The URL can be used to link to this page

Resolution 2452 \r '-' 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 \. 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2452 2 3 4 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT DIAMOND DITCH PIPELINE PROJECT/ALPINE COUNTY BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of South 6 Tahoe Public Utility District: 7 1. The Board finds on the basis of its review and 8 consideration of the Environmental Assessment for the Diamond 9 Ditch Pipeline Project/Alpine County, all Comments received and 10 Responses thereto and modifications incorporated into the Project II after consideration of said Assessments, Comments and Responses, 12 that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have 13 a significant effect on the environment. 14 2. Based upon said findings the Board approves the 15 Negative Declaration circulated, a copy of which is attached 16 hereto and made a part thereof. 17 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of South 18 Tahoe Public Utility District at a regular meeting on the 18th 19 day of February, 1988, by the following vote: AYES: Director Mason, Olson, Jones, Walker, Sinclair NOE S: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ~~ Robert Mason, Chairman of Board South Tahoe Public Utility District ATTEST: Ik a ~~ Pat A. Mamath, Clerk of Board South Tahoe Public Utility District I 1-. I I I I I I I I,~ I I I I I I I '-'~ I I Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration South Tahoe Public Utility District Diamond Ditch Pipeline Project Prepared for: South Tahoe Public Utility District Prepared by: IIIPr!! Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. ~ Sacramento, CA. January 1988 I I \., I I I I I I I DIAMOND DITCH PIPELINE PROJECT PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY L... I I I Ii... II I I I 1'"" I Prepared for: South Tahoe Public Utility District P.O. Box 70542 South Lake Tahoe, CA 95705 Prepared by: Jones & Stokes Associates 1725 - 23rd Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95816 916/444-5638 January 5, 1981 I \., I fl.... ,. I I I I I L.. l I I." , I I I ..' -. \., l L TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - DIAMOND DITCH PIPELINE PROJECT Project Description Proposed Finding i i i INITIAL STUDY: DIAMOND DITCH PIPELINE PROJECT Introduction Project Description Environmental Setting Environmental Checklist and Evaluation 1 1 1 4 4 APPENDIX A - CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY REPORT A-I I...". f'. fI.'~.. Ii \., I I I I I I I ~.. \i}' ... I I I I. .. I I I .\.. Ii...... -. l Figure 1 LIST OF FIGURES Page Location of Diamond Ditch Pipeline Project in Alpine County, California 2 I""'. .< -, I '" I I'.', " I I I I I l... I I I I I I I \. l I PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DIAMOND DITCH PIPELINE PROJECT Project Description The Diamond Ditch Pipeline will divert treated wastewater flows from the unlined Diamond Ditch to an enclosed pipeline for conveyance to lands where it is currently being used. The purpose of this project is to eliminate use of a portion of the Diamond Ditch to reduce the potential for discharge of treated wastewater to the West Fork of the Carson River and for con- tamination of a domestic water well near the Scossa Ditch. The proposed project is further described and mapped on the attached Initial Study. The project is being proposed by the South Tahoe Public Utility District (District). Proposed Finding Based on the attached Initial Study, the District finds that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. i I 141. I I I I I I I i.. I I' , I I I I I \. 1 ~ INITIAL STUDY: DIAMOND DITCH PIPELINE PROJECT Introduction The District proposes to construct a 24-inch diameter buried pipeline to carry treated wastewater to areas where it is used to irrigate pasture for cattle grazing and other lands for hay production. The project would involve the abandonment of a portion of the existing unlined Diamond Ditch, currently used to convey effluent. The purpose of the proposed proj ect is to eliminate a section of the open ditch, and to eliminate problems associated with its use. The problems include the potential for spill of treated effluent into the West Fork of the Carson River at the terminus of the Diamond Ditch and the potential for contarninqtion of groundwater near an existing domestic well adjacent to the Scossa Ditch, which currently receives wastewater from the Diamond Ditch. The proposed project is located in Sections 18 and 19 of Township 11 north and Range 20 east (MDBM) (Figure 1). This Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15063. It includes a project description, a general environmental setting, and an environmental checklist with supporting commen- tary. Project Description Project Objectives Currently the District uses the Diamond Ditch to convey treated wastewater from Indian Creek Reservoir to lands where the effluent is used to irrigate pasture. The ditch is open except where it crosses Indian Creek and the West Fork of the Carson River. To cross the river, the effluent is guided into an inverted siphon beneath the river. Flows are once again conveyed in an open ditch, known as the Scossa Ditch, on the west side of the river to lands where it is used. Two problems with the existing conveyance system have been identified. First, the effluent is allowed to freefall into the inverted siphon near the banks of the Carson River. This has raised concerns that effluent may be entering the river unintention- ally, particularly since there appears to be some problems with blockage in the inverted siphon. Second, the Scossa Ditch passes approximately 40 feet from an existing domestic well on the west side of the river. California law requires that any conveyance facility containing wastewater, regardless of the level of treatment, must be separated by at least 100 feet from 1 I ~ ~); llQ, \~\~: '~\ SCH~OL .1,&51 110_ 4945 . \.,.\";).~ J L:' 1', \\TJ~Vf] I..>..... ~ ~ q Fred~nc4s~urg '\. . /1 ~.l ) : ''J~ 'K . =:::.-::--.-/)~tt;/ il':. j I I "---.. ~ / 1/ :)? ~" ~ z~::, -f' "J.:....., .... =_ ~ L:\ :. \ 'r---, j" : II //1 D ./ / ,,t,,:;~:.:-\:: .. '. ,;;:;~)-</ ( I ~rtaYeI I\,\(I~ --,:k~ \-~k"'~- ;~!J): l'I. ,7 '\=~"\~ .."" ). .~ / _(/Tr'~ J 17' "I II,' I' I,.; .,~ ./ ~( ~.. ~h' ")(.~ I...... ~ ~ "~ I ~(.r'-4~.I' . '\ ..,~~ CD === ;;==1! / /' . I \ ....... / \ , ;~ CD . II ,I' ...... \~ II ~ ,;' 'l):; (( ~. H' ,I.~ ,~~ ~ '~~~8 .~ , :: ~~~I ; I \' ~$~ .~' ~~.. ~ "'~...,\~\~~,j'~~! l,L 9 II II (f(I': ) III "l\- , II 9'" II " I.'. f0J ''& . ~\\\ 1m::. ~ ~--, -/:: I 'j -;.-~ f1, '. : ~:: ~ ./1 I: ( t'" '~ .' ~ ~: ~ ~. \'\.1 sj~ . \ ~ ~I! FORK ,,~\;/' ~ h \ I I" -)(1-., . 1\ ~ \ ,., .ay~es Ie .,~ ~~~.'t~;..-;.~~0 '-V ~ V~~~ . J' \\V\F.9 N/'/. .J~U/~~~/_(<(~~ :.. :~,,:;}E.;;{.~~:~.. ../'\ I ' \' '., ) .~: ~~~~'. :/~~ ~ .\~ } I ~~ I... .1/' ....,.J \ I , }oj." ~ ' 'I: ~~~~M(( INI I'I:\~ 'fJ ( ...J , :. r 8 I : d ~~ I I I ~'<<~,~ D\ \ ( if I~ l..... /~. lJj' '~.'...ii;~~t~1)>~'~"~~!/~2 ~0~~ I". It.~ I ~ r *-~ &1fJ'C-oil Hi t7 ~ l t VAL~ f{ t?' ~~_ I "."~'~/J~:(t ~ ~,l ))) ,<;' II i ~=u=;;;;-.. . . ~~~)( f/P~" - _~fh~\~~J61'~~ l~/ /' "\,,,:\/ I . Vl~ -) I(~. < . ~~ ~./I II J" /tit ~ Q)" I Itt> ~ I \"'. ) ~ ( . 1\" 1/ , -" 1/ r;:;:; , :- . v", :>' .\\ 1\ ..<'1* 1./ It '--a~/",-- ,) I _\ .,. (/" (\VOOIJJ' 0 uw " ~Q~ f'..-./ . V/r:~="99 11(\~(-'''-';;-:~'' !7.~' I -.,IlJ~/ ':0 rn--~' ~rz 'J\. ~/' )1.2t;~::;;~-- J /'.~. '\ '~../ I ~I/)'/- ---~ (~ ~~ I 7' \ \1"''';,~~' '1~W~2;~~~~. --. '\~- :~ ---{-7 -( -(Oo:~jt-i :11 .\ "~ f(tj;~,~:~ \ ' .s\ I. 1\ . I~ ~'I I J J "". ~;>j}-:-"~\i\~:=~.~\ I. ~ ..~.,;j ~J ;f; ~~.~ Irc~v ~'" 7~~ '(~)\~ lZprinfl -"I/V,.,.dl7'))~,r~ I".. . , ~~ ~ ~L-~ __:1 l\.'~/.:~~~~f ~ Ii;). I '. . ~7L:-. : +--"\,,\ o~ ~,\~/~~, r;/,J1 J)!. I - It ~ '\ .\~ -I-" I f/ . '.-J ~ ~/!.f I((((i:-;yo;w (%' 29' r--::::: )j/ it, I' Base Map: U.S.G.S. Woodfords, Calif.-Nev. 7.5' Quadrangle I '- 1 I Scale: 1"=2000' ~ FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF DIAMOND DITCH PIPELINE PROJECT IN ALPINE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 2 I Ii 1& \., I I".... ':'; I I I I I L.. I I"" .. I I I I I \.,. l I domestic water sources unless it is encased in concrete and steel pipe. The proposed project would eliminate these concerns by bypassing the Scossa Ditch and constructing an intake at the base of the freefall. Project Characteristics The proposed project would consist of a heavy-duty steel pipeline which would begin where the Diamond Ditch currently freefalls down the face of a bluff immediately west of Diamond Valley Road (Figure 1). A concrete intake structure would be constructed at the base of the freefall to direct Diamond Ditch flows into the pipeline. This intake would include a bypass to divert winter storm flows into the abandoned section of Diamond Di tch and onto the Ace Hereford Ranch property. The existing inverted siphon would be blocked off. The proposed pipeline would generally be placed in the Diamond Valley Road easement. From the control structure the pipeline would follow the alignment of an abandoned ditch on the Ace Hereford Ranch property. This ditch generally parallels Diamond Valley Road. The pipeline would then enter the road right-of-way and parallel the road until just east of the Diamond Valley Road bridge over the river. At this point, the pipeline would cross the road to the north (downstream) side of the bridge. Existing abutments at the bridge would be expanded to support the pipeline, which would be placed above the elevation of the underside of the bridge. Placing the pipeline on the downstream side of the bridge above the elevation of the underside of the bridge will prevent damage to the pipeline during high flows and eliminate any risk of treated wastewater entering the river due to such damage. The pipeline would then cross the unpaved Chambers Road, and continue approximately 700 feet through irrigated pasture. The pipeline would discharge into the Fredericksburg Di tch near Chambers Road and into farm ditches at the end of Scossa Ditch near Highway 88. Project construction would take 4-6 months. The pipeline would generally be used between April 1 and October 1 each year with flows averaging about 25 cubic feet per second. No new lands would be irrigated with the effluent; it would continue to be used on the same lands in the same quantities as at present. The proposed project includes substantial measures to control erosion during construction activities. It- also in- cludes plans to repave or backfill road sections affected by installation of road crossings for the pipeline, and revege- tation of areas disturbed by construction activities where appropriate. These measures will be fully described in the bid document prepared by the District. Permits that may be required to construct the proposed project include encroachment permits from Alpine County to install pipeline crossings in Diamond Valley and Chambers Roads, and a stream alteration agreement wi th the California Department of Fish and Game. A stream alteration agreement is generally required for work undertaken 3 I I ~ I I'....... ,'} I I I I I I, I....., I I I I I I I \.., 1 I within the mean highwater mark of any body of water containing fish and wildlife resources. Environmental Setting The proposed project is located in Alpine County on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada Range approximately 2 miles east of the community of Wood fords and 2 miles west of the California-Nevada border in the Paynesville area. The elevation at the project site is approximately 5200 feet. The climate of this area is characterized by warm dry summers and wetter cold winters. Precipitation occurs as both rain and snowfall due to the elevation of the area and occurs primarily during November through April. Precipitation on the eastern slopes of the mountains is generally lower than on the western slopes reflecting the orographic effects of the range. Water features in the area are both natural and manmade. The primary natural stream in the area is the West Fork of the Carson River, which flows northeast through the project area and on into Nevada. Several small ephemeral streams and springs also occur in the area. Manmade watercourses are common and are used primarily to transport water to irrigate pastures and hay fields. Several of the ditches, in addition to Diamond Ditch, are used to convey treated wastewater to pasture lands and hay fields. Land uses in the vicinity of the proposed project are mostly agricultural with livestock grazing being the predominate use. Lands in the area are generally zoned for agricultural uses and the lands through which the pipeline would be routed are zoned for agricultural use by Alpine County. Vegetation in the area is characterized by low shrubs, grasses, and forbs typical of the western Great Basin. Trees are located on hillsides and along watercourses. Shrub species include sagebrush, rabbitbrush and milkweed. Tree species include Jeffrey pine, willow, cottonwood, and alder. In the vicinity of the proposed project, trees are generally restricted to the banks of the West Fork of the Carson River. This narrow band of riparian vegetation extends for several miles along the banks of the river and provides important habitat for various animal species, particularly birds. Raccoons, deer, and lizards are also present. Environmental Checklist and Evaluation This section contains an environmental checklist presenting information on the potential environmental impacts of the pro- posed proj ect, . and commentary supporting the findings of the checklist. 4 I I '-' I I I I I I I i . ....., I I I I I I l ."" t I. II. Background I. Name of Proponent South Tahoe Public Utility District 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent P. O. Box 70542 South Lake Tahoe, CA 95705 3. 4. 5. Date of Check list Submitted January 5, 1988 South Tahoe Public Utility Dlstri'ct , . Agency Requiring Checklist Name of Proposal, if applicable Diamond Ditch Pipeline Environmental l"1>octs (Explanations. of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.> Yes - I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Maybe No a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? x b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? x c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? x d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? x e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or 'off the site? x f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? x 5 I I, '-' I I I I I I I L..., I I I I I I I ." I g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, lands !ides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- . rection of water movements, in either mar ine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in .any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 6 Yes Maybe x x No x x x x x x x x x x x I I"" II.'..... II I I I I a I I.... I I I I I I l a"" I 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result rn: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a.' Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introductioo of new species of mimals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of mimals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife. habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 7 Yes -1L x x Maybe No x - x -1L x x --- x x -- x -- -- x x I"".. 0';: I \.., I I I I I I I l.. I I I I I I I \-, l I Yes Maybe No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response p Ian or an emergency evacuat ion plan? II. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of a1 area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking faci lities, or demand for new park ing? c. Substantial i~oct upon existing transpor- tation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of peaple and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? x 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? 8 x x x x x x x x x x x x x I I ~ I I I I I I I d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public foci Iities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon ex ist- ing sources of energy, or req uire the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? I.. d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? I I I I I I I ."" I f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Yes M~ No -1L. ...1L -L- ...1L -L --1L -1L -L -L -L _ X -- 18. Aesthetics. Wi II the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X X -- X 20. Cultural Resources. - - X a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? 9 x I I ~ I I I I I I I l..., I I I I I I III. a IV. I'"' l b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to 0 prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to couse a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the qua lity of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or an ima I commun ity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have irrpacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may irrpact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either direct Iy or indirectly? Discussion of Environmental Evaluation See following section Determinat ion See Proposed Negative Declaration 10 Yes Maybe No -lL -lL --.JL. -L -1L --X..- ----X- I I '-' I I I I I I I . L\ .'-' ., I I I I I I I...'. -> a"" I On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect I-x I 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 I I because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. JA>fIv7 ~ /9'!JfJ. Date South Tahoe Public Utility District 11 I I ~ I I I I'.". ", I 1..\.... ',,'. I l.. I I I I I I I ."" l Environmental Evaluation 1. Earth a. Excavation activities for the proposed project would not affect any subsurface geologic features. b. The proposed project would result in minor surface soil disruptions, displacements, and compactions during con- struction. Due to the minor amounts of disturbance and its temporary nature, no significant impacts would result. c. The proposed project would not affect topography or ground surface relief features. d. No unique geologic or physical features are known to occur in the project vicinity. e. Some increase in erosion could result. However, construction plans for the proposed project require substantial erosion control measures. These plans and the minor and tempo- rary nature of project construction ensure that no significant impacts would result. f. No significant changes in erosion or deposition would result from the proposed project. g. The proposed project would result in some exposure of property, such as the pipeline, to geologic hazards. Due to the slight risk of such an event and the small scope .of the project, this potential impact is not considered significant. 2. Air a. Only minor emissions would result from project construction. These include emissions from construction equip- ment and possibly some windblown dust. b. The sources of emission described above would not create any objectionable odors. c. Installation of a buried pipeline would not affect either local or regional climates. 3. Water a. Construction of the proposed project would not result in any alterations to fresh or marine water movements. b. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in changes to drainage or runoff patterns. c. Construction of the proposed pipeline would not alter the course or flow of floodwaters. 12 I 1.../...... ",' \. I I I I I I I l. I I I I I I I I"" I d. The proposed project would result in the dewatering of a small portion of the Diamond Ditch, a man-made water body. Effluent no longer would flow through the Scossa Ditch, which would continue to convey fresh water. No important resources would be affected by these changes in flows, and no significant impacts are anticipated. e. The proposed project would eliminate the potential for discharges of effluent to surface waters, (the West Fork of the Carson River) that may presently be occurring. f. No substantial changes to the direction or rate of flow of groundwater would result. g. The proposed project could slightly reduce the amount of water discharged to the local groundwater basin due to abandonment of a section of the unlined Diamond Ditch and placement of project flows in the proposed pipeline. The amount of this reduction is unknown, but due to the small quantity of water that presently flows through the Diamond Ditch, it is probably small. In addition, winter storm flows will be bypassed to the Diamond Ditch and will be available to recharge the groundwater basin. This impact is considered less than significant. h. No increase or change in use of the treated waste- water or other water supply would result from the proposed project. i. The proposed pipeline is protected from flooding by placement on the downstream side of the bridge over the West Fork of the Carson River and by placing the pipeline above the elevation of the underside of the bridge to protect it from floodflows and associated debris. 4. Plant Life a. The proposed project is likely to result in a slight and temporary reduction in the number of some plant species as a result of construction activities, possibly including two cottonwood trees on the bank of the Carson River. This impact is not considered to be significant due to the minor effects and the proximity of similar vegetation in the immediate area. b. A search of the California Natural Diversity Data Base records indicates that no unique, rare, threatened, or endangered plant species are known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project. c. The proposed project would not result in the intro- duction of new species or in a barrier to existing species. d. No agricultural crops are grown in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. 13 a a \.. I I I I I I I I... I I I I I I I ~ a I 5. Animal Life a. The proposed project is likely to result in a slight and temporary reduction in the number of some animal species such as reptiles and small mammals as a result of construction activi ties. This impact is not significant. No fish species would be affected. b. A search of California Natural Diversity Data Base records indicates that no unique, threatened, or endangered animal species are known to occur in the vicinity of the pro- posed project. c. The proposed project would not result in the intro- duction of new species or in a barrier to the movement or migra- tion of animals. d. The proposed project would affect only limited amounts pf habitat. Due to the small amount of habitat af- fected, the relatively low quality of that habitat, and the abundance of similar habitat in the immediate vicinity, this potential impact is not considered significant. There would be no effects on fish in the West Fork of the Carson River. 6. Noise a. Construction of the proposed project would result in a temporary increase in existing noise levels. Because of the temporary nature of this increase, because all machinery would be fitted with appropriate noise reduction equipment as required by state and federal regulations, and because construction activi ties would occur only during normal working hours, this potential impact is not considered to be significant. b. As described above, all construction machinery would be fitted with appropriate noise reduction equipment. In addi- tion, few residences are located nearby. Therefore no exposure to severe noise levels would result. 7. Light and Glare a. No new lighting or other surface structures that could produce light or glare are included in the proposed proj- ect. 8. Land Use a. Lands along the pipeline route and in areas served by the pipeline are used for livestock grazing or hay produc- tion. No changes to these land uses are associated with the proposed project. 9. Natural Resources a. No long term increase in the rate of use of natural resources are associated with the proposed project. 14 1\ . I.':"........ '. " \., I I I I a I I f;:; i. I I I I l I l \.., l l b. No nonrenewable natural resources would be substan- tially depleted by either construction or operation of the proposed project. 10. Risk of Upset a. No substantial amounts of these materials would be used during either project construction or operation. b. The proposed project would not interfere with any known emergency response or evacuation plans. 11. Population a. The project would have no influence on population distribution or growth rates. 12. Housing a. The proposed project would have no influence on housing in the area. 13. Transportation and Circulation a. Only minor additional vehicular movements are asso- ciated with the proposed project and only during construction. b. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not affect any parking facilities. c. As described above, only minor and temporary amounts of traffic would be generated by the proposed project and only during construction activities. d. No such alterations would result from construction activities related to the proposed project. e. No such alterations would result from construction activities related to the proposed project. f. There may be minor increases in hazards to motor vehicles during project construction, particularly during exca- vation across the Diamond Valley Road to install the road crossing and during installation of the river crossing on the bridge abutments. Because the road is only lightly travelled and because the construction would be completed in a fairly short time, this potential impact is not considered to be significant. Flagmen and normal construction warning signs would be used to reduce traffic hazards. 14. Public Services a-d. The proposed project would not result in any increases in the need for these public services. 15 I I'iii;" , '~, ~ ~' \., I I I I I I I I... l I a I I I I \. l l e. The proposed project includes repaving Diamond Valley Road after construction. Therefore no increases in the need for road maintenance would result. f. No other public services would be affected by the proposed project. 15. Energy a. Only minor amounts of fuel would be used during project construction. No other project components involve use of fuel or energy. b. See above. 16. Utilities a-f. The proposed project would not result in any increaseg need for utility services. 17. Human Health a. The proposed project is intended to eliminate exist- ing health concerns, including the potential for the discharge of treated wastewater to the West Fork of the Carson River and the potential for contamination of a domestic water well near the existing Scossa Ditch 18. Aesthetics a. The proposed pipeline would be buried and would not create aesthetically offensive conditions, particularly once all disturbed vegetation recovered. 19. Recreation a. No significant recreational opportunities are known to exist in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Construction of a buried pipeline would not affect any future recreational uses. 20. Cultural Resources a-d. The proposed project alignment was surveyed by a qualified archeologist. No cultural resource materials were identified in the project area. A record search also was con- ducted. No sites are known to occur in the immediate project vicinity. If suspected cultural resource materials are un- covered during project construction, work will stop in that area until a qualified archeologist is consulted and recommendations for protection of such resources are obtained. 16 I I '-' I I I: I I I I I Appendix A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY REPORT L. I I I I I I l \.,. l L A-I I I \.., I I a I I I I.. I INTERMOUNTAIN RESEARCH Archaeology History Ethnohistory Ethnography Paleontology Quaternary Geology Drawer A · Silver City; Nevada 89428 · (702) 246-5800 November 5, 1987 Mr. Mike Rushton Jones and Stokes, Inc. 1725 - 23rd Street Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95816 Re: South Tahoe PUD Diamond Ditch Improvement Dear Mike: L.., As you know, IMR has been addressing cultural resources concerns on behalf of the South Tahoe PUD Alpine County project and its ancillary facilities since 1982. Background material detailing project design, culture history, and physical setting appear in several formal IMR reports (James 1983, Zeier 1985, Zeier and Elston in progress) . I I I I I I I '- l l This letter reports the results of our November 3, 1987 field inspection of the Diamond Ditch pipeline right-of-way. The area surveyed is approximately 2500 feet long (by 30 feet wide), beginning at State Route 88 and terminating at an existing irrigation channel (see attached map). The northern two-thirds of the proposed right-Of-way traverse irrigated meadows on either side of the West Fork Carson River, while the southern third is to be located in an abandoned irrigation ditch. Construction impacts from trench excavation and partial burial of 36-inch water pipe will be confined to a corridor 30 feet wide along the pipeline route. Previous surveys conducted on behalf of the South Tahoe PUD project (James 1983) indicated that no known archaeological sites occur within or adjacent the pipeline corridor, although several are within a one mile radius of the area. I conducted the archaeological reconnaissance by walking two transects along the pipeline corridor; heavy grass cover obscured much of the meadow, but surface ViSibility was good in the area of the abandoned ditch. A-2 I I \., I I I I I - I November 5, 1987 Mr. Mike Rushton Page Two I observed no cultural materials or features on the surface of the pipeline right-of-way. As a result, the proposed construction should have no effect on known cultural resources. If, during construction, subsurface archaeological deposits are encountered, excavation at the discovery site should cease, and South Tahoe PUD and Intermountain Research . should be notified without delay so that the discovery can be fully evaluated. Sincerely, ~~ Michael P. Drews Staff Archaeologist Reviewed by Robert G. Elston Director of Research cc: Mr. James Cofer, STPUD Ms. Jo Ann Nevers, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 1" 1-., REFERENCES CITED I I I I I"'.. .. I I .'- I James, Steven 1983 R. An Archaeological Survey of Proposed Wastewater Reservoir Facilities, Diamond Valley, Alpine County, California. In South Tahoe Public Utilitv District Wastewater Facilities Plannina Proaram by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. Sacramento. Zeier, Charles 1985 D. Test Excavation of 4-Alo-63. Aloine Countv, California. Intermountain Research. Submitted to South Tahoe Public Utility District, South Lake Tahoe, California. Zeier, Charles in progress D., and Robert G. Elston Data Recoverv at 4Alo212, -0222H. -0223. Intermountain Research. Submitted to South Tahoe Public Utilities District, South Lake Tahoe, California. A-3 I I . \. I I I I I I I ~V'.. "( ...., I I I I...... "-.': I I I I'" L l " '\ ...." ,I .'0\ //'~~~11 .,~ It '/' ---...,/ ':" ..:~ .." -.. :.JJ' -- - ,:~ <! ----...... -'<( '--... II . II. II: III --. + \. 'j ." I i I \ " /1 , ,......1 I , I "-1/ I I I Ie,'... :,1 , I ,;, y:/ .'. I ~ ,-' 29 .-... :/ , \ - WOODFORDS, CALIF.-NEV. SEt4 FREEt. PEAK IS' QUAORANOt.E N3845-Wl1945/7.5 / 1979 T.llN. R.20E. DMA 2081 rv SE-SERJES VS9S A-4