HomeMy Public PortalAbout05%20-%20Env%20Cert%20-%20Re-Validation%20-%20IS-ND ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION
DIST./CO./RTE./P.M.: 03-PLA/NEV-89 E.A./PROJECT NO.: 03-1C0800
A. Environmental Documentation
• NEPA compliance type: CE ® FONSI ❑ EIS ❑ Approval Date: 4/7/2011
• CEQA compliance type: CE ❑ ND/MND ® EIR ❑ Approval Date: 4/7/2011
• Are there new conditions? Yes ❑ No
• Supplemental or new document needed(NEPA)Yes ❑ No ® Date
• Supplemental or Subsequent(CEQA) Yes❑ No ® Date:
• NEPA determination checked for validity/Re-evaluation Approval Date(s): 2/26/2014
(The Re-Validation form serves as the required consultation for all NEPA documentation including
CEs in accordance with 23 CFR 771.129.)
• The Re-Validation form also serves as a CEQA Addendum if needed.Yes® Approval Date:2/26/2014 No❑
B. Do Environmental Construction Window(s) Apply: Yes❑ No ❑
C. Each of the following conditions must be true in order to complete this certification:
• All environmental commitments that belong in this PS&E are included.
• All actions in this PS&F,are covered by the approved environmental documentation,which remains valid.
• All environmental permits, licenses, agreements, and certifications(PLACs)are complete. Project PLACs are
listed below:
Agency Type Issue Date Expiration Date
D. Environmental Commitment Record has been prepared: Date: 1/26/2014
E. Environmental Commitment Record has been updated: Yes ❑ Date: ® No
I certify that,for environmental purposes, this project is ready to list, and, as applicable, Caltrans has fully carried out
all environmental responsibilities assumed under 23 USC 326 or 23 USC 327 for this project in accordance with NEPA
Assignment and applicable federal laws, regulations, and policies.
s
Environmental Branch Chief(sign name) Date'
Environmental Branch Chief(print name)
Changes to this PS&E submittal shall be discussed with the signature authority and may require an updated
environmental certification.
This project may be advertised for contract award. If the project has not been advertised within twelve
months of the date of Environmental Certification,this Environmental Certification expires and a new
certification or update is required.
Certification expiration date is ��7. w e LS
NEPA/CEQA RE-VALIDATION FORM
DIST./CO./RTE. 03/Placer,Nevada/89
PM/PM 21.4/21.7,0.0/0.4
E.A.or Fed-Aid Project No. EA 03-1C0800
Other Project No.(specify)
PROJECT TITLE State Route 89 Bicylce and Pedestrian Improvements
ENVIRONMENTAL Initial Study with Negative Declaration/Categorical Exclusion
APPROVAL TYPE
DATE APPROVED April 15,2011
Check reason for consultation:
REASON FOR ❑Project proceeding to next major federal approval
CONSULTATION ®Change in scope,setting, effects,mitigation measures,requirements
(23 CFR 771.129) E33-year timeline(EIS only)
❑NA Re-Validation for CEQA only)
DESCRIPTION OF Briefly describe the changed conditions or new information on page 2.Append continuation
CHANGED CONDITIONS sheet(s)as necessary. Include a revised Environmental Commitments Record(ECR)when
applicable.
NEPA CONCLUSION -VALIDITY
Based on an examination of the changed conditions and supporting information:[Check ONE of the three statements below,
regarding the validity of the original document/determination(23 CFR 771.129). If document is no longer valid,indicate whether
additional public review is warranted and whether the type of environmental document will be elevated.]
❑ The original environmental document or CE remains valid. No further documentation will be prepared.
® The original environmental document or CE is in need of updating;further documentation has been prepared and
® is included on the continuation sheet(s)or® is attached.With this additional documentation,the original ED
or CE remains valid.
Additional public review is warranted(23 CFR 771.111(h)(3)) Yes❑ No
❑ The original document or CE is no longer valid.
Additional public review is warranted(23 CFR 771.111(h)(3)) Yes❑ No❑
Supplemental environmental document is needed. Yes❑ No❑
New environmental document is needed. Yes❑ No❑ (If"Yes,"specify type: )
CONCURRENCE WITH NEPA CONCLUSION
I concur with the NEPA conclusion above.
Signature:Environmental Branch Chief [date Signature: roject 9anage&l5Lo<E Date
CEQA CONCLUSION : (Only mandated for projects on the State Highway System.)
Based on an examination of the changed conditions and supporting information,the following conclusion has been reached
regarding appropriate CEQA documentation:(Check ONE of the five statements below,indicating whether any additional
documentation will be prepared, and if so,what kind.If additional documentation is prepared, attach a copy of this signed form and
any continuation sheets.)
❑ Original document remains valid. No further documentation is necessary.
® Only minor technical changes or additions to the previous document are necessary. An addendum has been
or will be ❑ prepared and is ® included on the continuation sheets or ❑ will be attached. It need
not be circulated for public review.(CEQA Guidelines,§15164)
❑ Changes are substantial,but only minor additions or changes are necessary to make the previous document
adequate. A Supplemental environmental document will be prepared,and it will be circulated for public review.
(CEQA Guidelines,§15163)
❑ Changes are substantial,and major revisions to the current document are necessary. A Subsequent
environmental document will be prepared,and it will be circulated for public review.(CEQA Guidelines,§15162)
(Specify type of subsequent document,e.g., Subsequent FEIR.)
❑ The CE is no longer valid. New CE is needed. Yes❑ No❑
CONCURRENCE WITH CEQA CONCLUSION
1 concur with the CEQA conclusion above.
Page 1 of 4 Revised June 2011
NEPA/CEQA RE-VALIDATION FORM
Signature: Environmental Branch Chief Date Signature:Project Manager Date
CONTINUATION SHEET(S)
Address only substantial changes or substantial new information since approval of the original document
and only those areas that are applicable. Use the list below as section headings as they apply to the
project change(s). Use as much or as little space as needed to adequately address the project
change(s) and the associated impacts, minimization, avoidance and/or mitigation measures, if any.
Changes in project design, e.g., substantial scope change;a new alternative;change in project
alignment
The project proposes to improve non-motorized access to the highway by constructing a multi-use path
(MUP)along the east side of State Route (SR) 89 in the Town of Truckee between West River Street
and Deerfield Drive. The purpose of the project is to improve non-motorized access to the highway for
pedestrians and bicyclists, including people with disabilities. Providing an alternative to using the
existing Donner Creek Roadway Underpass will create equivalent access to facilities, which is
consistent with The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The MUP is proposed as a 10-foot
wide concrete surfaced shared-use facility separated from motor vehicle traffic that supports multiple
recreation opportunities, such as walking or bicycling. The project includes construction of a new MUP
tunnel just east of the existing grade separation (Donner Creek Underpass, Bridge Number 17-0016),
construction of multiple retaining walls, adding a bus turnout and transit shelter, constructing the MUP
with concrete surfacing, and traffic signal modifications. The original final environmental document was
an Initial Study/Negative Declaration/Categorical Exclusion, which was finalized in April 2011. The
original project limits were postmile (PM) 21.4 to 21.7 in Nevada County and 0.0 to 0.4 in Placer County.
The project design modifications compared to the original 2011 design, include the following elements:
(a) extension of the MUP to West River Street; (b) provision of additional length of reconstruction of the
Donner Creek Mobile Home Park driveway; (c) provision of a transit shelter at the relocated bus stop;
and (d) incorporation of a slightly offset MUP alignment north of the MUP tunnel. The 2011 design
includes a replacement gravel trail between the Mobile Home Park and MUP, which is no longer
included in the project. In addition, the resurfacing of the raised median south of Deerfield Drive is no
longer included in the project. As part of the re-evaluation process, five(5) stockpiling areas along
SR89 were analyzed and it was determined, with implementation of the stockpiling measures, that the
temporary use of these areas would have no additional environmental impacts. These areas will be
used to store excess material that cannot be re-used in the project until soil tests are complete and final
disposal of the material is determined. The five stockpiling areas are as follows:
Site A—Nev 89 pm 0.02 to Pla 89 pm 0.4 (Westside, within original project limits)
Site B— Pla 89 pm 21.45 to Pla 89 pm 21.27 (Westside)
Site C— Pla 89 pm 20.92 to Pla 89 pm 20.70 (Westside)
Site D— Pla 89 pm 19.86 to Pla 89 pm 19.82 (Westside)
No other areas (outside of the project limits) within the Caltrans right of way have environmental
clearance for any construction activities.
Changes in environmental setting, e.g., new development affecting traffic or air quality;
There are no changes in the environmental setting of the proposed project. No new development has
occurred or is planned for the near future.
Changes in environmental circumstances, e.g., a new law or regulation;change in the status of a
listed species.
There are no changes in environmental circumstances for the proposed project at this time. The revised
project includes minor work modifications that are within the original project study area but exceed the
original impact areas. The environmental setting, circumstances, and conditions of these areas remain
unchanged.
Page 2 of 4 Revised June 2011
NEPA/CEQA RE-VALIDATION FORM
Petroleum contaminated material, which will require stockpiling for analytical testing and disposal, will be
encountered during roadway and structural excavation work in the UPRR embankment and structural
excavation for retaining walls. According to section 19-3.05 of the contractor Standard Special
Provisions (SSPs) petroleum contaminated material excavated from the MUP tunnel and path will be
stockpiled for testing and characterization before any soil may be reused on the project or removed from
the job site. Therefore, the environmental review also includes five additional locations along SR89 to
be used to stockpile these excavated materials. Environmental conditions of these locations were
investigated and no listed species, cultural resources, or other environmental concerns were identified.
See Appendix to this form, which includes a 2013 Supplemental Biological Resources Investigation
Memorandum and a 2013 Supplemental Cultural Resources Investigation Report.
Changes to environmental impacts of the project, e.g., a new type of impact, or a change in the
magnitude of an existing impact.
Changes to avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures since the environmental
document was approved.
No changes to avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures have been identified for work in the
MUP project area since the environmental document was approved. However, additional avoidance
measures are incorporated into the contractor special provisions to protect the stockpiling locations from
potential impacts from petroleum contaminated material, as described below and in the 2013 "Soil
Management Plan for SR 89 Mousehole—UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing Improvement Project". The
following provisions are included in the project.-
Before
roject:Before any work can begin, the contractor will be required to prepare and submit a detailed Health and
Safety Plan that identifies potential health and safety hazards associated with work involving petroleum
impacted material, as well as a detailed Excavation and Transportation Plan. The contractor will
segregate petroleum contaminated material from non-impacted soil and comply with the requirements of
the 2013 Soil Management Plan.
The property on which soil is stockpiled will be protected by an impermeable barrier. Petroleum
contaminated material must be stored on undamaged 0.06-in high-density polyethylene or an equivalent
impermeable barrier; if the stockpile location is on a paved surface, the thickness of the barrier can be
reduced to 0.02-in high-density polyethylene or equivalent. The barrier must extend a minimum of 1.5-ft
beyond the stockpile. At the end of each day, stockpiled petroleum contaminated material must be
covered with undamaged 0.012-in polyethylene or an equivalent impermeable barrier to prevent
windblown dispersion and precipitation run-off and run-on.
Changes to environmental commitments since the environmental document was approved, e.g.,
the addition of new conditions in permits or approvals. When this applies, append a revised
Environmental Commitments Record(ECR)as one of the Continuation Sheets.
The only change to environmental commitments identified since the environmental document was
approved is the incorporation of the 2013 Soil Management Plan as described above.
Page 3 of 4 Revised June 2011
NEPA/CEQA RE-VALIDATION FORM
Appendix
- Supplemental Biological Resources Investigation Memorandum
- Supplemental Cultural Resources Investigation Report
Page 4 of 4 Revised June 2011
q ,
:J
sy e�
W
u
0 �
Elij
y' 44V
•
CD
0
0 0
N O
N
N
O
4
O �
O
E
a7 C)
O COE
O O
cu m
E
X x
(� O
+O_' Q iii
(nQCJI
� D -
o c -
L
+-j
L.
CO
7
C)
0
No 0
110
....: �.
v
e ,
..o
4-j
--44K
, ?
C:) ?
e
f
C0
E
k
/ %
� R
g o
CC)
. .2:1
e o
£ \
EE
.� ._
§ §
� . � .
^ �Q
.� ..
< «222 4
« �
w �
\ CC)
, > (D
�
�
�
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
Placer and Nevada Counties, California
03-PLA-89-PM 21.4/21.7
03-NEV-89-PM 0.0/0.4
EA: 03-1C0800 (EFIS: 03-00000231)
Initial Study
with Proposed Negative Declaration
" 'S '
, ^-+cam.- ✓ _- PE0`.
° t -t TUNN€L t
t T
i
I
Prepared by the
State of California Department of Transportation
January 2011
4r*
&Mans
General Information About This Document
What's in this document?
The California Department of Transportation(Caltrans) has prepared this Initial Study,
which examines the potential environmental impacts of alternatives being considered for
the proposed project located in the Town of Truckee and within both Placer and Nevada
Counties, California. The document describes why the project is being proposed, the
existing environment that could be affected by the project, and the proposed avoidance,
minimization, and/or mitigation measures.
What should you do?
• Please read this Initial Study. Additional copies of this document as well as the
technical studies are available for review at the Caltrans District 3 Office of
Environmental Management located at 703 B Street, Marysville, CA 95901; the
Nevada County Library, 10031 Levon Avenue, Truckee, CA 96161; the Sierra
College Tahoe-Truckee Center, 11001 College Trail, Truckee, CA 96161; and the
Placer County Library, 350 Nevada Street,Auburn, CA 95603.
• We welcome your comments. If you have any comments regarding the proposed
project,please attend the Truckee Town Council Meeting on February 3, 2011 at
the Truckee Council Chambers, 10183 Truckee Airport Road, Truckee, CA or
send your written comments, via U. S. mail or email, to the following addresses by
the deadline.
Suzanne Melim, Environmental Branch Chief
California Department of Transportation, Caltrans District 3
703 B Street
Marysville, CA 95901
Email: Suzanne_Melim@dot.ca.gov
• Submit comments by the deadline: March 7, 2011
What happens next?
After comments are received from the public and reviewing agencies, Caltrans may 1)
give environmental approval to the proposed project, 2) do additional environmental
studies, or 3) abandon the project. If the project is given environmental approval and
funding is appropriated, Caltrans could design and construct all or part of the project.
For individuals with sensory disabilities,this document is available in Braille,large print,on audiocassette,
or computer disk To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats,please call or write to Caltrans,Attn:
Suzanne Melim,Environmental Branch Chief,California Department of Transportation,703 B Street,
Marysville,CA 95901;(530)741-4484.Voice,or use the California Relay Service TTY number, 1-800-
735-2929.
03-PI.A-89-PM 21.4121.7
03-NEV-89-PM 0.010,4
EA:03-1C0800
(EFIS:03-00000231)
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
in
Placer and Nevada Counties between West River Street and Deerfield Drive in the
Truckee area.
INITIAL STUDY with Proposed Negative Declaration
Submitted Pursuant to:(State)Division 13,Califomia Resources Code
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
Date of Approval T fahn Wehh,Chief
North Region Environmental Smiom South
Califomia Department ofT=porrauon
State of California SCH Number:
Department of Transportation 03-PLA/NEV 89
PM:PLA-21.4/21.7,NEV-0.0/0.4
EA:03-1C0800
Proposed Negative Declaration
Pursuant to:Division 13,Public Resources Code
Project Description
The California Department of Transportation proposes to construct a multi-use path and
tunnel, along with other roadside improvements, along the east side of State Route (SR)
89 between West River Street and Deerfield Drive, located in, and just outside of,
Truckee, California. T project li its extend from post mile (PM) 21.4 to 21.7 in Placer
County and PM 0,0 to Neva County. The portion of the project located in
Nevada County is within t limits of the Town of Truckee. The proposed project
includescons tion of a underpass tunnel just east of the existing Donner Creek
Underpass, Bridge er 17-0016. Other roadside improvements include constructing
an Americans 1 Disabilities Act�A) co pliant trail,retaining walls and bus
turnout, as well as modifying an existing tra c signal,resurfacing an island median,
installing curb and gutter d re laci rainage systems.
Determination
The proposed Negative,,D aration is included to giv otice to interested agencies and
the public that it is Caltrans' intentXbasen
ve Declaration for this project. This
does not mean that Caltrans' dehe project is final. This Negative
Declaration is subject to modfents received by interested agencies
and the public.
Caltrans has prepared an Initial Stu , ane pen��ublic review, expects
to determine from this study that the proposed e t wo d not have a significant effect
on the environment for the following reaso
• The proposed project would have minimal or no effect on agriculture P,
forest
resources, air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils d u nd planning,
mineral resources,noise, population and housing, pu ' services, recreation, and
utilities.
• The proposed project would have no effect on jurisdictional waters, special status
species, and riparian vegetation with the implementation of avoidance,
minimization, and/or mitigation measures.
• The proposed project would have no adverse effect on migratory birds, water
quality,hazardous waste/materials, and scenic resources with the implementation
of avoidance,minimization, and/or mitigation measures.
John D.Webb,Chief Date
North Region Environmental Services-South
California Department of Transportation
Chapter 1 — Proposed Project
Introduction
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in conjunction with the Town
of Truckee, proposes a project to improve bicycle and pedestrian use through the Donner
Creek Underpass,known locally as the "Mousehole," along State Route (SR) 89 in
Placer County from post mile (PM) 21.4 to 21.7 and in Nevada County from PM 0.0 to
0.4 (see Figure 1 and 2).
The proposed project is located on SR 89 from 500 feet south of the West River Street
intersection in Placer County to 300 feet north of the Deerfield Drive intersection in
Nevada County. The portion of the project located in Nevada County extends into the
Truckee town limits. A 30-feet high embankment, supporting the tracks of the Union
Pacific Railroad, is also within the project limits. This embankment contains the Donner
Creek Underpass tunnel.
For the past several years, the Nevada County Transportation Commission,which is the
Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Nevada County, has identified this project
as a need in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. The construction of the
multi-use tunnel is a program priority for eastern Nevada County. The project is
consistent with all applicable local and regional plans.
The project is expected to be constructed during the summer seasons of 2012 and 2013,
depending on construction funding availability. Because of the duration of the project,
there could likely be temporary traffic impacts.
Brief History of the Donner Creek Underpass,Bridge No 17-0016
The Central Pacific Railroad(CPRR)began construction of the Transcontinental
Railroad route in from Sacramento, California in 1862. In 1867 the CPRR constructed
the first wooden trestle bridge over Donner Creek in the area now occupied by the
earthen embankment. That trestle's abutments are still visible on the northwest side of
the embankment. Because wooden trestles were in the habit of catching fire, in 1901 the
CPRR replaced the wooden trestle over Donner Creek with the current rock and dirt
embankment. According to the local newspaper in 1901/1902, the construction crews
erected a trestle across the gorge to"run the cars out on to dump the dirt." That trestle,
or a portion of it, is now concealed within the embankment. To accommodate Donner
Creek, a rock arched opening made from local stone was constructed through the
embankment. In 1923 the present double track was constructed on top of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 1
embankment. In 1928 the Donner Creek Underpass, locally known as the "Mousehole,"
was constructed.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to provide pedestrians and non-motorized vehicle users
with an efficient method for traversing along the east side of SR 89 within the project
limits. The east side of the corridor, from West River Street to Deerfield Drive,would
be modified to include a multi-use path. A new multi-use tunnel would be constructed
through the Union Pacific Railroad embankment just east of the existing Donner Creek
Underpass tunnel and would provide access from one side of the embankment to the
other. A bus pullout would be constructed on the south side of the embankment
approximately 200 feet north of the Donner Creek Mobile Home Park driveway.
The need for this project is a result of the existing Donner Creek Underpass tunnels'
inability to effectively accommodate both vehicle traffic and pedestrians or non-
motorized vehicle users, especially during periods of peak traffic. The existing Donner
Creek Underpass tunnel is 25 feet wide and 68 feet long and accommodates two lanes of
traffic, one in each direction, with no shoulders. Currently trucks, buses, emergency
vehicle, pedestrians, and bicyclists must share the two lanes within the tunnel.
Additionally, the current bus stop between the West River Street intersection and the
driveway to Donner Creek Mobile Home Park is located on an unimproved widened
shoulder area.
Alternatives
Build Alternative
The build alternative proposes to construct a multi-use path along the east side of SR 89
between West River Street and Deerfield Drive (see Figure 3). At the south end of the
project, the
10-foot wide asphalt multi-use path would begin 100 feet north of the West River Street
intersection. The path would continue north to the existing Union Pacific Railroad
embankment where a tunnel, measuring approximately 12 feet wide by 10 feet high by
121 feet long, would be constructed through the railroad embankment. From the new
tunnel, the path would continue north along SR 89 and connect to existing facilities at
the east side of the Deerfield Drive intersection. Both the path and the tunnel would be
constructed to the standards of a Class I bikeway, wherever practical, and would also
conform to the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
and Section 4450 of the California Government Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 2
In addition, the proposed project also includes the following improvements:
Three retaining walls would be constructed at the following locations on the east side of
SR 89.
• Retaining Wall 91 -beginning approximately 300 feet north of West River
Street, would extend north for approximately 325 feet with a varying height of 4
feet to 8 feet.
• Retaining Wall 92 -beginning just north of the existing Union Pacific Railroad
embankment, would extend 525 feet in length with a varying height of 6 feet to
16 feet.
• Retaining Wall 43 -would run south from the Deerfield Drive and SR 89
intersection, for approximately 250 feet in length and would be 6 feet high.
Three drainage systems would be rehabilitated or replaced.
• Drainage System #I - located just north of West River Street, will be either
rehabilitated or replaced in-kind.
• Drainage System# 2 - located about 100 feet north of the existing Donner Creek
Underpass tunnel will be replaced to a 24" culvert from the existing 18" culvert.
The existing inlet will be replaced and a new inlet will be added between the
highway and the new multi-use path.
• Drainage System 93 - located approximately 250 feet north of the underpass
tunnel will be either rehabilitated or replaced. A preliminary analysis indicates
that upgrading this system to a 30"culvert may be required.
The project includes the following additional improvements:
• A five-foot wide concrete trail(Portland cement or asphalt), compliant with
Americans with Disability Act and the California Government Code
requirements,would be constructed within the Caltrans right-of-way to connect
the Donner Creek Mobile Home Park driveway with the new multi-use trail and
the bus turnout.
• A new bus turnout would be constructed 200 feet north of the Donner Creek
Mobile Home Park driveway replacing the existing bus stop currently located
just north of the driveway. The bus turnout would accommodate a 45-foot bus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 3
• The existing signal poles at Deerfield Drive on the east side of the highway
would be relocated so they are not in conflict with Retaining Wall 93 or the path.
• The existing median island, located near Deerfield Drive and the Crossroads
Shopping Center,would be treated with an aesthetically-stamped concrete
treatment.
To accommodate construction activities, various utilities and roadway signs would be
relocated. The following utilities are present within the project limits: one gas line, one
water line, various overhead electrical service lines, one petroleum products pipeline,
two telecommunication lines, a Union Pacific Railroad signal house and utility pole. The
Town of Truckee and Caltrans Right of Way has, and will continue to, coordinate with
all utility companies represented in the project area, as well as the Union Pacific
Railroad.
One-lane traffic control and temporary closures would be necessary to accommodate
construction. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP)would be prepared for the project.
The plan would identify methods to reduce impacts from construction activities,
minimize delays for motorists and pedestrians, and provide a safe work zone. The
project is expected to be in construction for two summer seasons. The following
measures are required or recommended by the TMP Checklist and Data Sheet:
• During construction operations, a minimum of one paved traffic lane, not less
than 11 feet wide, shall be open for use by public traffic using reversible traffic
control. Two lanes shall remain open when construction operations are not
actively in progress.
• No lane closures, shoulder closures, or other traffic restrictions will be allowed
on Friday afternoon, Saturday, Sunday, designated legal holidays, the day
preceding designated legal holidays, and when construction operations are not
actively in progress.
• From Memorial Day to Labor Day, work on SR 89 will be limited due to the
high traffic volumes on this busy corridor. Lane closure hours will vary
depending on type of work and will likely be allowed during low demand hours
at nighttime.
• Work can be performed during day time hours when lane closure is not required.
• Portable changeable message signs (PCMS) and flaggers will be required in the
direction of traffic during construction for each lane or shoulder closure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 4
• Access to driveways,mobile home park driveways and cross streets must be
maintained during construction, in accordance with traffic control standard plans
or traffic handling plans.
• Pedestrian and bicycle access must be maintained during construction.
Additional signs will be required to detour pedestrians and bicycle traffic.
• Coordination with UPRR authorities is necessary when for the portion of
construction that must occur near the railroad tracks.
• Coordinating with projects adjacent to or within the limits of this project will be
required to avoid conflicts.
• The TMP should also address any construction of nearby highway projects and
commercial development projects whose construction schedule might overlap
with that of the S.R. 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian project.
The project may be built all at once or in the following phases:
• Construct a pedestrian/bicycle tunnel under the railroad and a short multi-use
path connection to the existing roadway shoulder north and south of the tunnel.
• Construct multi-use path from tunnel to Deerfield Drive.
• Construct multi-use path from tunnel to West River Street.
No Build Alternative
A No Build Alternative is included to provide a baseline for comparison of the impacts
of the proposed project. A No Build Alternative would result in the facility remaining as
it currently is and would not provide pedestrians and non-motorized vehicle users with a
safe method for traversing the east side of SR 89 within the project limits. Therefore,
the No Build would not meet the purpose and need of the project,which is to improve
the mobility, safety, and operation of the highway in this area.
Permits and Approvals Needed
Under the current project description, a U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404
permit, a Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Water Quality
Certification, and a California Department of Fish and Game Section 1602 Streambed
Alteration Agreement will not be required. If the scope of the project changes, then the
project would need to be re-evaluated for permit needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 5
D i5t COUNTY ROUTE POST MILES SHEET A
TOTAL PROJECT No. SHEETS
Figure 1 Pia, $� 21 .4/21 .7,
Nev 0.0/0.4
Proiect VicinitCA*
y
o, ."s.�. u " ®
and -TE
5.�
Pi
Location
TULARL
-LE
LOCATION MAP
E'h.`IER PASS RD
I-80/SSR-89 SEPARATION �gn
�T� S[rcra�]enfo
REERFIELD OR
DONNER CREEK BRIDGE
�
C
END CONSTRUCTI N TRUCKEE
PM 0.4 (Nevado Col
JVPYAPA '' �, I•'
NfCOUNTY & j(,.WN_I IMITS
- _.._..- - - ._.._YA.O.l4 P. .CER COUNTY
t8
Q.}N JER GREEK UNDERPASS PLACER
codwrrr
BEGIN CONSTR TI N
PNI 21.4 (Placer Co)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 6
Figure 2
Project Vicinity Map
t� Vailey Rd
b o� g3r00y,Ln m
q a Ridge Rd
i? -`�{ Glen Rd ca
x Gateway at Mgr
a ec Pass Rd
Donner Pass DQnn
Donner Pass Rd
d r 89
Tahoe Forest 1°
° kospaal Q a
Spring Ln
II'.r Al
i irk c�.
o
J-,
89
ONV
88
4ational e qty Tahoe National ez,
rest Forest cp
sg
AIR
r
s 4
b
LC
li.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 7
a:s�o-muov 3BA 50-gZ_B0
- V-lC(•OL1QH 31r0
P$
0.00* �
� .s`lr "
��f�� d��_�ar `6�� �' 'fir. ,� C• � -- �'�
^`
„"►
Y'
3' x'•£0+961
aOl rt
ui
Oj
Jwz�°rc /” �f R� •._. '�' f _.. #t N f�c'¢A � R � Et '.p.�+• ���
z
c
aaa C
zNasF�o .rid
wZap4zV1 y R `�& }a t � E
•�a W o LL a r.l1� .�.= M fie, '� E
°z
c
marcs
m +c.
amaa 4S 3 r • �. � ��.. a
ovmioW i�a d F,'EFf.. ,�• .• .y. � ..�'` � Iia
; .ly-'4 .•,C
U,o z 0°1
�i rn
o3stn3n 31tl9 Ae 99x9--� H�i110'S Ai1V9 NVIS3C
19 039[A30 AB 03x71539
-a3rnro3v9 xxua3^1rxou7xm NOI1M1lpdSNYNI JD 1N31Md30 - YINMIIT03 d0 31YIS
I�
acsl<-a3uoia zeu 60-8Z-a0
Booz-sm-Ic<-autou ura
N
s
k. 0 I
r t � w
oe
r o
W
a
tp K U w
f.
+^ffi� .i ;�. Ari",! N :^•a o� � p,. �LL
l
P Oya4�,!
CL
W
a- "W
® r � L _
♦,l oP Y ��,. r%� I
La
p 4L
rpt ,,•`� � � 'X.�''
P
Jt
Q
tl35tA3tl 31x1) A8 Q3A]3N] male•s Aare N0I930Au2w. -&
AB 435U,3tl A9 03N9[5=a
mLr3ro3r] aostna3els 3racu]Nn3 Ip11Y1NOd91YN1�7
MEMO - VIMN:OIMJ i9 RRS $ �
60-8Z-80 �I
600E-0m-t£t•03110E 3Lx'U �,
aJ+'oma 9� r *Fr ^• �?. ...... / i
fid`
W lip
o �e4k
$ a
Ld r a
A1,d
W -
-
r
•r+{; C ?� : c0
o a
!
I c
W im
� m
03SIA38 31YO A9 MN33H] U
HJtl[8'S Ailtl9 N0I930
AH 03SIn3tl xe a3Ams.a rn
-a31x�n31r3 aosina3mrs rrncllann3 NO]1Y11N)dSNM7LL j0 1N31LNYd30 - YINN09NJ!0 31Y1S � I,�
x o
I�
Im
1n
Figure 3
Conceptual View (looking Northbound)
r � hxiy,•� < },- fes.
R
4=.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 11
CEQA Environmental Checklist
03-PLA/NEV 89 PLA: PM 21.4/21.7 03-0000-0231
NEV: PM 0.0/0.4 03-1C0800
Dist.-Co.-Rte. P.M/P.M. E.A.
This checklist identifies physical, biological, social and economic factors that might be
affected by the proposed project. In many cases, background studies performed in
connection with the projects indicate no impacts. A NO IMPACT answer in the last column
reflects this determination. Where there is a need for clarifying discussion, the discussion is
included either following the applicable section of the checklist or is within the body of the
environmental document itself. The words "significant" and "significance" used throughout
the following checklist are related to CEQA, not NEPA, impacts. The questions in this form
are intended to encourage the thoughtful assessment of impacts and do not represent
thresholds of significance.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
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 El El El M
a state scenic highway
c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? El El M El
Impacts would be avoided or minimized through
implementation of the measures discussed in the
Visual/Aesthetics section.
d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
"No Impact"determinations in this section are based on the
Visual Impact Assessment,March 2010. This area of State
Route 89 is eligible as a State Scenic Byway and scenic
values should be preserved.
II.AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In
determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland,are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding
the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment
Project;and the forest carbon measurement methodology
provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 12
Less than
Potentially significant Less than
significant impact with significant No
impact mitigation impact impact
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?
"No Impact"determinations in this section are based on the
project scope and field reviews.
III.AIR QUALITY: Where available,the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations.Would the project: ❑ ❑
a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
"No Impact"determinations in this section are based on the
Air Quality Report,February 2010.
IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 13
Less than
Potentially significant Less than
significant impact with significant No
impact mitigation impact impact
a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through ❑
habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Temporary impacts to special status species would be
avoided with the implementation of measures discussed in
the Biological Resources section.
b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans,policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Temporary impacts to special status species would be
avoided with the implementation of measures discussed in
the Biological Resources section.
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?
"No Impact"determinations in this section are based on the
Natural Environment Study,March 2010. No biological
permits would be needed for this project.
V.CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑
historical resource as defined in§15064.5?
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑
archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5?
c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside ❑
of formal cemeteries?
"No Impact"determinations in this section are based on the
Historic Property Survey Report,December 2009,and the
Finding of No Adverse Effect Report,April 2010..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 14
Less than
Potentially significant Less than
significant impact with significant No
impact mitigation impact impact
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 a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that ❑
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d)Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of ❑
the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to
life or property?
e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
"No Impact"determinations in this section are based on
project scope and field reviews.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or An assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and
indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the climate change is included in the body of
environment? environmental document. While Caltrans has
included this good faith effort in order to provide the
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted public and decision-makers as much information as
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? possible about the project,it is Caltrans determination
that in the absence of further regulatory or scientific
information related to GHG emissions and CEQA
significance, it is too speculative to make a
significance determination regarding the project's
direct and indirect impact with respect to climate
change. Caltrans does remain firmly committed to
implementing measures to help reduce the potential
effects of the project.These measures are outlined in
the body of the environmental document.
VIII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 15
Less than
Potentially significant Less than
significant impact with significant No
impact mitigation impact impact
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?
Impacts would be avoided or minimized through
implementation of the measures discussed in the
Hazardous Waste/Materials section.
d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where
such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the ❑
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working 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?
"No Impact"determinations in this section are based on the
Hazardous Waste Site Assessment,March 2010.
IX.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑
requirements?
Impacts would be avoided or minimized through
implementation of the measures discussed in the Water
Quality section.
b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table 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)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 16
Less than
Potentially significant Less than
significant impact with significant No
impact mitigation impact impact
c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑
area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on-or off-site?
d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site?
e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑
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 by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow ❑ ❑
"No Impact"determinations in this section are based on the
Water Quality Study,February 2010 and the
Floodplain Evaluation Report and Risk Assessment,March 2010.
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 community conservation plan?
"No Impact"determinations in this section are based on the
project scope and field reviews. This project is included in
the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan and the Placer
County General Plan.Research,obtained September 2010.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 17
Less than
Potentially significant Less than
significant impact with significant No
impact mitigation impact impact
a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource ❑
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral ❑
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
"No Impact"determinations in this section are based on the
project scope and field reviews.
XII.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
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ❑
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where ❑
such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport,would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
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?
"No Impact"determinations in this section are based on the
Noise Assessment,April 2010.
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?
"No Impact"determinations in this section are based on the
project scope and field reviews.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 18
Less than
Potentially significant Less than
significant impact with significant No
impact mitigation impact impact
XIV.PUBLIC SERVICES:
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
Other public facilities? ❑ ❑
"No Impact"determinations in this section are based on the
project scope and field reviews.
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?
"No Impact"determinations in this section are based on the
project scope and field reviews.
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 results in
substantial safety risks?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 19
Less than
Potentially significant Less than
significant impact with significant No
impact mitigation impact impact
d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., ❑
sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses
(e.g.,farm equipment)?
e)Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑
f)Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
"No Impact"determinations in this section are based on the
project scope and field reviews. A Traffic Management Plan
would be implemented to reduce impacts from construction
activities,minimize delays for motorists and pedestrians,
and provide a safe work zone.
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?
"No Impact"determinations in this section are based on the
project scope and field reviews.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
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,substantially 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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 20
Less than
Potentially significant Less than
significant impact with significant No
impact mitigation impact impact
b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the
effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c)Does the project have environmental effects which would
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either
directly or indirectly?
"No Impact"determinations in this section are based on the
project scope and field reviews and applicable technical studies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 21
Chapter 2 - Affected Environment, Environmental
Consequences, and Mitigation Measures
As part of the scoping and environmental analysis conducted for this project, it was
determined that there would be no adverse impacts to the following resources: agriculture
and forest resources, air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, land use and planning,
mineral resources, noise,population and housing,public services, recreation, and utilities.
Consequently, there is no further discussion regarding these issues.
Environmental resources that would be potentially affected by this project are included in the
following discussion.
Biological Resources
Regulatory Setting
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,waters of the U. S. include the following:
territorial seas, coastal and inland waters, lakes, rivers and streams that are navigable and
their adjacent wetlands, tributaries to navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands, interstate
waters and their tributaries including adjacent wetlands, and all other waters of the U. S.
(intermittent streams and prairie potholes).
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency jointly
define wetlands as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater 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 soil conditions.
Waters of the U. S. is the encompassing term for areas under federal jurisdiction as defined in
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. For the purpose of this report,waters of the U. S. are
divided into jurisdictional wetlands and"other waters of the U. S."
According to the State Water Resources Control Board,waters of the State include any
surface water or groundwater, including saline waters,within the boundaries of the state.
The project locations were surveyed to determine the presence of any waters of the State.
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game share
regulatory responsibility for the protection of special-status plant species. "Special-status"
species are selected for protection because they are rare and/or subject to population and
habitat declines. Special status is a general term for species that are afforded varying levels
of regulatory protection. The highest level of protection is given to threatened and
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 22
endangered species; these are species that are formally listed or proposed for listing as
endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act and/or the California
Endangered Species Act.
Federal and state laws protect migratory birds,their occupied nests, and their eggs from
disturbance. The applicable federal law is the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(15 USC 703-711),
50 CFR Part 21, and 50 CFR Part 10. Protection under California law is found in the Fish
Game Code Sections 3503, 3513, and 3800.
Affected Environment
The project area is situated in a region characterized by mountainous terrain typical of the
eastern Sierra Nevada landscape, at an elevation of approximately 5,880 feet. The site is
located in an area consisting of individual and small stands of trees dominated by Jeffrey
pine (Pinus jeffreyi). Other trees present include white fir(Abies concolor) and lodgepole
pine (Pinus contorta). Understory species include greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos
patula), mountain whitethorn (Ceanothus cordulatus), mahala mat (Ceanothus prostrates),
rabbitbrush (Chrusothamnus viscidiflorus), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), tobacco bush
(Solanum mauritianum), and mules ears (Wyethia mollis).
Riparian habitat can be found within the project area primarily adjacent to the lower reaches
of Donner Creek, which is dominated by mountain dogwood (Cornus nuttallii), willow (Salix
lasindra), serviceberry (Amelanchier utahensis),horsetail (Equisetum arvense), wax currant
(Ribes cereum), California rose (Rosa californica), thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus),
California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata). In addition,
riverine habitat within the study area occurs in Donner Creek prior to entering the Truckee
River.
Environmental Consequences
Jurisdictional Waters
During the project development process, several alternatives were identified as having the
potential to substantially alter the streambed and streambank of Donner Creek. Design
modifications were incorporated into the project plans to avoid impacts to state and federal
jurisdictional waters.
The project would not place any fill material in waters of the United States or waters of the
State. The proposed project would not divert or obstruct the natural flow of or change the
streambed or streambank of any jurisdictional waters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 23
Special Status Species
Field surveys were conducted to assess the potential for sensitive resources to be impacted by
the proposed project. Donner Creek may provide suitable habitat for the Lahontan cutthroat
trout(Oncorhynchus clarkia henshawi), a federal threatened species; the mountain yellow
legged frog (Rana muscosa), a federal candidate species and a state species of special
concern. The riparian habitat along Donner Creek may provide suitable habitat for the
yellow warbler(Dencroica petechia brewsteri), a state species of special concern.
Donner Creek, which drains into the Truckee River at the southern end of the project area,
may provide suitable habitat for the Lahontan cutthroat trout, mountain yellow-legged frog,
and the yellow warbler. The Lahontan cutthroat trout occurs in the Truckee River.
The project would not directly affect any portion of Donner Creek and its associated riparian
habitat and, therefore; would not result in impacts to the Lahontan cutthroat trout,mountain
yellow legged frog, and yellow warbler.
Tree and Vegetation Removal
There would be minor, temporary impacts generated from the construction of the project,
which consists of clearing and grubbing the soil in the project site so it is free of vegetation
and their root systems. Construction would directly affect 1.39 acres of Jeffrey pine upland
habitat, which would include the removal of approximately 41 Jeffrey pine (Pinus Jeffreyi)
trees from this Donner Creek area. This impact would be offset by revegetation efforts,
erosion control, and restoration activities.
Mi_rg atory Birds
Migratory birds may nest in trees and riparian vegetation within the project limits. Measures
would be implemented during construction to avoid or minimize impacts to nesting
migratory birds.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Jurisdictional Waters
The following measures would be incorporated into the project plans in order to avoid and/or
minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters in the project area:
• Jurisdictional waters and streambank areas with riparian habitat in the project area
would be designated as environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) on the project plans
and in the project specifications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 24
• The boundaries of the ESAs would be clearly marked in the field by the installation
of a fence which would remain in place throughout the extent of all construction
activities.
• Sediment fencing would be installed prior to ground disturbance.
• No refueling would occur within 100 feet of Donner Creek.
Tree and Vegetation Removal
During construction, efforts would be made to avoid and minimize tree and vegetation
removal. A revegetation plan would be prepared and implemented as part of the project.
The plan would include revegetation of all disturbed soil areas with native plant species.
Local topsoil would be collected from within the project site and stockpiled for use on areas
disturbed by construction activities. The following measures are proposed as methods to be
used in the collection of local topsoil:
• Topsoil would be collected during soil excavation operations.
• Topsoil would not include invasive species or noxious weeds.
• Topsoil would be excavated to the lines and depths as directed by the Engineer.
• All lumps or clods would be broken up before the topsoil is spread.
• Topsoil would be stockpiled until work in the area to receive the material is complete.
• Upon completion of the earthwork in an area, the topsoil would be spread to a
uniform thickness over the disturbed soil areas.
The following measures are proposed to avoid and/or minimize the risk of introducing non-
native weed species into the project area:
• Only native plan species appropriate for the project area would be used in any erosion
control or revegetation seed mix or stock.
• No dry-farmed straw would be used, and certified weed-free straw would be required
where erosion control straw is to be used.
• Any hydroseed mulch used for revegetation activities would be certified weed-free.
• All off-road construction equipment would be cleaned of potential noxious weed
sources (mud, vegetation)before entry to the project area and after entering a
potentially infested area before moving on to another area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 25
• The contractor would employ cleaning methods necessary to ensure that equipment is
free of noxious weeds.
• Equipment washing stations would be placed in areas that afford easy containment
and monitoring and that do not drain into sensitive areas such as forest, riparian, and
wetland habitat.
• Areas of known noxious weed infestations within or adjacent to the project area
would be isolated and avoided to prevent the spread of weeds. These areas would be
indicated on the project plans and in the field with temporary orange fencing. The
staging or operation of equipment within these areas would be prohibited.
Mi rg atory Birds
The following measures would be implemented to avoid and/or minimize impacts to nesting
migratory birds:
• Removal of vegetation during clearing and grubbing operations would be confined to
the minimal area necessary to facilitate construction activities.
• Vegetation removal on the project site would occur outside of the nesting season for
migratory bird species. If vegetation removal must take place during the nesting
season (March 1-August 31), a qualified biologist would conduct pre-construction
surveys for active bird nests prior to the start of construction. If active bird nests are
identified, construction would not begin at that location until after the chicks have
fledged.
Climate Change
Regulatory Setting
While climate change has been a concern since at least 1988, as evidenced by the
establishment of the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the efforts devoted to greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions reduction and climate change research and policy have increased
dramatically in recent years. These efforts are primarily concerned with the emissions of
GHG related to human activity that include carbon dioxide (CO2),methane, nitrous oxide,
tetrafluoromethane,hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride, HFC-23 (fluoroform), HFC-134a
(s, s, s, 2—tetrafluoroethane), and HFC-152a (difluoroethane).
In 2002, with the passage of Assembly Bill 1493 (AB 1493), California launched an
innovative and pro-active approach to dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and climate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 26
change at the state level. Assembly Bill 1493 requires the California Air Resources Board
(GARB) to develop and implement regulations to reduce automobile and light truck
greenhouse gas emissions. These stricter emissions standards were designed to apply to
automobiles and light trucks beginning with the 2009-model year; however, in order to enact
the standards California needed a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The waiver was denied by Environmental Protection Agency in December 2007 and
efforts to overturn the decision have been unsuccessful. See California v. Environmental
Protection Agency, 9th Cir. Jul. 25, 2008,Number 08-70011. However, on January 26,
2009, it was announced that EPA would reconsider their decision regarding the denial of
California's waiver. On May 18, 2009, President Obama announced the enactment of a 35.5
mpg fuel economy standard for automobiles and light duty trucks which would take effect in
2012. On June 30, 2009 EPA granted California the waiver. California is expected to
enforce its standards for 2009 to 2011 and then look to the federal government to implement
equivalent standards for 2012 to 2016. The granting of the waiver would also allow
California to implement even stronger standards in the future. The state is expected to start
developing new standards for the post-2016 model years later this year.
On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order 5-3-05. The
goal of this Executive Order is to reduce California's GHG emissions to: 1) 2000 levels by
2010, 2) 1990 levels by the 2020 and 3) 80 percent below the 1990 levels by the year 2050.
In 2006, this goal was further reinforced with the passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 sets the same overall GHG emissions
reduction goals while further mandating that CARB create a plan, which includes market
mechanisms, and implement rules to achieve"real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of
greenhouse gases. "Executive Order 5-20-06 further directs state agencies to begin
implementing AB 32, including the recommendations made by the state's Climate Action
Team.
With Executive Order S-01-07, Governor Schwarzenegger set forth the low carbon fuel
standard for California. Under this executive order, the carbon intensity of California's
transportation fuels is to be reduced by at least 10 percent by 2020.
Climate change and GHG reduction is also a concern at the federal level; however, at this
time,no legislation or regulations have been enacted specifically addressing GHG emissions
reductions and climate change. California, in conjunction with several environmental
organizations and several other states, sued to force the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to regulate GHG as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act(Massachusetts vs.
Environmental Protection Agency et al., 549 U.S. 497 (2007). The court ruled that GHG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 27
does fit within the Clean Air Act's definition of a pollutant, and that the EPA does have the
authority to regulate GHG. Despite the Supreme Court ruling, there are no promulgated
federal regulations to date limiting GHG emissions.
On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding
greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected
concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons
(PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health
and welfare of current and future generations.
• Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of
these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle
engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and
welfare.
Although these findings did not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other
entities, this action was a prerequisite to finalizing the USEPA's Proposed Greenhouse Gas
Emission Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles,which was published on September 15, 20091.
On May 7, 2010 the final Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards was published in the Federal Register2.
The final combined USEPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards
that make up the first phase of this National Program apply to passenger cars, light-duty
trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They
require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams
of carbon dioxide per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (MPG) if the automobile
industry were to meet this carbon dioxide level solely through fuel economy improvements.
Together, these standards would cut greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 960 million
metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the
program (model years 2012-2016).
http://www.epa.qov/climatechange/endangerment.html
2
http://www.re.gulations.,qov/search/Reqs/contentStreamer?oboectld=0900006480a5e7fl&disposition=
attach ment&contentType=pdf
....................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 28
According to Recommendations by the Association of Environmental Professionals on How
to Analyze GHG Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents (March 5,
2007), an individual project does not generate enough GHG emissions to significantly
influence global climate change. Rather, global climate change is a cumulative impact. This
means that a project may participate in a potential impact through its incremental
contribution combined with the contributions of all other sources of GHG. In assessing
cumulative impacts, it must be determined if a project's incremental effect is "cumulatively
considerable." See CEQA Guidelines sections 15064(i)(1) and 15130. To make this
determination the incremental impacts of the project must be compared with the effects of
past, current, and probable future projects. To gather sufficient information on a global scale
of all past, current, and future projects in order to make this determination is a difficult if not
impossible task.
As part of its supporting documentation for the Draft Scoping Plan, CARB recently released
an updated version of the GHG inventory for California (June 26,2008). Shown below is a
graph from that update that shows the total GHG emissions for California for 1990, 2002-
2004 average, and 2020 projected if no action is taken.
California GHG Inventory Forecast
2420
2002-
2004
> ;average
1990
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Million tonnes CO2 equivalent
❑Transportation ❑Electric Power 0 Commercial&residential ❑Industrial
❑Recycling&Waste 0 High GWP ❑Agriculture M Forestry
CALIFORNIA GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY
Taken from: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/invento./ry data/forecast.htm
Caltrans and its parent agency, the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency,have
taken an active role in addressing GHG emission reduction and climate change. Recognizing
that 98 percent of California's GHG emissions are from the burning of fossil fuels and 40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 29
percent of all human made GHG emissions are from transportation (see Climate Action
Program at Caltrans (December 2006), Caltrans has created and is implementing the Climate
Action Program at Caltrans that was published in December 2006. This document can be
found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/docs/ClimateReport.pdf.
Project Analysis
The proposed project supports multi-modal transportation and does not increase the vehicular
capacity of SR 89. Specifically, the proposed project would facilitate and encourage bicycle
and pedestrian traffic by constructing a multi-use path adjacent to SR 89. The proposed
project also better supports transit in the area by adding a bus turnout. Because the project
would not increase capacity nor vehicle hours travelled, no increases in operational GHG
emissions are anticipated. In fact,by supporting alternative modes of travel, the proposed
project may have a beneficial effect on operational GHG emissions.
Construction Emissions
GHG emissions for transportation projects can be divided into those produced during
construction and those produced during operations. Construction GHG emissions include
emissions produced as a result of material processing, emissions produced by onsite
construction equipment, and emissions arising from traffic delays due to construction. These
emissions would be produced at different levels throughout the construction phase; their
frequency and occurrence can be reduced through innovations in plans and specifications and
by implementing better traffic management during construction phases. Even though the
project is not anticipated to increase operational GHG emissions, the proposed project would
generate some GHG emissions during construction.
AB 32 Compliance
Caltrans continues to be actively involved on the Governor's Climate Action Team as CARB
works to implement the Governor's Executive Orders and help achieve the targets set forth in
AB 32. Many of the strategies Caltrans is using to help meet the targets in AB 32 come from
the California Strategic Growth Plan,which is updated each year. Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger's Strategic Growth Plan calls for a$222 billion infrastructure improvement
program to fortify the state's transportation system, education, housing, and waterways,
including $100.7 billion in transportation funding during the next decade. As shown on the
figure below, the Strategic Growth Plan targets a significant decrease in traffic congestion
below today's level and a corresponding reduction in GHG emissions. The Strategic Growth
Plan proposes to do this while accommodating growth in population and the economy. A
suite of investment options has been created that combined together yield the promised
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 30
reduction in congestion. The Strategic Growth Plan relies on a complete systems approach of
a variety of strategies: system monitoring and evaluation, maintenance and preservation,
smart land use and demand management, and operational improvements.
708.0 MMT CO2
(2020) HOV s's[em Com 0;.,HFq".r
e��'I+Tans:[Eapens:on
88.5 MMT CO2
{current) HgRnvr pea4o nel Im po.�mert3
sso,000 DVHO
467,500 DVHD and Ensu need Pa Vrans:[
89.7 MMT CO2 Inue�fgenc roan:wcec;on [ems
(2020)
C
O
y5 STa.0 1.0 Ike and Deme nl
� wnayemenc
� Pce�K MaR.e nanx Redia
■ Defer riom QeoonsGW on
500,000 DVHD
- 382,500 DUH
DYHD=
Daily Vehicle Hous of Delay
Current 2020 Improvement Due 2020
Congestion Congestion to Implementation Congestion
Figure 3-2 Outcome of Strategic Growth Plan
As part of the Climate Action Program at Caltrans (December 2006,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/docs/ClimateReport.pdf), Caltrans is supporting efforts to reduce
vehicle miles traveled by planning and implementing smart land use strategies:job/housing
proximity, developing transit-oriented communities, and high density housing along transit
corridors. Caltrans is working closely with local jurisdictions on planning activities;
however, Caltrans does not have local land use planning authority. Caltrans is also
supporting efforts to improve the energy efficiency of the transportation sector by increasing
vehicle fuel economy in new cars, light and heavy-duty trucks; Caltrans is doing this by
supporting on-going research efforts at universities,by supporting legislative efforts to
increase fuel economy, and by its participation on the Climate Action Team. It is important
to note,however, that the control of the fuel economy standards is held by EPA and GARB.
Lastly, the use of alternative fuels is also being considered; the Department is participating in
funding for alternative fuel research at the UC Davis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 31
The following table summarizes the Department and statewide efforts that Caltrans is
implementing in order to reduce GHG emissions. For more detailed information about each
strategy, please see Climate Action Program at Caltrans (December 2006); it is available at
hLtp://www.dot.ca.gov/docs/ClimateReport.pdf.
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 32
Y
0 `'' W °°
z z z z z
Cd
cn
-8 +14
0
V] Y Y Y Y Y
w z z z z z
c o
to y ai p ci o o aQi >
ani ° P o o tb O o
C,3 (D CD
y ami o w o, D o g e � Q v 11 n o
Pan d o 3 w a1 a1 0 N N C7
t4
L
O
L Qr d 'U ,�i c�C O f-. W
U b N O C,C,3 C13
Y C1
cd C13 N
cd
cd
tb cd
P P Q Y d
al
U U �, d U U Q C7 U U
w
Y
_cd O Y
S r3
Cd
atb
cd
IV
w r4 0d3W Od Q Ww O O
48 m
+" T d8 N N U
00
d8 U G' N cc,
P.
v r m
cn
E" o
cd '-' cd
P. cd rn cd CC N v v U O O
gs
Gn
� C7
O � � .� ww wQ Z w c7 H cn
To the extent that it is applicable or feasible for the project and through coordination
with the project development team, the following measures would also be included in
the project to reduce the GHG emissions and potential climate change impacts from
the project:
• Relocate and reconstruct the existing bus stop to better accommodate bus
riders.
• Provide pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles users an exclusive option for
getting from one side of the Union Pacific Railroad berm to the other.
Adaptation Strategies
"Adaptation strategies"refer to how Caltrans and others can plan for the effects of
climate change on the state's transportation infrastructure and strengthen or protect
the facilities from damage. Climate change is expected to produce increased
variability in precipitation, rising temperatures,rising sea levels, storm surges and
intensity, and the frequency and intensity of wildfires. These changes may affect the
transportation infrastructure in various ways, such as damaging roadbeds by longer
periods of intense heat; increasing storm damage from flooding and erosion; and
inundation from rising sea levels. These effects would vary by location and may, in
the most extreme cases, require that a facility be relocated or redesigned. There may
also be economic and strategic ramifications as a result of these types of impacts to
the transportation infrastructure.
Climate change adaption must also involve the natural environment. Efforts are
underway on a statewide-level to develop strategies to cope with impacts to habitat
and biodiversity through planning and conservation. The results of these efforts
would help California agencies plan and implement mitigation strategies for programs
and projects.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 34
Floodplain and Hydrology
Regulatory Setting
The regulatory laws for floodplain areas include The National Flood Act of 1968 and
Executive Order 11988. The National Flood Act of 1968 created the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). The goals of NFIP are to identify areas that are prone to
flooding, to provide flood insurance for structures and contents within flood-prone
areas, to establish flood insurance rate within flood-prone areas, and to enable
enforcement of codes outlining floodplain management standards.
Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) directs all federal agencies to
refrain from conducting, supporting, or allowing actions in floodplains unless it is the
only practicable alternative. The Federal Highway Administration requirements for
compliance are outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart A.
In order to comply, the following must be analyzed:
• Practicability of alternatives to any longitudinal encroachments
• Risks of the action
• Impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values
• Support of incompatible floodplain development
• Measures to minimize floodplain impacts and to preserve/restore any
beneficial floodplain values impacted by the project.
The base floodplain is defined as "the area subject to flooding by the flood or tide
having a one percent chance of being exceeded in any given year."An encroachment
is defined as "an action within the limits of the base floodplain."
Executive Order 11988 requires that when a floodplain risk assessment is prepared,
the public must be given the opportunity for early review and comment. It also
requires that the risk assessment be filed with the State Clearinghouse. A reference to
encroachments on the base floodplain must be included in public notices and any
encroachments must be identified at public hearings
At the local level, the Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
will have jurisdiction over the proposed project. Established in 1984 by the State
Legislature as a special district, it addresses flood control issues that arise with
growth, and it performs coordinated flood control planning. The District also serves
as an advisory board to the Placer County Division of Planning.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 35
Caltrans hydraulic engineering staff provided hydraulics information for this Initial
Study/Categorical Exclusion with a Floodplain Risk Assessment, which contained a
Floodplain Evaluation Report Summary, and Location Hydraulic Study.
Based on studies carried out by the California Department of Transportation, as
assigned by the Federal Highway Administration, all measures to minimize potential
harm within the floodplain, consistent with regulations issued in accord with Section
2(d) of Executive Order 11988 have been taken and are discussed in this section.
Furthermore, a public notice is required by Executive Order 11988, and this project's
draft environmental documents (DED) serves as the public notice,which contains an
explanation of why the action is proposed to be occur in a small portion of the
floodplain.
Affected Environment
The project elevation is approximately 5,880 feet. This segment of Pla/Nev-89 is
depicted on the USGS Truckee, California 7.5 minute Quadrangle map.
Avoidance and Minimization Measures
Caltrans completed a revised Floodplain Risk Assessment for the build alternative on
March 3, 2010. The proposed project involves the construction of retaining wall
structures along the northbound shoulder of the existing highway, parallel to Donner
Creek, to provide sufficient shoulder width to accommodate the path for non-
motorized traffic. Construction of the retaining walls eliminates the need for
excessive fill on the highway embankment that would encroach significantly into the
Donner Creek channel. In addition, the construction of these retaining walls greatly
decreases project encroachment into the 100-year floodplain over the standard
embankment fill method of construction. The embankment can also be restored to the
original slope by the addition of fill and RSP along the base of the retaining wall.
Furthermore, where the short segment of the footing of the retaining wall encroaches
into the 100-year floodplain, backfill material and RSP will completely restore the
Donner Creek channel to the pre-project channel configuration. Construction of the
retaining wall significantly reduces project impacts on the 100-year floodplain
footprint.
The floodplain will be minimally impacted by the proposed project. The small
encroachment into the floodplain will be minimized by restoration of the current SR
89 embankment with minimal floodplain impacts.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 36
Hazardous Waste Materials
Regulatory Setting
Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are regulated by numerous state and
federal laws. These include not only the specific statutes governing hazardous waste,
but also a variety of laws which regulating air and water quality, human health and
land use.
The primary federal laws regulating hazardous wastes/materials are the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The
purpose of CERCLA, often referred to as Superfund, is to clean up contaminated sites
so that public health and welfare are not compromised. RCRA provides for"cradle to
grave"regulation of hazardous wastes. Other federal laws include:
• Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act
(CERFA) of 1992
• Clean Water Act
• Clean Air Act
• Safe Drinking Water Act
• Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
• Atomic Energy Act
• Toxic Substances Control Act(TSCA)
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act(FIFRA)
In addition to the acts listed above, Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance with
Pollution Control, mandates that necessary actions be taken to prevent and control
environmental pollution when federal activities or federal facilities are involved.
Hazardous waste in California is regulated primarily under the authority of the federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and the California Health and
Safety Code. Other California laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to
handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment,reduction, cleanup and
emergency planning.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 37
Worker health and safety and public safety are key issues when dealing with
hazardous materials that may affect human health and the environment. Proper
disposal of hazardous material is vital if it is disturbed during project construction.
Because hazardous materials have the potential to greatly affect human health and the
environment, worker health and safety and public safety are important topics for any
construction project. Proper disposal of hazardous material is essential if it is
disturbed during project construction. The requirements for handling, disposing of,
and transporting hazardous waste would be discussed in this section.
Affected Environment
A Hazardous Waste Site Assessment was completed on March 2, 2010. Site
investigations were performed to identify whether the soil in the Union Pacific
Railroad embankment contained petroleum hydrocarbons, soil within the project
boundary contained aerially deposited lead, traffic striping contained lead/chromium,
soil in the project limits contained naturally occurring asbestos, and whether the metal
beam guardrail and/or the "Timber Trestle Wood," currently buried in the
embankment, contained hazardous materials. Another goal of the site investigation
was to determine if material generated from the tunnel excavation and road work
would require proper management and disposal during construction and whether
health and safety precautions would be required for construction workers.
Contamination identified in the report is discussed below.
The investigative results would be used by Caltrans to inform the construction
contractor(s) if lead-impacted soil and lead-containing traffic stripe paint are present
within project boundaries for construction worker health and safety, soil reuse
evaluation and waste management/disposal purposes.
Environmental Consequences
Hydrocarbons
Based on the investigation, diesel- and motor oil-range petroleum hydrocarbon-
impacted soils are present in the Union Pacific Railroad embankment. The data
indicates that the outer soils of the embankment are hydrocarbon impacted while the
inner material may not be impacted. The report recommends stockpiling the
excavated soils and testing them to determine the appropriate soil disposal options.
Soils with detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons would require offsite
disposal.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 38
Treated Wood Waste
The original railroad trestle was left in place and covered with soil and aggregate to
create the present embankment. During construction of the multi-use tunnel,
construction crews would likely encounter treated wood. Any treated wood
encountered during construction would be disposed of in accordance with Caltrans
Special Provisions for handling and disposal of treated wood waste.
Aerially Deposited Lead
Aerially deposited lead is present in the soil within the project area at levels that do
not require special handling and disposal. Soil materials excavated to the maximum
sampling depth of 3.0 feet within the project boundary would not require special soil
handling and disposal procedures based on lead content and can be reused or disposed
of as non-hazardous soil. The contractor would be required to prepare a Lead
Compliance Plan to protect the health and safety of construction workers.
Traffic Stripe and Pavement Markers
Total lead was not detected in the yellow and white traffic stripe samples at
concentrations exceeding laboratory reporting limits and would not require disposal
as a California Hazardous Waste. The contractor would be required to prepare a Lead
Compliance Plan to properly manage removed stripe and pavement marking.
Naturally-Occurring Asbestos
Soil samples submitted for asbestos were not reported to contain asbestos. Therefore,
engineering controls to minimize the aerial dispersion of naturally occurring asbestos
are not required.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
The following measures would be implemented to avoid and/or minimize impacts
from hazardous materials that are present in the project area:
• No asphalt concrete grindings may be placed in the shoulder backing soil at
locations where erosion or maintenance operations could result in their deposit
into Donner Creek or the Truckee River. Caltrans handling procedures for
soil must include dust control, spillage prevention, and air quality monitoring
during construction.
• The contractor(s)would be required to prepare a project-specific Lead
Compliance Plan to minimize worker exposure to lead-impacted soil and
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 39
removed yellow traffic paint residue. The Lead Compliance Plan should
include protocols for environmental and personnel monitoring, requirements
for personal protective equipment, and other health and safety protocols and
procedures for the handling of lead-impacted soil and lead containing yellow
traffic stripe paint. The Lead Compliance Plan would be approved by an
Industrial Hygienist certified by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene.
• Excavation of the proposed tunnel located in Nevada County,would generate
a total of approximately 900 tons of material. During construction, the
excavated material should be stock piled and further analyzed to determine
appropriate soil disposal options. It is recommended that the contractor
prepare a Health and Safety Plan to minimize worker exposure. Petroleum
Contaminated Waste Non-Standard Special Provision would be required,
which provides for a health and safety plan to protect construction workers.
The Nevada County Department of Environmental Health requires soils with
detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons to be disposed off site.
Visual/Aesthetics
The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) establishes that it is the policy of
the State to take all action necessary to provide the people of the state "with...
enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic and historic environmental qualities." [CA
Public Resources Code Section 21001(b)]
Affected Environment
The existing Donner Creek Underpass tunnel is a gateway between Truckee and the
more undeveloped section of State Route 89 south toward Lake Tahoe. Although the
Donner Creek Underpass tunnel itself is not an architecturally distinctive structure, it
provides the visual transition point between the undeveloped area of SR 89 and the
community of Truckee.
The project site contains several key visual elements including the railroad crossing,
Donner Creek,native vegetation, and rock outcroppings. The railroad represents a
highly valued resource to the area, as it ties the historic mode of transportation to the
modern highway system. Donner Creek represents a key visual resource along this
segment of roadway. Native vegetation enhances views of the railroad and adjacent
properties and contributes to the scenic quality of the area.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 40
State Route 89 in Nevada County is eligible as a State Scenic Highway. California's
Scenic Highway Program is intended to preserve and protect scenic highway
corridors from change which would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to
highways.
Environmental Consequences
There would be minor, temporary negative visual impacts from construction of the
project. In addition, there would be a minor permanent loss of the original integrity
of the Donner Creek Underpass tunnel with the addition of a second,more modern
tunnel. Visual impacts associated with the project include removal of native
vegetation, construction of retaining walls, and extensive grading.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Impacts to the visual quality of the project area would be avoided or minimized with
implementation of the following measures:
• All disturbed areas would utilize temporary erosion control measures during
construction to minimize impacts to visual and water quality.
• All areas disturbed during construction would receive permanent erosion
control measures at the completion of the project. All disturbed areas would
be seeded with a permanent seed mix composed of native plant species. In
addition, a follow-up revegetation project would install containerized native
plants to supplement seeding.
• All efforts would be made to minimize impacts to native vegetation and rock
outcroppings during the design and construction phases. Design would
minimize cut and fill limits whenever possible to avoid unnecessary
disturbance of existing terrain.
• Finished slopes would be blended to match the natural topography of the site.
All finished slopes would mimic natural terrain by minimizing harshly angled
slopes and hinge point.
• Design and architectural elements of the 1929 Underpass would be
incorporated into the design of any new structure. Architectural treatments
reflecting the area's historic railroad bridge engineering would be incorporated
in the aesthetic treatment of the tunnel
• All retaining walls would receive architectural texturing treatment appropriate
to the project context. Currently, a "Dry Stack Stone" architectural treatment
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 41
is used on many overcrossings and retaining wall projects in the Truckee area.
A similar treatment developed by the Caltrans Landscape Architecture
Division may be used for this project.
• All retaining structures and rock slope protection would be colorized with an
architectural staining product to match the oxidized coloration of the existing
stone at the site. This would minimize visual impacts caused by newly
constructed slopes and structural elements associated with the project.
Water Quality
Regulatory Setting
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires water quality certification from the State
Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) or a Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB)when the project requires a federal permit. Typically this requires a Clean
Water Act Section 404 permit to discharge dredge or fill into a water of the United
States, or a permit from the Coast Guard to construct a bridge or causeway over a
navigable water of the United States under the Rivers and Harbors Act.
Along with Clean Water Act Section 401, Section 402 establishes the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for the discharge of any pollutant
into waters of the United States. The federal Environmental Protection Agency has
delegated administration of the NPDES program to the SWRCB and the nine
RWQCBs. To ensure compliance with Section 402, the SWRCB has developed and
issued the Department an NPDES Statewide Storm Water Permit to regulate storm
water and non-storm water discharges from the Department's right-of-way, properties
and facilities. This same permit also allows storm water and non-storm water
discharges into waters of the State pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act.
Water quality objectives for the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board are
specified in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Regional Water Quality
Control Board(Basin Plan)prepared in compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act
and the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The Basin Plan establishes
water quality objectives and implementation programs to meet stated objectives and
to protect the beneficial uses of both surface waters and groundwater.
Affected Environment
The principal receiving water body in the project area is Donner Creek. Donner
Creek is a tributary to the Truckee River,which is located approximately 0.5 miles
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 42
downstream from the project site. The project lies within the jurisdictional boundary
of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Truckee River
Hydrologic Unit.
The Truckee River is listed on the 2006 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of
Water Quality Limited Segments Requiring Total Maximum Daily Loads. Donner
Creek is not listed as impaired and is not affected by the total maximum daily loads
imposed upon the Truckee River.
Environmental Consequences
The primary pollutant of concern is sediment resulting from the construction of cut
and fill slopes. No permanent water quality impacts are expected as a result of the
project. Temporary Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be
required to protect water bodies within or near the project limits from potential water
pollution runoff from construction activities.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
In order to avoid and minimize the potential for sedimentation and other construction-
related impacts, the project would be constructed using the following erosion control
measures:
• The project would adhere to the conditions of the Caltrans Statewide
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit CAS No.
000003 (Order No. 99-06-DWQ) issued by the State Water Resources Control
Board. Adherence to the compliance requirements of the NPDES General
Permit CAS No. 000002 (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ) for General
Construction Activities is also required. The project is also subject to the
Construction General Permit implemented in July 2010.
• A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would be required,which
specifies the level of temporary control measures for the project. These
measures must address soil stabilization, sediment control, tracking control
and wind erosion control practices. In addition, the project specifications
would include non-stormwater controls, waste management, and material
pollution controls.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 43
Chapter 3 - Comments and Coordination
Early and continuing coordination with the general public and appropriate public
agencies is an essential part of the environmental process. This coordination enables
planners to determine the necessary scope of environmental documentation, the level
of analysis required, and to identify potential impacts and mitigation measures and
related environmental requirements.
Agency consultation and public participation for this project have been accomplished
through a variety of formal and informal methods, including project development
team meetings, town council meetings, two public meetings (held on September 27,
2007 and June 27, 2008), and interagency coordination meetings.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 44
Chapter 4 - List of Preparers
The following Caltrans staff contributed to the preparation of this Initial Study:
Georgette Neale,Associate Environmental Planner(Coordinator). Contribution: DED
Environmental document preparation.
Adele Pommerenck, Associate Environmental Planner(Coordinator). Contribution: DED
Environmental document preparation and Peer Review.
Denise Gibson, Associate Environmental Planner (Coordinator). Contribution: FED
Environmental document preparation.
Kendall Schinke, Senior Environmental Planner. Contribution: Environmental Branch
Chief.
Winder Bajwa, Project Manager. Contribution: Project Coordination.
Gary Birch, Senior Transportation Engineer. Contribution: Project Design.
Thomas Langley, Transportation Engineer. Contribution: Preparation of Preliminary Plans
and Project Report.
Mike DeWall, Transportation Engineer (Hydrologist). Contribution: Floodplain Analysis
Report.
Daryl Noble, Associate Environmental Planner(Archaeology). Contribution: Historic
Property Survey Report.
Joan Fine, Associate Environmental Planner(Architectural Historian). Contribution:
Historic Resource Evaluation Report.
Gary Grunder, Associate Environmental Planner(Natural Sciences). Contribution: Project
Biologist,Natural Environmental Study.
Maria Alicia Beyer Salinas, Transportation Engineer. Contribution: Hazardous Waste
Initial Site Assessment.
Jeff Pietrzak, Landscape Architect. Contribution: Landscape Architecture Assessment
Sheet(LAAS)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 45
Christine Ottaway, Landscape Architect. Contribution: Visual Impact Analysis.
Sharon Tang, Transportation Engineering Technician. Contribution: Air Quality Study.
Benjamin Tam, Transportation Engineer. Contribution: Noise Study.
Kevin Evarts, Water Quality/Stormwater Specialist. Contribution: Water Quality Study.
Kelly Dunlap, Senior Environmental Planner. Contribution: Climate Change Study.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 46
Chapter 5 - Distribution List
A copy of this Initial Study with a Proposed Negative Declaration was sent to the
following agencies, organizations, and individuals:
Adjacent Property Owners Nevada County
Donner Creek Mobile Home Park Clerk-Recorder
10715 Highway 89 950 Maidu Avenue
Truckee, CA 96161 Nevada City, CA 95959
Sierra Community College Placer County
Tahoe-Truckee Center Transportation Commission
11001 College Trail 299 Nevada Street
Truckee, CA 96161 Auburn, CA 95603
Tom Brook, Store Manager Placer County
Save Mart Supermarket Community Development Department
11399 Deerfield Drive 3091 County Center Drive, Suite 140
Truckee, CA 96161-0505 Auburn, CA 95603
Jennifer Freitas Placer County
Corporate Office Air Pollution District
Save Mart Supermarket 3091 County Center Drive, Suite 240
1800 Standiford Avenue Auburn, CA 95603-2614
Modesto, CA 95350
Placer County Clerk
James Smith 2956 Richardson Drive
Union Pacific Railroad Auburn, CA 95603-2640
9451 Atkinson Street
Roseville, CA 95747 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
128 Market Street
Local & Regional Agencies Stateline,NV 89449.
Town of Truckee
Division of Public Works California Regional Water Quality
10183 Truckee Airport Road Control Board—Lahontan Region
Truckee, CA 96161 2501 Lake Tahoe Blvd.
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Nevada County
Transportation Commission Tahoe Transportation District
101 Providence Mine Road, Suite 102 P.O. Box 499
Nevada City, CA 95959 Zephyr Cove,NV 89448
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 47
Placer County Library California Tahoe Conservancy
Auburn Branch 1061 Third Street
350 Nevada Street South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Auburn, CA 95603
Public Utilities Commission
Placer County Library Executive Director
Kings Beach Branch 505 Van Ness Avenue
301 Secline Drive San Francisco, CA 94102
Kings Beach, CA 96143
Federal Agencies
Placer County Library Federal Railroad Administration
Tahoe City Branch Office of Policy and Plans
740 North Lake Boulevard 400 7t' Street SW
Tahoe City, CA 96146 Washington, DC 20590
Nevada County Library Public Utilities Commission
Royce Branch Executive Director
207 Mill Street 505 Van Ness Avenue
Grass Valley, CA 95945 San Francisco, CA 94102
Nevada County Library USDA, Forest Service
Truckee Branch Tahoe National Forest
10031 Levon Avenue Truckee, Ca 96161
Truckee, CA 96161
Other Organizations
Nevada County Library The League to Save Lake Tahoe
Madelyn Helling Library 2608 Lake Tahoe Boulevard
980 Helling Way South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Nevada City, CA 95959
North Lake Tahoe Resort Association
State Agencies P.O. Box 5459
California Transportation Commission Tahoe City, CA 96145
Commission Chair
1120 N Street, Room 2221 (MS-52) Mother Lode Chapter, Sierra Club
Sacramento, CA 95814 801 K Street, Suite 2700
Sacramento, Ca 95814
Tracy Sturges
California Highway Patrol North Tahoe Citizen Action Alliance
Truckee Area Office P.O. Box 289
10077 State Route 89 South Tahoe Vista, CA 96148
Truckee, CA 96161
State Clearinghouse Sierra Nevada Alliance
1400 Tenth Street P.O. Box 7989
Sacramento, CA 95814 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96158
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 48
North Lake Tahoe Chamber of
Commerce
P.O. Box 884
Tahoe City, CA 96145
The Sierra Business Council
P.O. Box 2428
Truckee, CA 96160
Tahoe Resource Conservation District
870 Emerald Bay Road, Suite 108
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Sierra Front Recreation Coalition
P.O. Box 7456
Incline Village,NV 89452
Tahoe Earth Day Foundation
P.O. Box 7316
Tahoe City, CA 96145
The Nature Conservancy
One East First Street, Suite 1007
Reno,NV 89501
Northern California Air Quality
Management District
P.O. Box 9766
Truckee, CA 96162
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 49
Chapter 6 - Minimization and/or Mitigation
Summary
The following measures would be incorporated into the project plans and
specifications in order to avoid and/or minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters in the
project area:
• Jurisdictional waters and streambank areas with riparian habitat in the project
area would be designated as environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) on the
project plans and in the project specifications.
• The boundaries of the ESAs would be clearly marked in the field by the
installation of a fence which would remain in place throughout the extent of
all construction activities.
• Sediment fencing would be installed prior to ground disturbance.
• No refueling would occur within 100 feet of Donner Creek.
The following measures would be incorporated into the project plans and
specifications in order to avoid and/or minimize impacts to vegetation:
• During construction, efforts would be made to avoid and minimize tree and
vegetation removal.
• A revegetation plan would be prepared and implemented as part of the project.
The plan would include revegetation of all disturbed soil areas with native
plant species.
• Topsoil would be collected during soil excavation operations.
• Topsoil would not include invasive species or noxious weeds.
• Topsoil would be excavated to the lines and depths as directed by the
Engineer.
• All lumps or clods would be broken up before the topsoil is spread.
• Topsoil would be stockpiled until work in the area to receive the material is
complete.
• Upon completion of the earthwork in an area, the topsoil would be spread to a
uniform thickness over the disturbed soil areas.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 50
The following measures are proposed to avoid and/or minimize the risk of
introducing non-native weed species into the project area:
• Only native plan species appropriate for the project area would be used in any
erosion control or revegetation seed mix or stock.
• No dry-farmed straw would be used, and certified weed-free straw would be
required where erosion control straw is to be used.
• Any hydroseed mulch used for revegetation activities would be certified
weed-free.
• All off-road construction equipment would be cleaned of potential noxious
weed sources (mud, vegetation) before entry to the project area and after
entering a potentially infested area before moving on to another area,
• The contractor would employ cleaning methods necessary to ensure that
equipment is free of noxious weeds.
The following measures would be implemented to avoid and/or minimize impacts to
nesting migratory birds:
• Removal of vegetation during clearing and grubbing operations would be
confined to the minimal area necessary to facilitate construction activities.
• Vegetation removal on the project site would occur outside of the nesting
season for migratory bird species. If vegetation removal must take place
during the nesting season(March 1-August 31), a qualified biologist would
conduct pre-construction surveys for active bird nests prior to the start of
construction. If active bird nests are identified, construction would not begin
at that location until after the chicks have fledged.
The following measures would be implemented to avoid and/or minimize impacts
from hazardous materials that are present in the project area:
• No asphalt concrete grindings may be placed in the shoulder backing soil at
locations where erosion or maintenance operations could result in their deposit
into Donner Creek or the Truckee River. Caltrans handling procedures for soil
must include dust control, spillage prevention, and air quality monitoring
during construction.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 51
• The contractor(s) should prepare a project-specific Lead Compliance Plan to
minimize worker exposure to lead-impacted soil and removed yellow traffic
paint residue. The Lead Compliance Plan should include protocols for
environmental and personnel monitoring, requirements for personal protective
equipment, and other health and safety protocols and procedures for the
handling of lead-impacted soil and lead containing yellow traffic stripe paint.
The Lead Compliance Plan would be approved by an Industrial Hygienist
certified by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene.
• Excavation of the proposed tunnel would generate a total of approximately
900 tons of material. During construction, the excavated material should be
stock piled and further analyzed to determine appropriate soil disposal
options. It is recommended that the contractor prepare a Health and Safety
Plan to minimize worker exposure. Petroleum Contaminated Waste Non-
Standard Special Provision would be required, which provides for a health and
safety plan to protect to protect construction workers. The Nevada County
Department of Environmental Health requires soils with detectable
concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons to be disposed off site.
In order to avoid and minimize the potential for sedimentation and other construction-
related impacts, the project would be constructed using the following erosion
measures:
• The project would adhere to the conditions of the Caltrans Statewide National
Pollutant discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit CAS No. 000003
(Order No. 99-06-DWQ) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board.
Adherence to the compliance requirements of the NPDES General Permit
CAS No. 000002 (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ) for General Construction
Activities is also required. The project is also subject to the Construction
General Permit implemented in July 2010.
• A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would be required, which specifies
the level of temporary control measures for the project. These measures must
address soil stabilization, sediment control, tracking control and wind erosion
control practices. In addition, the project plans and specifications would
include non-stormwater controls, waste management, and material pollution
controls.
Impacts to the visual quality of the project area would be avoided or minimized with
implementation of the following measures:
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 52
• All disturbed areas would utilize temporary erosion control measures during
construction to minimize impacts to visual and water quality.
• All areas disturbed during construction would receive permanent erosion
control measures at the completion of the project. All disturbed areas would
be seeded with a permanent seed mix composed of native plant species. In
addition, a follow-up revegetation project would install containerized native
plants to supplement seeding.
• All efforts would be made to minimize impacts to native vegetation and rock
outcroppings during the design and construction phases. Design would
minimize cut and fill limits whenever possible to avoid unnecessary
disturbance of existing terrain.
• Finished contour grading and slopes would be blended to match the natural
topography of the site. All finished slopes would mimic natural terrain by
minimizing harshly angled slopes and hinge point.
• Design and architectural elements of the 1929 undercrossing would be
incorporated into the design of any new structure. Architectural treatments
reflecting the area's historic railroad bridge engineering would be incorporated
in the aesthetic treatment of the tunnel.
• All retaining walls would receive architectural texturing treatment appropriate
to the project context. Currently, a "Dry Stack Stone" architectural treatment
is used on many overcrossings and retaining wall projects in the Truckee area.
A similar treatment developed by the Caltrans Landscape Architecture
Division may be used for this project.
• All retaining structures and rock slope protection would be colorized with an
architectural staining product to match the oxidized coloration of the existing
stone at the site. This would minimize visual impacts caused by newly
constructed slopes and structural elements associated with the project.
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 53
Appendix A: Title VI Policy Statement
ST'AiF ij�CA1-1FQ$NaA^Rl)5FKF55_YRANSPflRTAT]ON
AND lio lg iG AGFti'S - ARJ4gLD S_CF3WARZE.NF.C�FR.G�:SR�
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
P.O.Box 942873,MS-49
SACRAMENTO,CA 94273.0001
PHONE(916)454-5266 FJsx yonr PQM•'
FAX(916)654.6608 Be energy eplNem?
TTY 711
July 20,2010
TITLE VI
POLICY STATEMENT
The California Department of Transportation,under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and related statutes,ensures that no person in the State of Califomia shall,on
the grounds of race,color,national origin,sex,disability,or age,be excluded from
participation in,be denied the benefits of,or be otherwise subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity it administers.
For information or guidance on how to file a complaint based on the grounds of race,
color,national origin,sex,disability,or age,please visit the following web page:
hitp:llwww.dot.ca.govfh gfbepiti tl e_v Ut6_v io I at cd.h tm-
Additionally,if you need this information in an alternate format,such as in Braille or
in a language other than English,please contact Charles Walinon,Manager,Title VI
and Americans with Disabilities Act Program,California Department of Transportation,
1823 Wh Street,M5-79,Sacramento,CA 95911. Phone:(916)324-1353 or toll free
1-856-810-6346(voice),TTY 711,fax(916)324-1869,or via email:
c hart es—w ahnon@d ot.ca.gov.
CINDY Md&IM
Director
-'GdFf,n,i k rc,..Miry--st
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 54
Appendix B: List of Technical Studies
Air Quality Assessment(Air Quality Report, Caltrans 2010)
Archeological Evaluation and Finding of No Effect(Archeology, Caltrans 2009)
Floodplain Evaluation Report Summary (Hydraulics, Caltrans 2010)
Floodplain Risk Analysis (Hydraulics, Caltrans 2010)
Location Hydraulics Study (Hydraulics, Caltrans 20 10)
Initial Site Assessment(Hazardous Waste, Caltrans 2010)
Landscape Assessment(Visual Impact Analysis, Caltrans 20 10)
Natural Environmental Study (Biology, Caltrans 2010)
Noise Assessment (Noise, Caltrans 2010)
Traffic Management Checklist and Data Sheet(Caltrans 2010)
Value Analysis Study (Caltrans, 2008)
Water Quality Assessment(NPDES, Caltrans 2010)
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Route 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 55