, DSPUD could serve additional 260 EDUs within the SLCWD, and these 260 EDUs are already within an existing approved subdivision and approved lots, but those 260 EDUs have never connected to the DSPUD WWTP mostly due to the lack of capacity at the existing WWTP. DSPUD has also reserved 109 EDUs for hook up to the WWTP once the upgrades and expansion occur. The remaining potential increase in EDUs would be reserved for existing landowners that currently do not have a hook up to the WWTP and therefore, their existing parcel is not developable until they receive a hook up. This has not occurred mostly due to the lack of capacity at the existing WWTP.
The local jurisdictions regulate land use growth, and the location of development; land use decisions do not lie within the authority of DSPUD. In this sense, the upgrades and expansion of the WWTP represents an accommodation to growth and compliance with Nevada and Placer County policies for provisions of superior levels of facilities and services prior to or concurrent with planned development.
The local jurisdictions regulate land use planning through adoption of general plans, zoning regulations, and pertinent amendments. While wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services may be provided by DSPUD to levels set in general plans, local jurisdictions may change their plans independent of DSPUD. It is possible that the local jurisdiction could rezone and amend their currently adopted general plans and thereby influence higher or lower levels of growth. DSPUD could then implement expansion of a faster or slower basis to accommodate the actual levels of growth.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-165 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The proposed project will increase treatment capacity of the existing WWTP to serve the population within the area of DSPUD service. The increased treatment capacity at the WWTP is not intended to indirectly affect growth in the area DSPUD serves which is not already planned within the Placer and Nevada County General Plans. The increase in capacity is meant to prepare for the already planned and approved Nevada and Placer County projects and better serve the existing population. The increased treatment capacity will also be within the permitted discharge levels as DSPUD is not applying to increase current discharge levels in their permit. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: No impact The project would not cause displacement of existing housing because no houses are located within either project site. The project will not displace any housing or people nor necessitate any replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur. c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: No impact No houses are located within either project site. The project will not displace any housing or people nor necessitate any replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-166 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 3.14.1 SETTING The Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) owns and operates the DSPUD wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), which provides services to the Van Norden and Soda Springs areas, the Sugar Bowl and Soda Springs Ski Resorts, the Serene Lakes Subdivision, and the Sierra Lakes County Water District (SLCWD) (See Figure 2-2 for area of service). The WWTP main facilities and irrigation disposal fields are located within eastern Nevada County in Soda Springs, CA. A conceptual layout of the existing and proposed upgrades to the WWTP is presented as Figure 2.3-2.
Plant effluent is discharged to the South Yuba River when land disposal is not practical at the Soda Springs Ski Area (during wet season). During the dry season, effluent is disposed of at the Soda Springs Ski Area located south of Donner Pass Road and approximately 0.3 miles south and east of the DSPUD WWTP. The existing spray irrigation area is approximately 45 acres. As part of this project, the spray irrigation disposal system will be expanded to accommodate additional effluent generated by growth within DSPUD and SLCWD. The potential additional land disposal area is approximately 5.3 acres of which about 3 acres will be needed for irrigation.
All treated effluent applied to the Soda Springs Ski Area is pumped from the WWTP via irrigation water conveyance and distribution facilities owned and operated by the DSPUD. A new main pipeline will be extended from the existing sprinkler irrigation area to the west to feed the expanded irrigation system. A conceptual layout of the main extension and possible sprinkler expansion area is presented as Figure 2.3-4. A new pump station may possibly be installed near the existing irrigation runoff recovery pond on the northeast area of the existing irrigation site. The new pump station would serve to pump treated effluent through the new and expanded irrigation system. The discharge of treated effluent water to land is regulated by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB also regulates the effluent discharge to the South Yuba River.
Fire Protection The Truckee Fire Protection Department (TFPD) is located at 53823 Sherritt Lane which is adjacent to the WWTP facilities and shares the same building as the WWTP administrative office. The fire department personnel consist of mostly volunteer firefighters. The TFPD is responsible for responding to any fire emergencies at the WWTP.
Police Protection The nearest police station to the WWTP is the Truckee Police Department located at 10183 Truckee Airport Road in Truckee. The division is staffed by a captain, 4 sergeants, 14 officers and a group of reserve officers and volunteers. Public safety in this portion of eastern Nevada County is provided by the Nevada County Sheriff’s Department located at 10879 Donner Pass Road in the Town of Truckee.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-167 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Schools Twelve school districts serve Nevada County, including Chicago Park School District, Clear Creek School District, Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District, Grass Valley School District, Nevada City School District, Pleasant Ridge Unified School District, Pleasant Valley School District, Ready Springs Unified School District, Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District, Twin Ridges School District, Union Hill School District, Nevada Joint Union High School District, and Sierra College Extension. The project area is located in the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District 1. The nearest school to the project area is Donner Trail Elementary School, which is approximately 8.3 miles west of the project site.
Parks Eastern Nevada County has one recreation and park district: the Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District. The project site is not located within this recreation district, and no parks are located adjacent to the project area.
3.14.2 REGULATORY SETTING Nevada County General Plan The Health and Safety Element of the Nevada County General Plan addresses a wide range of issues related to human health and safety, including emergency preparedness. The Public Facilities and Services Element addresses the changing public facility and service needs of Nevada County and provides guidance for their logical and timely extension to keep pace with County growth. These elements contain the following pertinent policies:
Objective 3.1: Public Facilities and services shall be directed as follows: a higher level to Community Regions and a lower level to Rural Regions. Objective 3.2: Ensure that the capacity, availability, financing, and capability of public services and facilities are sufficient to meet levels of service requirements for development. Objective 3.4: Develop and operate public facilities in an environmentally sound way. Objective SF-10.6.1: Maintain appropriate levels of safety and protection services and facilities on land and water for both Community and Rural Regions. Goal FP-10.7: Enhance fire safety and improve fire protection effectiveness through infrastructure and service improvements.
3.14.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
The possible impacts to Public Services are qualified in Table 3-14 and discussed below.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-168 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Table 3-14 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Impacts to Public Services
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Finding: Less than significant impact The project is designed to improve the existing WWTP in order to improve effluent water quality leaving the WWTP to the outfall location in the South Yuba River; therefore, the proposed project decreases the likelihood of possible adverse environmental impacts that would occur without the proposed improvements. The proposed project is being implemented to ensure compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board discharge requirements.
Fire protection? Due to the location of the fire department, the project could potentially impact the response time of emergency vehicles since the station is located adjacent to the WWTP and utilizes Sherritt Lane for ingress and egress. The amount of traffic generated from the construction activities should be minimal, thus limiting any affects to service ratios, response times and performance objectives. The DSPUD will require the contractor performing the work to locate lay down, staging and equipment storage areas such that any potential impact due to those activities on emergency response times is avoided. Implementation of standard traffic control measures and safety procedures for areas adjacent to and within the WWTP itself will alleviate any emergency vehicle access and response time concerns, including to potential emergencies within the plant (and construction) site itself. Traffic control measures will assure emergency vehicles have priority ingress and egress at all times during construction, thus minimizing any impacts to response time.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-169 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The net effect of the implementation of this project on the Fire Protection needs of the DSPUD should be less than significant or positive as gaseous chlorine will be removed from the site when UV disinfection facilities are constructed. Also, DSPUD has experimented with different chemicals to supplement influent BOD loading. This project will include installing Micro-Cglycerin (Micro-C) storage and delivery systems. This will eliminate the need to store flammable methanol on site for the same purpose. Ammonia is being supplied in the fall to build up the nitrifiers population for wastewater treatment so that DSPUD would have enough inventory when the peak wastewater load hits (during Christmas holidays). The added ammonia will be oxidized to nitrate. To get rid of this formed nitrate, DSPUD uses a carbon source since the influent wastewater does not have enough carbon to denitrify the nitrate completely. For this reason Micro-C is used as a carbon source and the higher the anhydrous ammonia supplied to oxidize nitrate, the higher the Micro-C needed. However, DSPUD will not store flammable methanol on site for the same purpose and will only use Micro-C for these purposes.
Police protection? Schools? Parks? The project would not generate an increased burden on public services such as police protection, schools or parks since the location of the WWTP is not near any of these facilities, nor will it generate the need for additional park space, more classrooms, or an increase in crime requiring more public safety officers. As such, the project would not affect service ratios, response times or performance objectives associated with these services.
During project activities, some public utilities within the WWTP may need to be relocated; however, relocation is not expected to result in public loss of the use of utilities for an extended period of time, if any, because most or all the conduits on the site are specific to the WWTP. Any potential utility conduit relocation would occur within the existing WWTP property boundaries. Public utilities do not exist at the proposed new effluent spray irrigation site, and thus construction activities at this site would not affect public utilities; however, any electrical hook ups that would be needed to run the irrigation expansion would be connected to the existing electrical system located at the Soda Springs Ski Area. The project would not cause physical impacts that would adversely affect existing or future anticipated governmental facilities nor would the project require the construction of new governmental facilities in order to maintain acceptable services for fire protection, police protection, parks, schools, or other public facilities/services.
Therefore, less than significant impact.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-170 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.15 RECREATION 3.15.1 SETTING Eastern Nevada County has one recreation and park district which is the Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District (TDRPD). The TDRPD operates a number of park and recreational facilities mostly within the Town of Truckee (Nevada County General Plan, 1995); none within close proximity of the project area. There are also vast amounts of national forest lands and several state parks in the Tahoe-Truckee area, as well as public and privately owned recreation areas. There are several recreational trails and waterways nearby the project sites, such as the South Yuba River and Lower Lola Montez Lake and Trail nearby the WWTP; and the Serene Lakes Recreational Area and Soda Springs Ski Area nearby the spray irrigation site. Recreational activities in Eastern Nevada County are abundant and range from hiking, biking, horseback riding, skiing, camping, fishing, etc. Access to nearby recreational facilities, such as hiking trails, waterways and ski areas, located in the project area will not be affected during construction
Per the 1995 Nevada County General Plan, Donner Pass Road is considered a major scenic roadway in the County which is important for its scenic resources. Access to this roadway is not anticipated to be affected during construction with only a few additional daily trips contributed to the project construction during the weekdays and off-ski season.
3.15.2 REGULATORY SETTING Nevada County General Plan The Recreation Element of the Nevada County General Plan contains policies and objectives that are applicable to the proposed project.
Objective 5.7: Preserve and encourage water based recreational opportunities.
3.15.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Impacts to recreation are qualified in Table 3-15 and discussed below.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-171 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Table 3-15 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Impacts to Recreation
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation
XV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: No impact The proposed project consists of improvements to the existing DSPUD WWTP and expansion of the effluent spray irrigation site. It does not involve construction of additional housing or lodging, or other facilities that would cause an increase in the population and thus use of recreational facilities. There are no existing or proposed neighborhoods or regional parks within or near the WWTP site or spray irrigation expansion site. All recreational facilities near the project sites are either on national forest land or privately owned. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Finding: No impact
The proposed project involves upgrades to the WWTP which do not include recreational facilities. The project will include upgrades to the existing disinfection process with UV disinfection thus improving the water quality discharged to the South Yuba River, which is environmentally beneficial to the recreational waterway. Since the project does not include construction or expansion of recreational facilities, there will not be an adverse physical effect on the environment from the proposed project. However, the expansion of the spray irrigation site could potentially increase the useable terrain at the Soda Springs Ski Area for skiing and tubing since there will be removal of trees, but no adverse physical environmental impacts are anticipated. Therefore, no impact would occur.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-172 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
3.16.1 SETTING
The Donner Summit Utility District (DSPUD) wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is located at 53823 Sherritt Lane approximately 0.2 miles northeast of the intersection of Donner Pass Road and Interstate 80 (I-80). The WWTP is bordered on the southeast and southwest by I-80 and on the south by Donner Pass Road. The WWTP is located on public lands managed by the US Forest Service. There are some single family residences within the vicinity of the WWTP which are accessed via Sherritt Lane. The Truckee Fire Protection Department (TFPD) is located on the WWTP site, sharing the same building. The effluent spray irrigation site is located just south of I-80 and Donner Pass Road approximately 0.3 miles south and east of the WWTP within the Soda Springs Ski Area which is land owned by Boreal Ridge Corporation. Access to the irrigation disposal site is via Soda Springs Road which crosses the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks.
Roadways that provide access to the WWTP include Sherritt Lane and potentially Donner Pass Road if a new WWTP access road is constructed during construction. Donner Pass Road is a west-east roadway that was originally named Highway 40, now known as Old Highway 40. It extends west from Interstate 80 to Big Bend, and extends east from Interstate 80, over the summit, into the Town of Truckee where it feeds into State Route 89. Donner Pass Road is a two lane road classified as a major collector; however, in the vicinity of the project it is not heavily used, especially in the non-ski season. It is primarily used to access private residences and small businesses located in Soda Springs and Norden, as a scenic bypass over Donner Summit in the dry season, and to access ski resorts in the winter ski season. Sherritt Lane is classified as a local road which dead ends shortly after the WWTP and is used to access a few private residences and small residential roads, and the WWTP and TFPD. Soda Springs Road is also considered a local road which is primarily used to access the Soda Springs Ski Area, recreational sites, and private residences. It eventually turns into Foresthill Road outside of Foresthill, but soon after leaving Soda Springs it turns to a rough dirt road mainly used by 4x4 vehicles.
The proposed improvements to the WWTP would generate additional vehicle trips (by construction trucks and workers) that would temporarily increase traffic volumes on area roadways used to access the work zone (see Table 3.16-1 for a summary of increases traffic during construction).
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-173 WWTP Upgrade Project Table 3-16.1 DSPUD WWTP Upgrade Project Overview and Proposed Schedule
# of equipment in use Estimated Improvement Principal Construction Activities Equipment per day Location Average Trips Estimated Date of Construction (All equipment used 8 hours/day) per Day
WWTP General Site Preparation Dozer WWTP Site Construction: May 2012 (Estimated Duration = 2 Weeks) Upgrades Tree Removal Skidder Spray Irrigation Site Construction will take place during Construction Season Phase 1 Pioneering 2 Loaders 4 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day WWTP Site/ 2013 Spray Irrigation 25 Chipping Small Crew Trucks Site 4 Tractors Chainsaws
WWTP Mass Excavation 3-4 Scrapers WWTP Site Construction: May/June 2012 (Estimated Duration = 1 Month) Upgrades Fine Site Grading Blade Spray Irrigation Site Construction will take place during Construction Season Phase 2 Cut/Fill Operations 2 Loaders 2013 Blasting (1 Week) 4 Dozers WWTP Site/ 10 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day Spray Irrigation 25 Demolition 4 Tractors Site Small Crew Trucks Excavator Backhoe
WWTP Underground Work Backhoes June/July 2012 (Estimated Duration = 1 Month) Upgrades Utility Installation Loaders Phase 3 Piping Delivery Underground Utility Equipment 5 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day WWTP Site 25 Bedding/ Backfill Material Dump Trucks 4 Tractors Small Crew Trucks
WWTP Building Construction Dump Trucks July-October 2012 Upgrades Installation of Mechanical Backhoes May-October 2013 Phase 4 Equipment Excavators 3 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day (Estimated Duration = 8-10 Months) Underground Infrastructure Loaders WWTP Site 15
Crane
Hand Tools Small Crew Trucks
WWTP Finish Grading (3 Weeks) 1 Scraper September/ October 2013 (Estimated Duration = 1 Month) Upgrades Finish Paving (1 Week) 1 Blade 3 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day Phase 5 5 Dump Trucks WWTP Site 10
Paving Equipment Small Crew Trucks
Spray Irrigation Pump Station (2 months) Backhoes Spray Irrigation Site Construction will take place during Construction Season Upgrades and Irrigation Piping/ Pipeline (90 days) 2 Loaders 2013 Expansion Hook into Existing Main and Pond Underground Utility Equipment Estimated Duration = 5 Months Dump Trucks Occurring Simultaneously with WWTP Construction Spray Irrigation 4 Tractors 3 Pieces of Equipment 8hrs/day 10 Site 3-4 scrapers Blade 4 Dozers Small Crew Trucks Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.16.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The 1995 Nevada County General Plan contains transportation and circulation policies and standards that are applicable to the proposed project relating to short-term traffic impacts during construction.
Nevada County General Plan Goal LU-4.2: In Rural Regions, establish and maintain a desired level of service that supports sustainable growth and development.
PolicyLU-4.1.1: The minimum level of service allowable in Rural Regions of the County, as identified in the General Plan, shall be level of service (LOS) C, except where the existing LOS is less than C. In those situations, the LOS shall not be allowed to drop below the existing LOS. Level of service shall be based on the typical highest peak hour of weekday traffic. Special events may be permitted which temporarily exceed this minimum LOS.
Goal MV-4.1: Provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods in a manner that respects the rural character of Nevada County.
Goal MV-4.3: Provide for alternative routes for efficient service and for emergency access.
Policy MV-4.2.5: In the review of discretionary permits, the County shall consider the effect of the proposed development on the area-wide transportation network and the effect of the proposed development on the road network and other transportation facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
3.16.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Potential impacts to transportation and traffic are qualified in Table 3.16-2 and discussed below.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-175 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Table 3.16-2 Potential Impacts to Transportation and Traffic
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC - Would the project: 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 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 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 a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 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 components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Finding: Less than significant The WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Project will not impact an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system when taking into account all modes of transportation. The project will take place on WWTP property and at the spray irrigation expansion site adjacent to the Soda Sprigs Ski Area. It will not involve construction within roadways or installation of new roadways causing changes to relevant components of the circulation system or the effectiveness of the performance of the circulation system. Therefore, Impacts are considered less than significant.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-176 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Finding: Less than significant The access roads to the WWTP and effluent spray irrigation expansion site are not heavily traveled and would likely be delineated a Level of Service (LOS) A. In review of the 2005 Nevada County Regional Transportation Plan, specific LOS data for the affected project roadways does not exist; however, the intersections of Donner Pass Road and Spring Street and Donner Pass Road and I-80 westbound ramps in Truckee, which are more heavily traveled are designated LOS A. Per the 1995 Nevada County General Plan, the minimum level of service allowable in Rural Regions of the County shall be level of service (LOS) C, except where the existing LOS is less than C. Even with the addition of temporary construction traffic, the LOS should remain virtually unchanged and remain well above LOS C.
Per the Nevada County Traffic Counts Master List (10-29-2009), the average daily traffic (ADT) counts for Donner Pass Road, west of Sherritt Lane at milepost 5.5 for years 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2008 were 380, 381, 533, and 363 respectively. The ADT at Donner Pass Road, west of Soda Springs Road at milepost 4.72 for years 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2008 were 1689, 1522, 2229, and 1544 respectively; and at Donner Pass Road, east of Soda Springs Road at milepost 4.68 for years 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2008 were 914, 794, 931, and 767 respectively. Generally, these results show a decrease in average daily traffic in year 2008 from previous years, and are considered low for a roadway classified as a major collector. Therefore, the approximate 10-25 daily trips generated by the project construction will have little increase on the ADT counts for Donner Pass Road.
Project construction will not pose conflict with an applicable congestion management program. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? Finding: No impact There are no commercial or private airports within close proximity to the project site and it is not located within an existing airport planning area. The closest public airport to the WWTP project sites, Truckee-Tahoe Airport, is over 12 miles away. There is one private airstrip in the area, Totem Pole Ranch Airport; however the airstrip is over 22 miles away from the project sites. The proposed project involves upgrades to the WWTP on existing WWTP property, and at a nearby effluent spray irrigation site (Soda Springs Ski Area) and thus would not interfere with the use of any public or private airstrips or change the location or levels of air traffic. Therefore, flight patterns in the project vicinity would not be affected. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-177 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
d) Would the project substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Finding: Less than significant Access to the WWTP for construction related activities is via Sherritt Lane Road and potentially Donner Pass Road, both two lane paved roads with little traffic. Soda Springs Road accessed via Donner Pass Road will provide access to the spray irrigation expansion site. No known dangerous intersections exist or are proposed in the project area. Access to the irrigation expansion site does entail crossing the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks off of Soda Springs Road. However, all construction traffic entering and exiting the spray irrigation expansion site will not impede or increase hazards at that crossing since all vehicles will stop as directed when trains are crossing. The project may include a new WWTP access road via Donner Pass Road. However, these modifications are not considered hazardous because the roads will be utilized by WWTP personnel at low speeds, and do not include sharp or blind turns or dangerous intersections. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less than significant The WWTP is located adjacent to the Truckee Fire Protection Department (TFPD) and therefore, the TFPD would provide fire protection services to the WWTP and nearby effluent spray irrigation expansion site. The current access road for the WWTP is Sherritt Lane which provides the only access from the WWTP and TFPD to Donner Pass Road and I-80. This road is a two lane paved access road shared by the local fire department (TFPD) and used to access private residences. This entrance may not remain the primary entrance for construction traffic unless the new proposed WWTP access road is not constructed. However, at all times during construction Sherritt Lane would be kept clear for emergency vehicle access by implementing appropriate safety procedures and standard traffic control measures (i.e. emergency vehicles would be given priority ingress/egress). The DSPUD already maintains normal ingress/egress for emergency vehicles on a daily basis during deliveries, and when staff or visitors are entering and exiting the site; therefore, procedures are already in place to allow adequate emergency access. Continual and careful communication will be crucial between DSPUD and TFPD to ensure emergency access is always maintained and any emergency access impacts during construction are negated. Impact to emergency access is less than significant. f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Finding: No impact The WWTP is located in a rural setting with a small population nearby and is located on National Forest land. The WWTP is located near Soda Springs and a few single family residences. The effluent spray irrigation expansion site is located near Soda Springs, a few small businesses, and single family residences. However, the project site is devoid of commercial, residential, or business areas that are normally served by alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Per the 1995 Nevada County General Plan, circulation facilities in Nevada County other than the roadway system are relatively limited and there are very few public transit facilities within the eastern County outside the Town of Truckee. The 2007 Nevada County Bicycle Master Plan indicates a
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-178 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
proposed Class III bike path along Donner Pass Road which is part of the Rural Roads Bicycle Path Improvements Project; this could entail adding “shared roadway markings” to the existing roadway shoulder/bike lane, widening of the roadway shoulder/bike lane, restriping, and other such improvements. Project construction is not anticipated to have any effect on the bike path improvements project. The project location is not included within the Nevada County Pedestrian Improvement Plan or other intermodal transportation plans. Furthermore, the WWTP improvements project would be located on existing WWTP land and land adjacent to the Soda Springs Ski Area which would not interfere with the construction or implementation of future alternative transportation facilities per adopted policies, plans or programs, and would not decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-179 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.17.1 PHYSICAL SETTING
Wastewater The Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) owns and operates the DSPUD wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) which provides services to the Van Norden and Soda Springs areas, as well as the Sugar Bowl and Soda Springs Ski Resorts. Figure 1-2 depicts the current boundaries of the DSPUD.
In addition, through a contractual arrangement with the Sierra Lakes County Water District (SLCWD), the DSPUD treats and disposes of wastewater from SLCWD. The SLCWD owns, operates and maintains the sewer collection system within their service area. Sewage from SLCWD is conveyed generally from the Serene Lakes subdivision north along Soda Springs Road to a point just south of the South Yuba River where it flows through a flow meter structure before entering the DSPUD collection system.
The DSPUD WWTP treatment and disposal fields are located within eastern Nevada County in Soda Springs, CA. SLCWD is located within Placer County. The DSPUD WWTP was upgraded in 1985 to largely the current footprint. The Waste Discharge Requirements for the DSPUD allow the discharge of up to 0.52 million gallons per day (MGD), average dry weather flow to the South Yuba River. DSPUD is prohibited from discharging to the river in August and September. During those months and at other times when conditions dictate/allow, the treated effluent is pumped to the Soda Springs Ski Area where it is used to irrigate existing ski and tubing hills. The hydraulic capacity of the treatment plant is currently 1.17 MGD. The proposed project will provide for enhanced treatment capability and a modest increase in capacity to accommodate growth within the DSPUD and SLCWD. The increase in capacity will not result in the DSPUD being capable of discharging more than the permitted 0.52 MGD.
Water Supply DSPUD also provides domestic water to their service area from a water treatment plant they own and operate. Lake Angela is the source of DSPUD’s raw water supply.
The DSPUD plant is limited to 0.5 MGD peak flow. The DSPUD system currently serves approximately 243 customers.
SLCWD provides domestic water to their service area from a water treatment plant they own and operate. The primary source of the SLCWD drinking water is Lake Serena (the northern of the two Ice Lakes). SLCWD also has a backup well with limited capacity (~ 60 gpm) considered a Standby Source by California Department of CDPH.
The SLCWD plant is limited to 350 gpm (0.54 MGD) by the capacity of the filters; the average max day in the past 10-years was 0.246MG. SLCWD currently has 796 residential EDU connections and four commercial connections (equivalent to 22 EDUs) for a total of 818 EDUs.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-180 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Solid Waste The Eastern Regional Materials Recovery Facility (ERMRF) located 3 miles south of Truckee in Placer County handles solid waste disposal for eastern Nevada County. Solid waste from the ERMRF, which functions as a transfer station, is ultimately transported to the Lockwood Regional Landfill which is a 1,535 acre site located in Sparks, Nevada. Solid waste from DSPUD is collected and taken by Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal Services to the ERMRF. The Integrated Waste Management Board issued the Solid Waste Facility Permit No. 31-AA-625 for the ERMRF. The permitted waste tons received per day (TPD) at the ERMRF are 800 TPD maximum.
3.17.2 REGULATORY SETTING
California Regional Water Quality Control Board The Regional Water Board oversees NPDES permits and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). These permits and requirements are mandated when effluent is released into waters of the State, such as the South Yuba River. The Regional Board has granted WDRs (Order No. R5-2009-0034) and an NPDES permit (Permit No. CA0081621) to DSPUD for this purpose. The effluent is monitored as required by the Permit. The WDRs establish discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations, discharge specifications, and receiving water limitations for parameters such as pH, temperature, biochemical oxygen (BOD), fecal coliform, and total suspended solids, to name a few. Plant effluent is recycled for irrigation at the Soda Springs Ski Area when applicable. All recycled irrigation water is discharged into irrigation water conveyance and distribution facilities owned and operated by DPSUD. The DSPUD irrigation system is operated in accordance with land discharge specifications found in their WDRs.
The proposed project is intended to allow DSPUD to more reliably produce effluent which meets the requirements contained in their WDRs, including final effluent limitations for ammonia, nitrate and disinfection byproducts.
California Integrated Waste Management Board (i.e. Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, or Assembly Bill (AB) 939, established the Integrated Waste Management Board to promote the reduction of waste whenever possible, manage all materials to their highest and best use, and protect public health and safety and the environment. The Board required implementation of integrated waste management plans and also mandated that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated (from 1990 levels), beginning January 1, 2000. As required by AB 939, Nevada County implemented an Integrated Waste Management Plan.
California Public Utilities Commission The California Constitution vests in the CPUC exclusive power and sole authority with respect to the regulation of privately-owned or investor-owned public utilities such as PG&E. This exclusive power extends to all aspects of the location, design, construction, maintenance, and operation of regulated
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-181 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
utility facilities. The CPUC has provisions for regulated utilities to work closely with local governments and give due consideration to their concerns.
Nevada County General Plan The Safety Element of the Nevada County General Plan addresses a wide range of issues related to human health and safety, including emergency preparedness. The Public Facilities and Service Element addresses the changing Public Facility and Service needs of Nevada County and provides guidance for their logical and timely extension to keep pace with County growth. These elements contain the following pertinent policies from both elements:
Objective 3.1: Public Facilities and services shall be directed as follows: a higher level to Community Regions and a lower level to Rural Regions. Objective 3.2: Ensure that the capacity, availability, financing, and capability of public services and facilities are sufficient to meet levels of service requirements for development. Objective 3.4: Develop and operate public facilities in an environmentally sound way. Objective SF-10.6.1: Maintain appropriate levels of safety and protection services and facilities on land and water for both Community and Rural Regions.
3.17.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
The potential impacts to utilities and service systems are qualified in Table 3-17 and discussed below.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-182 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
Table 3-17 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Potential Impacts to Utilities and Public Services
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Finding: Less than significant The proposed project is being implemented to bring the DSPUD into compliance with certain Regional Water Quality Control Board discharge requirements, including final effluent limitations for ammonia, nitrate and disinfection byproducts. The purpose of the project is to improve water quality by making improvements to the biological treatment process and employing UV disinfection instead of chlorine disinfection; thus, eliminating the discharge of chlorine disinfection byproducts to waterways.
Certain constituents of concern for which the DSPUD WDRs have identified final limitations which have been problematic to remove from the treated effluent including copper, zinc, aldrin, alpha BHC, silver, aluminum and manganese, are not expected to be removed to any greater degree as a result of the proposed project. These constituents are being addressed by the DSPUD through implementation of Pollution Prevention Plans as required by the WDRs and Cease and Desist Order No. R5-2009-0035
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-183 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
issued by the Regional Water Board. The project is not expected to increase the concentration of any of these constituents in the DSPUD effluent.
The project includes improvements to increase capacity to accommodate moderate growth within the service area; however, the upgrades would not increase the regulated flow of effluent from the WWTP to the South Yuba River above the permitted 0.52 MGD average dry weather flow (ADWF) limit. Therefore, impact is less than significant. b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Less than significant The proposed project itself involves the upgrade of the existing WWTP to meet effluent limitations imposed by the Regional Water Board, and expansion of the effluent spray irrigation site. The project includes improvements to increase capacity to accommodate moderate growth within the service area; however, the upgrades would not increase the regulated flow of effluent from the WWTP to the South Yuba River above the permitted 0.52 MGD average dry weather flow (ADWF) limit. DSPUD and SLCWD staff indicated that no additional improvements would be required to their water systems to serve the project. Construction of this upgrade could potentially cause significant environmental effects with respect to Biological Resources (Section 3.4), Cultural Resources (Section 3.5), and Air Quality (Section 3.3). However, these effects will be reduced to less than significant levels through the implementation of mitigation measures discussed in the specific CEQA sections listed above. Therefore, impact is less than significant. c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Less than significant The WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Project will entail the construction of new process buildings, tanks, and access roads which will increase the amount of impervious surface area within the WWTP which may result in minor changes in the amount of storm water runoff entering the storm drain system. Expansion of the effluent spray irrigation expansion site will result in some additional storm water runoff due to the removal of the trees on the irrigation site itself. Expansion of existing or new storm drainage facilities is anticipated at the WWTP site. The WWTP upgrades and the irrigation area expansion will incorporate best management practices (BMPs) during construction and as part of the final design to reduce the potential for erosion, or other impacts to the environment and waterways. The amount of additional runoff in either location is not expected to affect the potential for downstream flooding or other physical or other environmental impacts. The construction will not have any significant environmental effects. Therefore, impact is less than significant. d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Finding: No impact
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-184 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The WWTP upgrades and expansion of the effluent spray irrigation site would not initiate a need for additional raw water supply. No new or expanded water entitlements would be needed as a consequence of the project. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Finding: Less than significant The proposed project involves the DSPUD WWTP and entails upgrades to the biological treatment processes, disinfection facilities, and solids handling process to ensure compliance with its Regional Water Quality Control Board discharge requirements of the NPDES Permit. The DSPUD is the wastewater treatment service provider. The project includes improvements to increase capacity to accommodate moderate growth within the service area including existing commitments; however, the upgrades would not increase the regulated flow of effluent from the WWTP to the South Yuba River above the permitted 0.52 MGD average dry weather flow (ADWF) limit. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Finding: Less than significant The project includes some minor demolition and remodeling of existing buildings. This will be the primary generator of increased solid waste. When materials must be taken off site, the Eastern Regional Materials Recovery Facility (ERMRF) should have sufficient capacity per phone conversations with personnel. Harvested trees and shrubs from the WWTP will be managed in consultation with and in accordance with the direction of the United States Forest Service. Harvested trees and shrubs from the effluent spray irrigation site could be chipped and scattered onsite, and larger tree trunks could be sold for lumber reducing the amount of solid waste. Such material from the irrigation expansion site will be managed in consultation with the property owner, Boreal Ski Corporation.
Materials from demolished structures that are non-hazardous would need to be hauled to the Lockwood Regional Landfill which is a 1,535 acre site in Sparks, Nevada. This facility has a 60-year capacity to accommodate build out of the Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal service area (Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan EIR, 2010). It is permitted to accept 445 tons of waste per day and on average receives 220 tons of waste per day, and currently handles 60,000 tons of waste per year operating at 50 percent of total capacity of 120,000 tons per year (Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan EIR, 2010). If waste material generated during construction (e.g. certain waste resulting from building demolition, previously unidentified contaminated soils) are considered hazardous, or other special waste designation, they will be handled in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations, including disposal in specially designated landfill facilities. Impacts are judged less than significant.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-185 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Finding: Less than significant The proposed project construction would comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations related to solid waste. The proposed project will have some minimal amount of solid waste disposal needs. However, the solid waste will be disposed of at the facilities mentioned in the response to question (f) above. Therefore, the solid waste attributed to this project, mostly from demolished structures, would be consistent with the Eastern Regional Materials Recovery Facility’s permitted capacity since ultimately the solid waste is transported to the Lockwood Regional Landfill which has ample capacity. Therefore, the impact is judged less than significant.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-186 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 3.18.1 IMPACT ANALYSIS The mandatory findings of significance including potential impacts to sensitive resources, potential cumulative impacts, and potential impacts to human beings are described in Table 3-18 and are discussed below.
Table 3-18 CEQA Checklist for Assessing Project-Specific Mandatory Findings of Significance
Less Than Potentially Less than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Would the Project: 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 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 impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects)? c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Biological and Cultural Impacts (a) 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 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? The proposed project will not cause a significant change to the quality of the environment. At the WWTP site the area will remain a public utility. Some trees will be removed to accommodate new structures; however, the number of trees has been kept to a minimum. The area will remain surrounded on three sides by woodlands. The spray irrigation expansion site does entail the removal of up to three acres of coniferous trees within a 25 acre parcel. The spray irrigation expansion area has been kept to the minimum necessary and impacts to existing willow and alder wetlands within the parcel will be avoided. The adjacent environment is that of an existing ski run (Soda Springs Ski Area) and is the location of the existing spray irrigation disposal area during summer months. Therefore, because project activities are confined to and immediately adjacent to existing WWTP infrastructure, the quality of the
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-187 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
environment will not be substantially altered from the existing conditions except for impacts related to tree removal.
The project will not result in a substantial reduction of habitat for fish or wildlife species. All of the WWTP upgrade work will occur within the WWTP parcel owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Based on both wildlife habitat and botanical field surveys conducted on both project sites in 2010, the WWTP project area is not considered key wildlife habitat and contains rock outcrops and medium size coniferous trees. The trees that will be removed at the WWTP site (up to 1.5 acres) will not substancially reduce habitat availiblity for wildlife species, including habitat for nesting raptors and migratory birds. The spray irrigation expansion site will entail the removal of up to three acres of coniferous trees. The total reduction of up to 4.5 acres of forested habitats in the project area has been kept to a minimum and both sites contain and are surrounded by extensive forestlands, which are adequate habitat for local and special-status wildlife species. Therefore, the proposed project located in a heavily forested region is not expected to result in a substancial reduction of wildlife habitat. Since aquatic habitats, including the South Yuba River, will not be impacted by the project, the project has no potential to impact fish and their habitat. The upgrades to the WWTP will enhance water quality of the discharge to the South Yuba River, thus creating a potential benefit to fish, aquatic organisms, and their habitat when compared to existing conditions.
The proposed project will not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. The project footprint is within the WWTP property and up to 3 acres of trees may be removed selectively within a 5 acre irrigation expansion area on a 25 acre parcel adjacent to Soda Spring Ski Resort. During biological surveys no special status plant or animal species were observed. All of the plant and animal communities that could occur at the project sites extend well beyond the project boundaries. Therefore, the removal of coniferous trees and understory vegetation at both project sties will not result in a drop in a plant or wildlife population below self sustaining levels or eliminate a plant and animal community.
The project would not reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Based on the CNDDB screening for the area (CNDDB, 2011) and supplemental wildlife and botanical surveys the following species could have a moderate potential to occur at or near the project area:
Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (along the South Yuba River – not in the construction areas)
Coopers hawk (could potentially nest on the WWTP and irrigation expansion sites)
Yellow-warbler (along the South Yuba River – not in the construction areas)
Willow flycatcher (along the South Yuba River – not in the construction areas)
Starved daisy and other potential special-status plant species (not found during 2010 surveys)
The project is not located at the edge of the range of any of these species and therefore would not restrict their range.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-188 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The project will not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Cultural surveys were conducted and no significant artificats were identified on either project site.
Several mitigation measures outlined in the Biological Resources and Cultural Resources sections will be implemented to ensure no significant impacts to these resources will occur from the proposed project.
Therefore, these potential impacts are considered to be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
Cumulative Impacts (b) b.) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects)? Cumulative Impacts
Recent past and potential projects that could occur in the reasonably foreseeable future in the Donner Summit region include:
Nevada County: Caltrans I-80 repair – On-going repairs to infrastructure of I-80 Boreal Master Plan – Potential facilities expansion Shatterhand Project – Demolish old building and build new Single Room Occupancy (SRO) and Commercial Space Fire Station Expansion – expand existing facilities
Placer County: Sugar Bowl Expansion Sugar Bowl – relocation of ski academy which is currently in Nevada County to an area in the village. Brost property – APN 069-080-003, 004, 015 – The project propoenent has had a pre- application meeting with the County. According to Placer County staff, this potential project includes approximately 10 acres, Sierra Sun Villas, 12-14 units, three story condos. The project proponents may seek a General Plan Amendment and Re-zone to go up to 36 units.
In addition, the proposed project is being developed to meet the demand of the following additional sewer hook-ups: Table 18-1: Current and Growth Accommodating Estimated Equivalent Dwelling Units to be Served by the DSPUD WWTP District Current Addition Total DSPUD 818.5 471 1,289.5 SLCWD 818 260 1,078 Total 1,635 731 2,366
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-189 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
The possible future additional EDUs that would require connections to the WWTP are located within the area that DSPUD serves (within the existing districts’ boundaries). The local jurisdictions regulate land use growth, and the location of development; land use decisions do not lie within the authority of DSPUD. In this sense, the upgrades and expansion of the WWTP represent an accommodation to growth and compliance with Nevada and Placer County policies for provisions of superior levels of facilities and services prior to or concurrent with planned development.
The local jurisdictions regulate land use planning through adoption of general plans, zoning regulations, and pertinent amendments. While wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services may be provided by DSPUD to levels set in general plans, local jurisdictions may change their plans independent of DSPUD. It is possible that the local jurisdiction(s) could rezone and amend their currently adopted general plans and thereby influence higher or lower levels of growth. DSPUD could then implement expansion of a faster or slower basis to accommodate the actual levels of growth.
The potential cumulative impacts of recent past, current and potential projects for resources where there may be a cumulatively considerable impact is assessed below:
Agricultural Resources
The proposed DSPUD project entails the removal of up to three acres of coniferous forest adjacent to the Soda Springs Ski Area and the removal of up to 1.5 acres of trees on the WWTP site. This in and of itself is not considered a significant impact to agricultural resrouces. When assessed in conjunction with current and future potential projects in the area, the potential impacts to agricultural resources (forestry) is also not considered significant. This is because (1) few of the other projects are located on USFS land that is actually managed for agricultural uses; and (2) the other proposed project’s are not predominately tree removal projects. For example, in Nevada County, the I-80 Hwy upgrades are resulting in some tree removal, but the edges of the Hwy were not considered important agricultural land. The Shatterhand Project does not appear to entail significant tree removal. The fire station expansion will likely entail additional tree removal adjacent to the WWTP; however, this is “Public” land and is not conserved important farmland. The Boreal expansion may entail extensive tree removal; however, Boreal is further up the summit and there is extensive forestland between that site and the project area. In Placer County, the Sugar Bowl Expansion and Brost Proerty Project may entail a reduction in forestry resources; however, the extent of tree removal has not been determined, but will most likely be kept to a minimum. Therefore, the incremental addition of the removal of some trees at the WWTP site (up to 1.5 acres) and up to 3 acres of trees at the spray irrigation expansion site to the currently proposed projects near DSPUD in Nevada and Placer County is not considered cumulatively considerable.
Air Resources
The DSPUD WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Project will not result in cumulative significant impacts to Air Quality in Nevada County. Nevada County is in non-attainment for State and Federal Ozone and
PM10. The construction of the project involves operating heavy equipment and activities that would temporarily produce additional dust and particulates emissions. Any increase in non-attainment
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-190 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
pollutants is considered a cumulative net increase, and therefore constitutes a significant impact; however, precursors for ozone were below Nevada County and EPA thresholds for significance and DSPUD will implement Mitigation Measure AIR-01 (Air Quality section), which includes a Dust and Emissions Control Plan, to effectively reduce the levels of dust and vehicle related emissions from construction to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure AIR-01 will be implemented to minimize air quality impacts during project construction. The only possible cumulative air impacts would be if a future project, resulting from the DSPUD project, significantly impacted air quality in the County; however, this would be as an indirect result of the DSPUD project and any air quality impacts should be mitigated by the lead agency of said future projects.
Aesthetics
The only projects that are in the immediate vicininty of the proposed project won’t entail significant removal of trees and will be required to meet CEQA compliance for Aesthetic and Visual Resources as independent project. The additional proposed projects do not/would not entail additions that are significantly different from their current aesthetic look and therefore, the potential cumulative impact is not considered considerable.
Biological Resrouces The proposed project will not significantly impact protected species or habitats. It is specifically designed to avoid and minimize impacts to such resources (see Biology Section). The cumulative affect of the DSPUD project in conjunction with current and potential future projects in the area is not deemed cumulatively considerable because the limited biological impacts of the DSPUD project in conjunction with other projects that will be responsible for minimizing their impacts and mitigating impacts to a less than significant level.
Cultural Cumulative Impacts: The DSPUD WWTP Upgrades and Expansion project should not result in cumulative significant impacts to cultural resources in eastern Nevada County and Placer County. There are no known significant Cultural Resource sites within or around the areas of proposed disturbance. The field surveys, records search, Native American consultations, and Heritage Resource Inventory report have indicated that the chances of encountering a cultural resource site is low in and around the two project sites.
GHG Cumulative Impacts: The DSPUD WWTP Upgrade project should not result in cumulative significant impacts to Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Nevada County. Total carbon dioxide (CO2) levels predicted to be emitted from construction, area, and operational emissions totaled 751.89 tons/year. This CO2 estimate is much lower than CARB’s thresholds 7000 metric ton of CO2 per year and the total project CO2 emission estimates will be well below the CARB maximum allowable CO2 emissions. The construction of the project may temporarily result in an increase of greenhouse gas emissions; however, DSPUD will implement Mitigation Measure GHG-01, a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Control Program, to effectively
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-191 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 3 Environmental Checklist
reduce the levels of greenhouse gas emissions from construction, area source, and operational emissions to less than significant levels. There is no reason this project would increase the chances of significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions on other projects in Nevada County. The only possible cumulative air impacts would be if a future project, resulting from the DSPUD project, significantly impacted greenhouse gas emissions in the County; however, this would be as an indirect result of the DSPUD project and any greenhouse gas emissions impacts should be mitigated by the lead agency of said future projects.
Pop and housing Cumulative Impacts: The DSPUD WWTP Upgrade project should not result in cumulative significant impacts to population and housing in Nevada and Placer County. The only possible cumulative land use impact would be if a future project, resulting from the DSPUD project, significantly impacted land use.
The Master Plan for upgrades and expansion of the DSPUD WWTP has been designed to accommodate land use development and growth in accordance with the adopted general plans for the land use jurisdictions within its service area. The local jurisdictions regulate land use growth, and the location of development; land use decisions do not lie within the authority of DSPUD. In this sense, the upgrades and expansion of the WWTP represents an accommodation to growth and compliance with Nevada and Placer County policies for provisions of superior levels of facilities and services prior to or concurrent with planned development.
Affects on Human Beings (c) c). Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? As discussed in the various sections throughout this CEQA document, the proposed project would not include uses which could result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact the proposed project will result in improved wastewater effluent quality. Therefore the project entails a less than significant impact to human beings. No additional mitigation beyond existing noise mitigation and hazardous materials regulations would be required.
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 3-192 WWTP Upgrade Project
Section 4 References Cited
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2011. California Department of Fish and Game.
Department of Conservation. 2008. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) Accessed August 16, 2010 at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2008/sac08.pdf.
Nevada County Regional Transportation Plan, 2005. Accessed January 4, 2011 at: http://www.nctc.ca.gov/documents/RTP/Appendix_A_7.pdf.
Town of Truckee General Plan EIR, 2025. Accessed January 10, 2011 at: http://www.townoftruckee.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1270.
Waste Management, 2010 Accessed January 21, 2010, at http://www.wmdisposal.com/facilities/results.asp?tscId=10&state=CA&service=non_6.
Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2007. Search for Cleanup Sites and Hazardous Waste Permitted Facilities. Accessed August 16, 2010 at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/.
Nevada County Final Bicycle Master Plan, 2007. Accessed January 24, 2011 at: http://www.nctc.ca.gov/Reports/Pedestrian--Bicycle-Reports/index.html.
Nevada County Pedestrian Improvement Plan, 2010. Accessed January 24, 2011 at: http://www.nctc.ca.gov/documents/Reports/Ped%20Improvement%20Plan%202010/Nevada _Co_2010_Draft_Ped_Improvement_Plan_5.pdf.
Nevada County Traffic Counts Master List 10-29-2009, 2009. Accessed January 24, 2010 at: http://www.nctc.ca.gov/documents/Traffic%20Analysis%20Data/Nevada%20County%20200 9%20Traffic%20Counts%20-%20Master%20List%2010-29-09.pdf.
Saucedo, G. J. and Wagner,D.L 1992 Geologic Map of the Chico Quadrangle: California Division of Mines and Geology. Geologic Map No. 7A, scale 1:250000
Harwood, D.S. 1980(1?)Geologic map of the Granite Chief Wilderness Study Area and adjacent parts of the Sierra Nevada, California; USGS MF-1273-A
Hudson, FS (1951 Mount Lincoln-Castle Peak area, Sierra Nevada, California. GSA Bull., v. 62, n. 8, p. 931-952, pl. 1
Donner Summit Public Utility District, Groundwater Monitoring Study (ECO:LOGIC, 2010)
Geotechnical Pre-Design Report (BCI, 2010)
The 2010 Fault Activity Map of California [California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2010] Accessed online 12/14/10 http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 4-1 WWTP Upgrade Project Section 4 References Cited
2010 Seismic Shaking map Cgs accessed on line at on 12/14/10 http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html
Soil Survey, 1994. Soil Survey of the Tahoe National Forest Area, California. USDA Forest Service & Soil Conservation Service
Davis2 Consulting Earth Scientists (Davis2, 1984) Soda Springs Ski Slope Soils Study.
Donner Summit Public Utility District, Soil Characterization for Expansion of the Irrigation Disposal Area (2011)
Nevada County general plan
Nevada County Land Use and Development Code
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map (CGS, 2010). Viewed online 12/14/10 http://www.conservation.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/Pages/index.aspx
Dept. of Cons Watershed Browser http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/watershedportal/WatershedBrowser/Pages/WatershedBrowser .aspx
Western Regional Climate Center, 2011 viewed on line at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca8331
ECO:LOGIC, 2010 Facilities Plan
USDA/NRCS NCGC, 1999. USDA/NRCS - National Cartography & Geospatial Center Title: 12-Digit Watershed Boundary Data 1:24,000
ECO:LOGIC, 2010. Donner Summit Public Utility District Groundwater Monitoring Study
April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 4-2 WWTP Upgrade Project