HomeMy WebLinkAbout7 Donner Lake Water System Rehab Sauers Tng itiee pit—ig, lnc. A5 eno(OL Rem
Civil & Environmental Engineers
Memorandum
July 24, 2003
TO: Board of Directors, and
Ed Taylor, District Water Operations Manager
FROM: Keith Knibb, Consulting Engineetr r
SUBJECT: DONNER LAKE WATER SYSTEM REHABILITATION,PHASE 2 - CEQA
1. Why this matter is before the Board;
The District is proposing to complete the water system improvements to the water system in the
Donner Lake area. The District is also applying for funding through the State Department of
Health Services State Revolving Fund. Prior to executing the funding contract as well as starting
construction activities, the District is required to complete an environmental review in
compliance with CEQA.
2. History
Since acquiring the Donner Lake water system in 2001, the District has completed a number of
water system improvements in the Donner Lake area. As a result, the boil water order in effect at
the time the District took the system over was lifted and the District is providing reliable service
to the Donner Lake area customers. Additional work is still needed to complete the water
system rehabilitation.
Prior to the acquisition of the Donner Lake system, the District adopted a CEQA Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) for"Donner Lake Water System Acquisition and Rehabilitation."
The Mitigated Negative Declaration for was adopted and the Notice of Determination filed in
February, 2001. In addition to the work which has been completed to date, the MND covered
additional proposed facilities which were at the time considered the complete rehabilitation
project.
As the District has gained experience with the Donner Lake system, new and better alternatives
have been developed for proposed new facilities. These new facilities are outside the scope of
the original MND, therefore a new CEQA environmental review process is required.
3. New information
We have prepared the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Initial Study
for the Donner Lake Water System Rehabilitation, Phase 2. These documents need to be circulated
to responsible and interested agencies and made available for public review. The District also
needs to schedule a public hearing to receive comments. Filing the documents with the county
440 L,mer Gms, Valley Road. Suite A. Ne%ada City. CA 9s959 (5 0j 265-8021 Fax (530) 205-6814
clerk and state clearinghouse will trigger a thirty day review period. Because the project has
components in both Nevada and Placer Counties, the draft documents need to be filed with the
county clerk in both counties.
4. Recommendation
I recommend the Board take the following actions regarding the environmental review for the
Donner Lake Water System Rehabilitation, Phase 2:
1. Authorize the filing of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental
Initial Study with the Office of the Nevada County Clerk and the Office of the Placer
County Clerk.
2. Authorize the circulation of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Environmental Initial Study with responsible and interested agencies and with the State
Clearinghouse.
3. Authorize publication of a Notice of Public Review Period and Public Hearing on the
proposed Negative Declaration.
4. Schedule a public hearing for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration at the regular
Board Meeting on August 20, 2003.
Attachments:
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Initial Study
x
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(XX) Proposed
( ) Final
NAME OF PROJECT: Donner Lake Water System Rehabilitation,Phase 2
LOCATION: Truckee, California
Entity or Person Undertaking Project:
(XX) Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Other( ) Name:
Address:
Phone:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed project involves the completion of the rehabilitation of the water system serving the Donner
Lake area. The project includes construction, operation, and maintenance of a three new potable water
booster pump stations,three new welded steel water storage tanks,a new production well and pump station,
and construction of approximately 15,000 feet of water pipeline. The purpose of the project is to provide
reliable and safe water for domestic use and fire protection thereby improving service to Donner Lake
water system customers.
Finding: It is hereby found that the above named project will not have a significant effect upon the
environment.
Initial An initial study of this project was undertaken and prepared in accordance with Article V
Study: of the District's local environmental guidelines and Section 15063 of the EIR Guidelines for
the California Environmental Quality Act for the purpose ofascertaining whether this project
might have a significant effect upon the environment. A copy of such initial study is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Such initial study documents reasons
to support the above finding.
Mitigation The following mitigation measures have been included in the project to avoid potentially
Measures: significant effects:
GEO-1: Prior to excavation at the various tank sites a geotechnical investigations of the tank
sites will be conducted to determine the stability of the soil and rock material to be
exposed during construction. The tank grading plan will specify the maximum slope
for cut areas and engineered fill slopes based on the slope stability determined by the
geotechnical investigations.
GEO-2: Permanent BMPs will include revegetation of exposed soil areas on the cut and fill
slopes,asphalt pavement on access road and tank access area,and permanent disposal
of surplus excavated material at an acceptable location protected from offsite
migration.
AIR-1: Fugitive dust emissions resulting from site clearing and any project improvements shall be
minimized at all times utilizing control measures including dust palliative,regularly applied
water,graveled or paved haul roads,etc. Access or haul roads adjacent to the project must
be treated as necessary to prevent off-site migration and accumulation of dirt,soils,or other
materials which can subsequently become entrained in ambient air,either from construction
related vehicles or from any vehicle using adjacent affected roads.
AIR-2: When transporting material during site preparation or construction,measures shall be used
to prevent materials from spilling or blowing onto street and highways. Earthen materials,
if transported, shall be adequately sprayed with water or covered prior to transport onto
public roads. Vegetative material shall be tarped as necessary prior to transport. Specific
control measures shall be noted on improvement and/or grading plans.
BIO-1: Pre-construction Surveys for Special Status Wildlife. Conduct surveys for yellow
warbler, nesting raptors, and other special status wildlife prior to construction activities
during the breeding season (April I- September 1, including dispersal of young for some
species). If an active nest is located, construction activities shall be limited in the vicinity
of the nest based on recommendations by the surveying biologist and consultation with the
California Department of Fish and Game.
BI0-2: Wetland and Riparian Habitat Mitigation. Both permanent and temporary impacts to
wetland and riparian vegetation will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.5:1 through a combination
of on-site restoration and the creation of similar habitat at a local site owned by applicant and
to be protected in perpetuity through designation as a conservation easement,i.e.,Greenpoint
Springs.A general revegetation and restoration plan will be prepared for all disturbed sites.
In addition, a site-specific revegetation plan will be developed for Greenpoint Springs,
including the restoration of wetlands impacted historically by water diversions and the
construction of Interstate 80. The revegetation plan will be prepared by a qualified
restoration specialist and consistent with guidelines for habitat mitigation plans provided by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(USACOE) and the Lahoman Regional Water Quality
Control Board(LRWQCB).
111O-3: Prepare Mitigation Plan for Protecting Water and Soil Resources. Prior to any
construction activities, including tree removal, the applicant will coordinate with the
LRWQCB in preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP).The plan will
include a detailed erosion control plan and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
preventing impacts to water quality,including(but not limited to): 1)Construction adjacent
to seep-spring habitats,including manmade channels,will be conducted during late summer
to early fall when run-off and soil moisture is at a minimum; 2)Permanently stabilize all
disturbed soils, including soils on fill pads and access roads utilizing erosion control
blankets,straw wattles,revegetation,mulches of pine needles,mulch or wood chips,locally
native seed,or rock slope protection,depending on the soils and slope gradient.Non-native
seed, straw bales and straw mulches will not be used; 3)Prior to construction, install silt-
fencing to protect perennial or seasonal seeps, springs, drainages, meadows and other
sensitive habitats adjacent to construction;4)After construction is complete,all sites will be
restored to pre-construction conditions; and 5)prepare a detailed monitoring plan to ensure
BMP success.
BI0-4: Native Tree Replacement Planting Plan.Prior to construction,the applicant will conduct
an inventory of all trees to be removed. If the trees are to be removed during the avian
breeding season(April 1-September 1, allowing for dispersal of young for some species),
pre-construction surveys for nesting birds should be conducted prior to removing trees.Trees
over 36-inches diameter should be avoided to the greatest extent possible.Compensate for
the removal of all mature trees over 12-inches diameter through replacement on-site, or at
Springs.The planting plan will be prepared by a qualified restoration specialist and provide
for replacement using only locally native tree species in a minimum 5-gallon(or equivalent)
container size and at a replacement ratio of 2:1.
N0I-1: Construction shall be restricted Monday through Friday, 7:00 am-6:00 pm and Saturdays
from 10:00 am - 5:00 pm. Construction plans shall include reference to these restricted
hours of construction.
CUL-1:Prior to any site disturbing activities at the Greenpoint Springs site,further evaluation of the
potentially significant cultural resources will be conducted by a qualified archeologist.
Based on the evaluation,recommendations and/or mitigations will be incorporated into the
project.
CUL-2 If artifacts,paleontological or cultural,or unusual amounts of stone,bone,shell,or artifacts
related to the early settlement of the Truckee area are uncovered during construction activity,
work shall be halted and a qualified archeologist shall be consulted for an on-site review.
Mitigation measures,as recommended by the archeologist in accordance with Appendix K
of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented prior to recommencement of construction
activity. If any bone appears to be human,California law mandates that the Nevada County
Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission be contacted.
Date: By:
Peter L. Holzmeister, General Manager
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
(Prepared pursuant to Article V of the Environmental
Guidelines of the District)
1. Project Title: Donner Lake Water System Rehabilitation,Phase 2
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
P.O.Box 309
Truckee,CA 96160-0309
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Peter L. Holzmeister,General Manager
(530)582-3916
4. Project Location:
Various locations around Donner Lake,Town of Truckee,Nevada County
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
P.O.Box 309
Truckee,CA 96160-0309
6. General Plan Designation:
Varies
7. Zoning:
Varies
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved,including but not limited to later
phases of the project,and any secondary, support,or off-site features necessary for its
implementation.)
Project Purpose
The proposed project involves the operation and maintenance of the Donner Lake water system by the
Truckee Donner Public Utility District(District) along with the rehabilitation of the water system to
provide reliable and safe water for domestic use and fire protection. The purpose of the project is to
improve service to Donner Lake water system customers.
Background
In 2001,the District acquired and took possession of the Donner Lake water system. The Donner Lake
water system provides service to approximately 1,365 service connections located around Donner Lake,
61 of which are commercial accounts. There are a total of approximately 1,890 parcels in the Donner
Lake service area. Most of the water system facilities and the service area are located in Nevada County.
A small portion of the service area, and one of the existing water storage tanks,is located in Placer
County.
I
In May 2001,due to failing infrastructure and severe operational problems,the Nevada County Superior
Court ordered the Truckee Donner Public Utility District to take possession and operate the Donner Lake
water system. Prior to this time,the system was owned and operated by Donner Lake Water Company,a
private water company regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. Since the District
acquired the Donner Lake system,they have aggressively made extensive improvements in an effort to
minimize water outages and protect public health.
The District replaced the intake pipe at Donner Lake and installed a new twelve-inch transmission line
from the lake intake around to the south side of the lake. A joint program with Southwest Gas replaced
25,000 feet of pipe from Donner Lake Avenue East towards town.Crews constructed new residential
services for the West end of Donner Lake. As a result of the District's work,the boil water ordered by
the State Department of Health Services in June 2000 was lifted in December 2001.
The water system improvement projects completed to date were undertaken pursuant to either an
emergency order related to the system outages and subsequent boil water order,or pursuant to the
previously adopted CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) for"Donner Lake Water System
Acquisition and Rehabilitation." The Mitigated Negative Declaration for"Donner Lake Water System
Acquisition and Rehabilitation"was adopted and the Notice of Determination filed in February,2001.
The previous MND covered a number of project components some of which have been completed, some
of which are scheduled, and some of which are no longer being considered as part of the Donner Lake
improvements.
The proposed projects included in the previous MND were contemplated prior to the District operating
the system. Some of the projects were carry-overs from the former system owner's improvement plans.
Since taking over the system,District personnel have gained operational experience and had an
opportunity to model the system's behavior. The District also identified physical and environmental
constraints associated with the system facilities and locations. Based on this information,the District has
revised the proposed rehabilitation project for the Donner Lake system.
In 1993,treatment requirements were established by the State of California for all surface water sources
used for domestic purposes.Customers within the Donner Lake area primarily receive unfiltered
chlorinated surface water from Donner Lake and spring sources that are under the direct influence of
surface water.These surface water sources are not in compliance with State and Federal surface water
treatment requirements.
Presently,the spring field and lake water sources do not meet the minimum safe drinking water standards
as set forth in the Surface Water Treatment Requirements,Chapter 17,Title 22 of the California Code of
Regulations. In October 1991,the State Department of Health Services issued a notice of compliance
determination informing Donner Lake Water Company that the lake water source did not conform to
acceptable treatment technology. In August 1993,the State Department of Health Services issued a
compliance order requiring the Donner Lake Water Company to fully comply with the California Safe
Drinking Water Act. To date,the system has not been improved to meet surface water treatment
requirements and is still out of compliance with the California Safe Drinking Water Act. Since June
2000,the entire water system has been under a"boil water"order as a result of the State Department of
Health Services determination that chronic low pressure and numerous outages have created an
unacceptable risk of system contamination.
The District has identified and prioritized additional system improvements that must be completed over
the next two years before they can be confident that essential public water service can be reliably
provided to customers in Donner Lake. Once these improvements are completed,the District will
2
abandon the lake and spring sources and provide water from the Districts main system that meets all State
and Federal treatment requirements and water quality standards.
Project Characteristics
The following is description of each of the proposed components of the Donner Lake Water System
Rehabilitation,Phase 2 project.
Cedar Point Tank-Construction of a 1,000,000 gallon welded steel water storage tank(86'e x 24'high),
12'paved tank access around tank,and 400'x 12'wide paved access road. Project includes acquisition of
the tank site and access road property. The approximate area of disturbance is estimated to be 0.61 acre.
Cedar Point Booster Pump Station - Construction of a booster pump station at the Cedar Point Tank site.
Building dimensions approximately 18'x 24'. Pump station will pump between Cedar Point Tank and Donner
Lake Road Tank. Project includes acquisition of the pump station site. The area of disturbance is included
with the Cedar Point Tank.
Donner Lake Road Tank-Construction of a 500,000 gallon welded steel water storage tank(52'e x 24'high),
12'paved tank access around tank,and 200'x 12'wide paved access road. Project includes acquisition of the
tank site and access road property. The approximate area of disturbance is estimated to be 0.50 acre.
Donner Lake Road Pipeline - Construction of approximately 2,500' of 12" pipeline between Cedar Point
Booster Pump Station and Donner Lake Road Tank. Pipeline will be constructed along Donner Lake Road,
a portion of Cedar Point Court,and the tank access roads. The approximate area of disturbance,excluding
the portions under tank access roads,is estimated to be 0.50 acre.
Montano Property Tank Site- This is a backup tank site nearby to the Cedar Point Tank site. The project
would also include a pipeline and a new access road. Project would include acquisition of the tank site and
access road property. The approximate area of disturbance would be similar to the Cedar Point Tank.
Richards Drive Booster Pump Station and Pipelines- Construction of a booster pump station on a District
owned parcel on Richards Drive. Building dimensions approximately 30, x 18'. Will include a paved
driveway and parking area. Pump station piping will connect to the existing pipeline in Richards Drive in
front of the station. A new 8" pipeline will also be constructed along Richards Drive to feed the existing
Armstrong Tank. The approximate area of disturbance is estimated to be 0.07 acre.
Greenpoint SArings Tank Removal and Wetlands Restoration - Removal of two existing redwood tanks,
booster pump facility, miscellaneous piping, and concrete. This project will involve the restoration of
wetlands associated with Greenpoint Springs including possible creation of a wetlands bank. Restoration will
address drainage issues from spring and other sources and include drainage around West Reed structures and
conveyance to Donner Lake. The restoration will also include decommissioning the existing dirt access road
by regrading the road to encourage sheet flow of the seep springs. The approximate area of disturbance is
estimated to be 0.22 acre.
12"Pipeline-Cedar Point Tank to Denton Avenue-Construction of a 12"pipeline from the Cedar Point Tank
to Denton Avenue. A portion of this project will be built in conjunction with the West Reed to Pioneer Drive
pipeline. The approximate area of disturbance is estimated to be 1.20 acre.
12"Pipeline-West Reed Avenue to Pioneer Drive-Construction of a 12"pipeline from West Reed Avenue
to Pioneer Trail along an existing undeveloped right-of-way. Most of the alignment is shared with the Cedar
3
Point Tank to Denton Avenue pipeline. The approximate area of additional disturbance is estimated to be
0.16 acre.
12"Pipeline-Denton Avenue to Robin Lane-Construction of a 12"pipeline from Denton Avenue to Robin
Lane along the existing undeveloped right-of-way and between existing residences. The approximate area
of disturbance is estimated to be 0.31 acre.
12" Pipeline-Robin Lane to Olympic Drive - Construction of a 12" pipeline from Robin Lane to Olympic
Drive. This pipeline would replace an existing 6-inch pipeline. The approximate area of disturbance is
estimated to be 0.55 acre.
Rehabilitation of 6" Pipeline from Robin Lane to Donner Ave - Existing pipeline will be slip-lined and
service connections replaced. The area of disturbance is expected to be minimal,limited to spot excavations
for connections and service installations.
8" Pipeline-East Reed Avenue to Denton Avenue-Construction of an 8"pipeline from East Reed Avenue
to Denton Avenue. Pipeline will be constructed between residential parcels. The approximate area of
disturbance is estimated to be 0.14 acre.
Rehabilitation of Existing 18-inch Pipeline in Donner Pass Road—Inspect,clean,possible slip-line or other
rehabilitation technique for existing 18"pipeline in Donner Pass Road near State Park entrance. The area of
disturbance is expected to be minimal,limited to spot excavations for connections.
12"Pipeline in Donner Pass Road from Eddy venue to Donner State Park—Pipeline located in westbound
travel lane of Donner Pass Road in existing paved road and public Right of Way. The approximate area of
disturbance is estimated to be 1.55 acre.
Upper Tank Removal and Restoration- Removal of two existing redwood tanks,abandonment in place of
existing pipelines,and restoration/revegetation of tank site. Tank site is located north of I-80 near the Vista
Point. The approximate area of disturbance is estimated to be 0.05 acre.
Red Mountain Hvdropneumatic Pump Station and Tank- Construction of hydropneumatic booster pump
station and pipelines and replacement of existing tank. This project was included in previous MND,however
wetland issues need to be revisited and more thoroughly addressed. The approximate area of disturbance is
estimated to be 0.06 acre.
Prosser Village Production Well Pump Station. and Pipeline - Construction of a production well, pump
station,and pipeline located south of Interstate 80,east of the Prosser Village Road undercrossing.. Project
will include access road and parking area at pump station. Project includes acquisition of the well site and
access road property. The well would include approximately 500 feet of pipeline along Truckee Airport
Road to Prosser Village Road,tying into an existing distribution pipeline. Water from well development and
pump testing would be discharged into an existing detention pond located across Truckee Airport Road
approximately 300 feet from the well site. The approximate area of disturbance is estimated to be 0.18 acre.
The total estimated area of disturbance is approximately 6.04 acres.
Construction of new tanks involves the construction of three new welded steel water storage tanks,access
roads, and underground utilities including pipelines, electrical conduits and communication conduits.
Construction will also involve grading a level pad for the tanks and access around the tanks,construction of
retaining walls,placement of engineered fill on the downhill side of the tanks,and grading of a cut slopes on
4
the uphill side of the tanks. Replacement of the existing water storage tank will involve the removal of the
existing tank and construction of a new tank at the same location. Tanks will be sized using current District
design criteria and include capacity for domestic, emergency,and fire protection storage.
The construction of pipelines will involve construction within existing roads and rights-of-way,construction
along existing dirt access roads,construction across residential parcels, and construction through currently
undeveloped property. Construction will include trenching,backfill,and surface restoration consistent with
the existing surface conditions. Pipeline replacement construction will be typical of recent District
replacement projects involving the installation of distribution mains, service laterals, water services, fire
hydrant assemblies, and valves. Materials and construction shall be in accordance with current District
standards.
Booster pump stations will involve construction a of masonry block or wood frame building on a concrete
slab housing pump,motors,electrical control equipment,miscellaneous mechanical and electrical equipment,
and communication equipment. The pump stations will also involve construction of underground utilities
including pipelines connecting to the existing distribution system,primary and secondary electric conduit,
and communication conduit.
The new production well will involve the construction of a new well and casing followed by the construction
of a well pump station. Well construction will consist of drilling a well borehole 800 to 1,000 feet below
ground surface and installing a steel casing the length of the borehole. The well will be packed with gravel
outside of the casing and a cement sanitary seal will be poured in the upper 100 to 200 feet of the borehole
to isolate upper groundwater zones from the production well. Well pump station construction will be similar
to the booster pump station construction described above. Well construction will also include well
development and pump testing. Water extracted from the well during development and testing will be
discharged to the surface either into an existing detention basin located near the well site. There will be an
estimated 7,260,000 gallons of water discharged during development and testing.
Tank removal projects will involve draining,dismantling,and removing two redwood water tanks from each
of the two locations. Tanks, concrete slabs, and aboveground pipe, fittings, and appurtenances will be
completely removed from the sites. Underground pipelines will be sealed and abandoned in place. The
Greenpoint Springs site will also include the removal of the existing pump station and chlorination
equipment. Following removal of the facilities,the sites will be restored by revegetation.
The project includes restoration and enhancement of existing and historic wetlands at the Greenpoint Springs
site. The Greenpoint Springs is currently a source of water for the Donner Lake system. Spring water is
collected in a number of spring boxes on the hillside above and to the east of the tank site. The water is
conveyed through a series of pipelines from the spring boxes to the tanks. The District is proposing to
decommission the spring boxes and cap and abandon the conveyance pipelines, allowing the springs to
discharge to the surface. Releasing the water to the surface will reestablish historic wetlands which have been
dried up since the installation of the spring boxes. The restoration project will also include construction of
surface conveyances to collect and convey surface water away from homes below the wetland area and into
Donner Lake.
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
With respect to the overall rehabilitation of the water system serving Donner Lake, the following general
alternatives have been considered. Site specific alternatives for construction of various components are
described further in subsequent sections of this initial study.
5
Source
A). No nroiect. This alternative involves continuing as before,to utilize lake and spring source water
without filtration and with continued chlorination.
B). Utilize groundwater sources from the District's main system and eliminate the use of surface
water as a source.
Q. Provide treatment of existing lake and/or spring sources in compliance with the Surface Water
Treatment Rule.
D). Construct new groundwater source wells within the Donner Lake service area.
Storage
A). No nroiect. This alternative involves continuing as before with no new tanks,repairing storage
tanks as they break,but doing nothing to upgrade,rehabilitate,replace or enlarge them.
B). Construct new water storage tanks anks providing additional capacity at new locations determined by
the District.
Q. Upsize existing water storage tanks anks providing additional capacity at the locations of the existing
tanks.
D). Replace existingtanks anks at the same capacity in the existing locations.
Pum in
A). No nroiect. No new pumping facilities would be constructed.
B). Construction of new pumping facilities to transfer water to the Donner Lake system and within
the Donner Lake system.
Evaluation of Alternatives
Source
A). No project. By not changing the current source of supply,the system would continue to be served
by unfiltered surface water. A"no project"alternative would not be responsive to the water quality concerns
expressed by DHS, and the system would still not be in compliance with SWTR requirements. The "No
Project"alternative is not responsive to the problems identified with the water system,and will not be further
evaluated.
B). Utilize groundwater sources. Except for the Donner Lake system, the Truckee Donner Public
Utility District is served entirely by groundwater sources. Groundwater in the Truckee area is of excellent
quality and,as indicated in various groundwater studies conducted by District,in sufficient quantity to serve
the long-term needs of the District,including the Donner Lake service area. Providing groundwater source
from the main system would fully integrate the Donner Lake system into the District's overall operations.
Utilization of groundwater would avoid the need for construction and ongoing operation and maintenance
of a surface water treatment plant. The District is currently engaged in a groundwater source development
program for its main system with the intention of including capacity for the Donner Lake system. This is
considered the preferred alternative for providing source to the Donner Lake system.
6
Q. Provide treatment. This alternative involves the construction of a new surface water treatment
plant and continued usage of Donner Lake water. Anew treatment plant would presumably be located across
Donner Pass Road from the lake intake, and include chemical feed and storage, filters, disinfection
equipment, chlorine contact facilities, and pumping facilities. This was the alternative presented by the
previous system owner prior to the system being acquired by the District. Although a site had been chosen,
land use and environmental issues,including proximity to Gregory Creek and potential for flooding,raised
questions as to the suitability of the site. The ongoing cost and effort required for operation and maintenance
of a surface water treatment plant is also considerably greater than that for a well.
D). Construct new wells within Donner Lake service area. This alternative would involve the
construction of additional groundwater wells within the Donner Lake service area to pump directly into the
system. The Donner Lake system currently includes three wells producing between 20 and 90 gpm. By
contrast,production wells constructed within the District's main system typically produce between 1,000 and
2,000 gpm. Because wells constructed in the Donner Lake area are such relatively low yield wells, it is
considered infeasible to supply the service area from local wells.
Storage
A). No project. By not constructing any new tanks,the system would continue to be served by the
existing inadequately sized, leaky tanks. The Red Mountain Tank would remain out of service due to
structural deficiencies further decreasing the available storage capacity. The"No Project"alternative is not
responsive to the problems identified with the water system,and will not be further evaluated in this report.
B). Construct new water stora a tank anks. This alternative includes the construction of three new water
storage tanks, two at new locations and one replacement of an existing tank. Tank locations were chosen
based on District hydraulic modeling of the distribution system and on elevation,access,and suitability of
terrain for this type of construction project. Proposed tank sites have been chosen which avoid environmental
constraints such as wetlands found at existing tank sites. This is considered the preferred alternative for
providing storage capacity for the Donner Lake system.
Q. Upsize existing water storage tanks. This alternative would involve construction of new larger
tanks at the locations of the existing Red Mountain Tank and Greenpoint Springs Tanks. Both the existing
Red Mountain Tank and Greenpoint Springs Tanks are located within or adjacent to delineated jurisdictional
wetlands. Any increase in the footprint of the existing tanks at these locations would result in unavoidable
adverse impacts to wetland resources. In order to avoid these potential impacts, consideration of this
alternative was eliminated.
D). Replace existing tanks. This alternative would involve replacement of the Southside (Red
Mountain)Tank and Greenpoint Springs Tanks with tanks of the same size and capacity. This alternative
is being considered for the Red Mountain Tank which is proposed to be replaced with an"in-kind"tank. The
two existing Greenpoint Springs Tanks have a combined capacity of 60,000 gallons. It has been determined
that a capacity of 1,000,000 gallons is needed for this tank location. Also,any construction work associated
with the replacement of the tanks could have potential adverse effects on the surrounding wetlands.
Pumping
A). No proiect. By not providing any new pumping facilities,the District would not be able to transfer
groundwater source into the Donner Lake system resulting in the need to provide treatment for the Donner
Lake surface water source. The system would not be able to transfer water from the lower pressure zone to
the upper pressure zone,and customers near Red Mountain Tank would not have adequate water pressure.
The"No Project"alternative is not responsive to the problems identified with the water system,and will not
be further evaluated in this report.
7
B). Construction of new pumping facilities. This alternative would involve the construction of three
new booster pump stations including one hydropneumatic pump station. A new booster pump station would
be constructed on the District's main system to transfer groundwater source to the Donner Lake system. A
second booster pump station would be constructed adjacent to one of the proposed new water storage tanks
to transfer water from the lower pressure zone to the upper pressure zone. A hydropneumatic station would
be constructed near the Red Mountain Tank to provide pressurized domestic and fire water to the upper
elevation customers in that area. This is considered the preferred alternative for providing pumping capacity
for the Donner Lake system.
9. Other agencies whose approval is required:
State of California, Department of Health Services, Office of Drinking Water
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region
Town of Truckee
State of California Department of Fish and Game
United States Army Corp of Engineers
10. Environmental Setting of the Project:
The majority of the project is in the Donner Lake area located in the southwestern portion of the Town of
Truckee. Donner Lake is situated on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains at the base of Donner
Summit. The lake is surrounded by mountainous terrain with steeper topography along the north and south
sides of the lake. The area is heavily treed with various species of native pines and contains many seasonal
and non-seasonal springs,drainages,and creeks which ultimately discharge into Donner Lake. See Appendix
A for a more complete discussion of the Donner Lake area as well as each of the individual project sites.
The lake is mostly surrounded on the north,west,and south by residences,both seasonal and year-around,
and commercial businesses. Donner Lake State Park is located on the east end of the lake. There are areas
of undeveloped land directly abutting the lake including Donner State Park,West End Beach,and significant
portions of the north side of the lake. Additional development potential in the area is limited,except for the
build-out of existing in-fill areas and some residential acreage near the west end of the lake.
Cedar Point Tank and Cedar Point Booster Pump Station-The Cedar Point Tank and booster pump station
is located adjacent to Donner Lake Road near the eastern terminus of Cedar Point Court. The site is part of
the Town of Truckee's right-of-way for Donner Lake Road. The site is covered with a mix of grasses,brush,
and fir trees. The tank and pump station site has an average slope of approximately 30%. The tank site
elevation ranges between 6,090 and 6,135 feet above sea level. There is an existing house at the end of Cedar
Point Court which will be near the tank project.
Donner Lake Road Tank - The Donner Lake Road Tank is located between Donner Lake Road and the
Interstate 80 right-of-way. The tank site has an average slope of approximately 23%. The tank site elevation
ranges between 6,270 and 6,315 feet above sea level. The site is predominately forested but also contains
intermittent openings dominated by sagebrush and grasses.
Donner Lake Road Pipeline- Construction of the Donner Lake Road Pipeline will be along proposed tank
access roads and within the existing Donner Lake Road right-of-way. The pipeline will be constructed either
under the paved section or under the gravel shoulder.
Montano Property Tank Site-This is a backup tank site nearby to the Cedar Point Tank site. The site is near
the Donner Lake Road Tank site and is in a similar environmental setting. The site is predominately forested
but also contains intermittent openings dominated by sagebrush and grasses. In April 2002,the Town of
8
Truckee approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Montano Subdivision(Application No.01-039)
which includes the tank site. The MND provides a detailed description of the project area.
Richards Drive Booster Pump Station and Pipelines-The Richards Drive site is a residential parcel owned
by the District. The parcel contains jurisdictional wetlands as well as upland areas. The site is predominately
covered with shrubs and grasses,with some trees in the upland areas. The site includes a rock lined drainage
along the western property line and a grass lined V-ditch running parallel with Richards Drive across the front
of the property. The site contains an overhead electric power line across the back of the parcel and an
overhead telephone line across the front of the property.
Greenpoint Springs Tank Removal and Wetlands Restoration-See Appendix A for a detail discussion of the
Greenpoint Springs area. The Greenpoint Springs area includes a number of seep springs most of which are
collected through a series of spring boxes and diverted to the drinking water system. The area includes
jurisdictional wetlands and historic wetlands.
Upper Tank Removal and Restoration-The site is in a mostly forested area north of I-80 near the Vista Point.
The site is accessed by a spur road from the Vista Point parking area.
Red Mountain Hydrouneumatic Pump Station and Tank - The Red Mountain site contains jurisdictional
wetlands along with some wetland areas which are supported by leaks from the existing tank and pipeline.
The pump station and pipeline are proposed to be placed in mostly upland areas along the eastern property
line. The new tank would be located in the same location as the existing tank creating no new impacts.
Production Well Pump Station and Pipeline-The production well site is located adjacent to Truckee Airport
Road near the intersection with Prosser Village Road and the entrance to the Old Greenwood development.
The site is predominately covered with shrubs and grasses,with some trees. A large detention basin is located
directly across Truckee Airport Road where water from the construction and testing of the well will be
pumped.
Donner Lake Area Pipeline Projects-Appendix A includes a detailed discussion of the environmental settings
of each of the pipeline projects including alignment alternatives.
9
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one
impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"or"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"as indicated
by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services
❑ Population and Housing ® Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems
® Geophysical ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics
M Water ❑ Hazards ® Cultural Resources
M Air Quality ®Noise ❑ Recreation
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the
attached sheets have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least
one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described
on attached sheets, if the effect is a"potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless
mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed. ❑
Signature Date
Peter L. Holzmeister, General Manager Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Printed Name For
10
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A briefexplanation is required for all answers except "No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should he
explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g.the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well
as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead
agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant
Impact"entries when the determination is made,EIR is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an
effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact". The lead agency must describe
the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation
measures from Section XVII,`Earlier Analyses", may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are
discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts(e.g.general plans,zoning ordinances). See the sample question below. A source list should be attached,
and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7) This is only a suggested form,and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
Sample Question:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? (1,6) 0
(Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan,and
6 is a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need
further explanation.)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ❑
(source#(s):)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? O ❑
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations(e.g.impacts
to soils or farmlands,or impacts from incompatible land
uses)? O 0
11
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant
Issues(and supporting Information Sources)
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? () (3 ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g.through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? O ❑ ❑ ❑
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose
people to potential impacts involving:
a) Seismicity: fault rupture? () ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? () ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Seismicity: seiche or tsunami? () ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Landslides or mudslides? () ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation,grading or fill? O ❑ ❑ ❑
I) Subsidence of the land? () ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Expansive soils? () ❑ ❑ ❑
h) Unique geologic or physical features?() ❑ ❑ ❑
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? () ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? () ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? () ❑ ® ❑ ❑
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? O ❑ ® ❑ ❑
e) Changes in currents,or the course or direction of water
movements? O ❑ ® ❑ ❑
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through
direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?() ❑ ❑ M ❑
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?() ❑ ❑ (2 ❑
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? () ❑ ❑ M ❑
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? () ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? () ❑ ❑ ❑
12
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues(and supporting Information Sources) Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Alter air movement,moisture,or temperature,or cause
any change in climate? () ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Create objectionable odors? () ❑ ❑ ❑
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (} ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g.sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)?O ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? O ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? O ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? O ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Rail,waterbome or air traffic impacts? (} ❑ ❑ ❑
VIl. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitat
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals,and birds)? O ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
b) Locally designated species(e.g.heritage trees)? O ❑ ® ❑ ❑
c) Locally designated natural communities(e.g.oak forest, ❑ ® ❑ ❑
costal habitat,etc.)? ()
d) Wetland habitat(e.g.marsh,riparian and vernal pool)? ❑ ❑
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? () ❑ ❑ ❑
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? () ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? O ❑ ❑ ❑
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances(including,but not limited to: oil,pesticides, ❑
chemicals or radiation)? () ❑ ❑
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? () ❑ ❑ ❑
13
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues(and supporting Information Sources) Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health ❑ ❑ ❑
hazard? O
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? () ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass,or trees? ()
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? O ❑ ® ❑ ❑
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () ❑ ❑ ❑
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? () ❑ ❑ ® ❑
b) Police protection? O ❑ ❑ ❑ M
c) Schools? () ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? O ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Other governmental services? () ❑ ❑ ❑
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to thefollowing utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?() ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Communications systems? O ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? () ❑ ❑ M ❑
d) Sewer or septic tanks?() ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Storm water drainage?() ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Solid waste disposal?() ❑ ❑ ❑ M
XIII.AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?() ❑ ❑ ®' ❑
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?O ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Create light or glare?() ❑ ❑ ❑ M
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?() ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Disturb archaeological resources? () ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Affect historical resources? () ❑ ® ❑ ❑
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic culture values?() ❑ ® ❑ ❑
14
c) Mitigation measures. (For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated",describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.)
EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST ANSWERS
A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
This project involves the construction of water system facilities to provide water service to existing and
proposed development within the Town of Truckee. The Town of Truckee adopted a General Plan and
associated environmental documents in 1996 which included the area to be served by the Donner Lake
Water System Rehabilitation, Phase 2 project. The General Plan sets forth the land use and planning
policies for the town. Provision of water supply facilities allows the implementation of the General Plan.
The project will result in the construction of a new public water supply tanks,pump stations,well, and
underground utilities. The new facilities will be an acceptable land use based on the land use and zoning
designation of the project parcels.
The operation and maintenance of the water system by the District is not expected to have any affect on
land use and planning issues.
Mitigation Measures: None required
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Donner Lake water system serves approximately 1,230 existing customers, both residential and
commercial, with an estimated potential 1,800 customers at build-out. The project as proposed will
accommodate the continued development of the Donner Lake water system service area consistent with
the population and housing elements of the Town's general plan. The project does have the potential to
serve a population greater than the current population in accordance with the general plan. The project
will not extend service into areas not already served by the system. Although the project will
accommodate growth, it is not considered to either directly or indirectly induce growth. Growth in the
Donner Lake area is limited due to physical factors including local geography and the Interstate 80
corridor. Water service would be made available to undeveloped areas only after complying with all other
planning, land use, and environmental requirements imposed by the appropriate jurisdictional agencies.
Mitigation Measures: None required
III. GEOPHYSICAL
The project will require a fairly extensive amount of grading to prepare a level pads for the water storage
tanks. The pump stations will require a modest amount of grading to prepare the pump station building
pad and parking area. Pipeline and underground electrical construction will involve excavation and
backfill of trenches.As is standard with all District construction projects of this type,grading,trenching,
and backfill operations will include surface restoration either with paving or other permanent erosion
control measures.
The Cedar Point Tank will be placed on a benched pad cut into the hillside. The depth at the back of the
tank and access road cut will be approximately 36 feet. In order to stabilize to exposed embankment, it
is anticipated that a 10 foot high retaining wall will be constructed for a portion of the embankment and
that the remainder of the embankment will be sloped back at a stable slope. The Donner Lake Road Tank
will be placed on fill material with some slope excavation for the access road and tank access. Excess
suitable spoils from the Cedar Point Tank may be used as fill for the Donner Lake Road Tank. The fill
16
will be approximately 24 feet high from the tank pad to the toe of the fill slope. The Red Mountain Tank
will located at the site of an existing tank;there is not expected to be any significant excavation at this site.
The pump stations,including Cedar Point,Richards Drive,Red Mountain,and the production well,will
involve minor excavation ofbalanced cut/fill pads for the pump station buildings. The pump station at Red
Mountain will be accessed from the existing street and not involve access road or parking construction.
The Cedar Point station will be accessed from the Cedar Point Tank access with no additional parking.
The stations at Richards Drive and the production well will include grading for access roads and parking
areas.
Pipeline and conduit construction will involve excavation and backfill of trenches. Pipeline trenches are
generally 5 to 6 feet deep and,depending on the diameter of the pipeline and soil conditions,3 to 5 feet
wide.
Typical soils in the area of the project site consist of a mixture of sands, gravels, volcanics, and
decomposed organic topsoil with underlying volcanic rock such as basalt. These soils are not considered
potentially expansive. There are no unique physical or geologic features associated with the project site.
Because of the extent of the excavation for the preparation of tank pads and access roads, potential
geophysical impacts are considered a potentially significant impact unless mitigated.
Mitigation Measures:
GEO-1: Prior to excavation at the various tank sites a geotechnical investigations of the tank sites will
be conducted to determine the stability of the soil and rock material to be exposed during
construction. The tank grading plan will specify the maximum slope for cut areas and
engineered fill slopes based on the slope stability determined by the geotechnical investigations.
GEO-2: Permanent BMPs will include revegetation of exposed soil areas on the cut and fill slopes,
asphalt pavement on access road and tank access area, and permanent disposal of surplus
excavated material at an acceptable location protected from offsite migration.
IV. WATER
There will be an increase in the amount of impervious surface as a result of this project including the tanks,
access roads,paved tank access areas,pump station buildings,and parking areas. The estimated amount
of impervious surface is shown below. Drainage will flow from the impervious areas to infiltration basins
adjacent to the site locations. The infiltration basins will be sized to accommodate runoff from a I-hour,
20-year storm as defined by the Lahontan Regional Board. This is considered a less than significant
impact.
Project Estimated New Impervious Area
Cedar Point Tank and Pump Station 14,400 s.f.
Donner Lake Tank 7,200 s.f.
Red Mountain Pump Station 500 s.f.
Richards Drive Pump Station 2,400 s.f.
Prosser Village Well 2,500 s.f.
TOTAL AREA 27,000 s.f. (0.62 acre)
17
During well development and pump testing of the Prosser Village Well, water from the well will be
discharged to an existing detention basin near the well site. Water will be conveyed from the well through
a pipeline to the basin where it will be allowed to percolate back into the ground. This discharge will be
under a Temporary Land Application Permit administered by the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board-Lahontan Region. The permit allows for land application discharges including pump/well
testing. The discharge must be monitored to assure it does not reach any surface waters. The District has
contracted for well development and pump testing monitoring services for this project to assure
compliance with permit conditions. This is considered a less than significant impact.
The project includes a new production water well and will consequently involve the withdrawal of
groundwater. The District has established a groundwater monitoring program through adoption of its
Groundwater Management Plan. The Groundwater Management Plan provides estimates of safe aquifer
yield for the Martis Valley Aquifer. This is the amount of groundwater which can be withdrawn without
adversely affecting the aquifer when compared to the amount of estimated aquifer recharge. The proposed
Prosser Village Well is consistent with the Groundwater Management Plan. Appendix B includes a report
by District's Consulting Hydrogeologist indicating there should be no significant impact from the
operation of the new well.
There may be some alteration in the direction of flow of groundwater near the well as groundwater is taken
into the well by pumping. This is not considered a significant impact.
Groundwater quality will be protected by the installation of a sanitary seal in accordance with the State
Department of Health Service requirements for construction of public water supply wells. The sanitary
seal will be constructed to a depth of 200 to 300 feet below ground surface to assure there will be no
influence from surface water.
During construction, there is a potential for excavated material to migrate offsite in the event of a rain
storm event. Prior to site disturbing activities,the District will prepare a Report of Waste Discharge in
compliance with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. Best management practices
(BMPs)will be incorporated into the project to protect water quality during and after construction. This
is considered a potentially significant impact unless mitigated.
Jurisdictional wetlands were found at several sites in association with seeps and springs.Impacts to seep-
spring wetlands were greatly minimized through a consideration of alternatives and design modifications.
Remaining permanent and temporary impacts total less than 0.42 acres across five separate sites. This
potentially significant direct and cumulative impact will be reduced to a level less than significant through
the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-2.See Appendix A,Sections 4 and 5,for a full description
of resources, impacts and mitigation.
Construction activities within or adjacent to wetlands, seep-spring habitats, and manmade channels
conveying spring runoff could result in temporary impacts to water quality.Disturbed soils resulting from
construction activities could also result in impacts to water quality through erosion/sedimentation. This
potentially significant impact will be reduced to a level less than significant through the implementation
of mitigation measure BIO-3.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO-2: Wetland and Riparian Habitat Mitigation.Both permanent and temporary impacts to wetland
and riparian vegetation will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.5:1 through a combination of on-site
restoration and the creation of similar habitat at a local site owned by applicant and to be
protected in perpetuity through designation as a conservation easement,i.e.,Greenpoint Springs.
A general revegetation and restoration plan will be prepared for all disturbed sites.In addition,
a site-specific revegetation plan will be developed for Greenpoint Springs, including the
restoration of wetlands impacted historically by water diversions and the construction of
Interstate 80. The revegetation plan will be prepared by a qualified restoration specialist and
18
consistent with guidelines for habitat mitigation plans provided by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers(USACOE)and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board(LRWQCB).
BIO-3: Prepare Mitigation Plan for Protecting Water and Soil Resources. Priorto any construction
activities, including tree removal, the applicant will coordinate with the LRWQCB in
preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The plan will include a
detailed erosion control plan and Best Management Practices(BMPs) for preventing impacts
to water quality,including(but not limited to): 1)Construction adjacent to seep-spring habitats,
including manmade channels,will be conducted during late summer to early fall when run-off
and soil moisture is at a minimum;2)Permanently stabilize all disturbed soils,including soils
on fill pads and access roads utilizing erosion control blankets, straw wattles, revegetation,
mulches of pine needles, mulch or wood chips, locally native seed, or rock slope protection,
depending on the soils and slope gradient.Non-native seed,straw bales and straw mulches will
not be used;3)Prior to construction,install silt-fencing to protect perennial or seasonal seeps,
springs, drainages, meadows and other sensitive habitats adjacent to construction; 4) After
construction is complete,all sites will be restored to pre-construction conditions;and 5)prepare
a detailed monitoring plan to ensure BMP success.
V. AIR QUALITY
Construction activities have the potential to generate PM I O emissions through the release of fugitive dust
associated with grading and excavation activities. The following mitigation measures are added to the
project to reduce potential impacts to less than significant:
Mitigation Measures:
AIR-1: Fugitive dust emissions resulting from site clearing and any project improvements shall be
minimized at all times utilizing control measures including dust palliative, regularly applied
water,graveled or paved haul roads,etc. Access or haul roads adjacent to the project must be
treated as necessary to prevent off-site migration and accumulation of dirt, soils, or other
materials which can subsequently become entrained in ambient air, either from construction
related vehicles or from any vehicle using adjacent affected roads.
AIR-2: When transporting material during site preparation or construction,measures shall be used to
prevent materials from spilling or blowing onto street and highways. Earthen materials, if
transported, shall be adequately sprayed with water or covered prior to transport onto public
roads. Vegetative material shall be tarped as necessary prior to transport. Specific control
measures shall be noted on improvement and/or grading plans.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
During construction at the various sites, there will be an increase in vehicle trips to the project site
associated with the contractor's activities. This is considered a less than significant impact.
Pipeline construction along existing streets may impact traffic along that street. It is anticipated that
pipeline will be constructed along the shoulders and within the traveled ways of the various streets
included in the rehabilitation project. District construction contracts routinely include specifications
requiring contractors to prepare traffic control and lane closure plans prior to construction. These plans
will be made available for review and approval by the Town of Truckee through the encroachment permit
application process. This is considered a less than significant impact. The project will not have any affect
on emergency access,access to nearby uses,or alternative transportation.
The project will include parking for District vehicles.
Mitigation Measures: None required
19
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The biological resources responses below are based on wetland delineations and field surveys for special
status species conducted between May 28 and July 11,2003 by Garcia and Associates biological resources
consultants. Field surveys were preceded by a review of California Department of Fish and Game
((CDFG),U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS),CalifomiaNative Plant Society(CNPS),and Nevada
County Natural Resources Report special status species lists for theproject area.See Appendix A,Sections
4 and 5, for a full description of resources,impacts and mitigation.
Would the project 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?
No state-or federal-listed Threatened,Endangered,or Candidate species were found;nor is any critical
habitat present for those species. However Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator),wolverine
(Gulo gulo luteus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and peregrine falcon (Falco neret>rinus
anatum) could occur as transients, traveling between areas of more suitable habitat. The majority of
project locations occur in close association with busy roadways and high-density residential areas; and
since no breeding habitat and only poor quality foraging habitat exist,no adverse effects to these species
are expected.
One special status species,yellow warbler(Dendroica petechia brewsteri),a CDFG Species of Special
Concern,was located breeding at one site, i.e.,Greenpoint Springs,during the field surveys.No other
federal and/or CDFG Species of Special Concern were observed at any of the remaining proposed
project sites and no nesting raptors or special status bat species were found breeding within the project
areas. However,at least marginally suitable breeding habitat does exist for six CDFG Species of Special
Concern:Cooper's hawk(Accipiter cooperii),sharp-sbinned hawk(Accipiterstriatus),osprey(Pandion
haliaetus), California horned lark(Eremophita alpestris actia), Sierra Nevada snowshoe bare(Lepus
americanus tahoensis), and white-tailed hare(Lepus townsendit).
Potential impacts to breeding migratory bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(including Federal Species of Concern and USFWS Migratory Non-game Birds of Management
Concern)could occur at a number of locations; therefore,pre-construction surveys will be required at
these sites. Additionally,active nests of the common nighthawk(Chordeiles minor)were found adjacent
to the proposed production well site. Raptors were observed during field surveys;however,no active
raptor nests were identified on or adjacent to the project sites. Nevertheless,disturbance to an active
raptor nest could occur during construction activities in 2004-2005. Disturbing an active raptor nest
would violate Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code and would be considered
a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1, below,would reduce
these potential impacts to a level less than significant.Project sites not requiring any mitigation measures
are those that occur along high-use thoroughfares or where habitat is degraded by high levels of
disturbance and not suitable for special status species.
Mitigation Measure:
BIO-1: Pre-construction Surveys for Special Status Wildlife. Conduct surveys for yellow warbler,
nesting raptors, and other special status wildlife prior to construction activities during the
breeding season(April I- September 1, including dispersal of young for some species). If an
active nest is located,construction activities shall be limited in the vicinity of the nest based on
recommendations by the surveying biologist and consultation with the California Department
of Fish and Game.
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,policies or regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
20
No perennial or seasonal streams as shown on the USGS topographic maps of the area would be affected
by the project. Wetland-riparian habitats of alder and willow scrub are found at several sites in
association with the wetlands described below.Permanent and temporary impacts to riparian vegetation
associated with seeps and springs were greatly minimized through consideration of alternatives and
resulting design modifications.Appendix...,Sections 4 and 5,contains detailed descriptions of riparian
and wetland habitats found at each site and recommended mitigation measures. See discussion below
regarding mitigation measures required to reduce these potential impacts to a level less than significant.
Would the project 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?
Jurisdictional wetlands were found at several sites in association with seeps and springs.Impacts to seep-
spring wetlands were greatly minimized through a consideration of alternatives and design
modifications. Remaining permanent and temporary impacts total less than 0.42 acres across five
separate sites. This potentially significant direct and cumulative impact will be reduced to a level less
than significant through the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-2. See Appendix ....,Sections
4 and 5, for a full description of resources, impacts and mitigation.
Mitigation Measure:
BIO-2: Wetland and Riparian Habitat Mitigation.Both permanent and temporary impacts to wetland
and riparian vegetation will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.5:1 through a combination of on-site
restoration and the creation of similar habitat at a local site owned by applicant and to be
protected in perpetuity through designation as a conservation easement,i.e.,Greenpoint Springs.
A general revegetation and restoration plan will be prepared for all disturbed sites.In addition,
a site-specific revegetation plan will be developed for Greenpoint Springs, including the
restoration of wetlands impacted historically by water diversions and the construction of
Interstate 80. The revegetation plan will be prepared by a qualified restoration specialist and
consistent with guidelines for habitat mitigation plans provided by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers(USACOE)and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board(LRWQCB).
Construction activities within or adjacent to wetlands, seep-spring habitats, and manmade channels
conveying spring runoff could result in temporary impacts to water quality. Disturbed soils resulting
from construction activities could also result in impacts to water quality through erosion/sedimentation.
This potentially significant impact will be reduced to a level less than significant through the
implementation of mitigation measure BIO-3.
Mitigation Measure:
BIO-3: Prepare Mitigation Plan for Protecting Water and Soil Resources. Prior to any construction
activities, including tree removal, the applicant will coordinate with the LRWQCB in
preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The plan will include a
detailed erosion control plan and Best Management Practices(BMPs) for preventing impacts
to water quality,including(but not limited to): 1)Construction adjacent to seep-spring habitats,
including manmade channels,will be conducted during late summer to early fall when run-off
and soil moisture is at a minimum; 2)Permanently stabilize all disturbed soils,including soils
on fill pads and access roads utilizing erosion control blankets, straw wattles, revegetation,
mulches of pine needles, mulch or wood chips, locally native seed, or rock slope protection,
depending on the soils and slope gradient.Non-native seed,straw bales and straw mulches will
not be used; 3)Prior to construction,install silt-fencing to protect perennial or seasonal seeps,
springs, drainages, meadows and other sensitive habitats adjacent to construction; 4) After
construction is complete,all sites will be restored to pre-construction conditions;and 5)prepare
a detailed monitoring plan to ensure BMP success.
21
Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Only small to moderate amounts of vegetation will be removed and many of these effects will be
temporary. Many project locations are under pavement or along the dry shoulder of high-use
thoroughfares. Other project-related impacts are localized and would not disrupt any wildlife
movements. A wildlife underpass is provided under Interstate 80 in the vicinity of the proposed
production well,which may be used by the Verdi subunit of the Truckee-Loyalton deer herd and other
wildlife. However, the well site is bounded by Interstate 80 and a high-use off ramp and is more than
one-half mile from the underpass;therefore,no adverse effects would be expected. No critical fawning
areas and no known holding areas are associated with project locations. Implementation of mitigation
measure BIO-1 will reduce potential impacts to native wildlife nursery sites to a level less than
significant.
Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The TDPUD is exempt from many local development codes when providing essential public services.
However, the project was analyzed for consistency with local general plan policies and ordinances
(Appendix A, Section 5.3) and is consistent with local development codes regarding protection of
biological resources with mitigation measures described above. There is no local tree protection
ordinance and the loss of individual trees resulting from the proposed construction is not a significant
impact.However,the loss of approximately 75-115 trees across all project sites could have a potentially
significant cumulative effect within the context of the Donner Lake area.The applicant will reduce this
potential effect through implementation of mitigation measure BI04,below.
Mitigation Measure:
BI0-4: Native Tree Replacement Planting Plan.Prior to construction,the applicant will conduct an
inventory of all trees to be removed. If the trees are to be removed during the avian breeding
season (April 1-September 1, allowing for dispersal of young for some species), pre-
construction surveys for nesting birds should be conducted prior to removing trees.Trees over
36-inches diameter should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Compensate for the
removal of all mature trees over 12-inches diameter through replacement on-site,or at the local
mitigation site to be protected through conservation easement, i.e., Greenpoint Springs. The
planting plan will be prepared by a qualified restoration specialist and provide for replacement
using only locally native tree species in a minimum 5-gallon(or equivalent)container size and
at a replacement ratio of 2:1.
Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Currently,there are no adopted or proposed Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs),Natural Community
Conservation Plans(NCCPs),or other local conservation plans.Without mitigation,impacts to wetlands
and other waters, and ground disturbance would conflict with regional policies of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board as well as state and federal laws mandating a no net loss of wetlands or riparian
vegetation. These impacts were minimized through design modifications, and remaining impacts
mitigated at ratio of 1.5:1 through creation of similar habitat(see BI0-3, above). Potential impacts to
special status species under the state and federal endangered species acts,the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
California Fish and Game Code,and other regulations governing impacts to wildlife and special status
22
plants are described above. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 will reduce these potential
effects to a level less than significant.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
The pump stations will use electrical energy. In selecting well pump motors, the District routinely
specifies the use of high efficiency motors to avoid using electricity in a wasteful manner. The use of
electric energy at District pump stations is considered modest,typical of a local commercial/industrial
operation. The local electric service provider, the District, has the capacity to provide the additional
electrical energy needed for this project. The operation of the tank facilities will not involve the
utilization of any significant energy resources.
Energy use for the project during construction will be limited to fuel used by contractor's equipment
including excavators, trucks, personnel vehicles, generators, welding machines, and drilling and
pumping equipment. This is considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required
IX. HAZARDS
During construction there is a risk of accidental release of hazardous substances such as fuel or oil from
spillage. District construction contracts require the contractor to be prepared for such accidents and
provide clean-up which in this case would likely be limited to the project site. This is considered a less
than significant impact.
The production well pump station will include chlorination facilities utilizing a liquid chlorine solution.
This may be considered an environmental or personnel safety hazard if accidentally released. As is
routine for this type of facility,the District will provide safety equipment and training in conformance
with County hazardous material requirements. This will include secondary containment for storage of
the solution and personnel safety equipment such as sink and eye wash facilities. This is considered a
less than significant impact.
The project will have no impact on emergency responses.
Mitigation Measures: None required
X. NOISE
The project will not result in any long-term increase in noise levels, but will increase noise levels
temporarily associated with construction activities. Restricting hours of operation will mitigate short
term construction noise impacts to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures:
NOI-1:Construction shall be restricted Monday through Friday,7:00 am-6:00 pm and Saturdays from
10:00 am - 5:00 pm. Construction plans shall include reference to these restricted hours of
construction.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
The project will not result in the need for new or altered government services. The project will be an
enhancement to the fire protection capabilities around the Donner Lake area.
Mitigation Measures: None required
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
23
The project will result in improvements to the District's water system serving the Donner Lake area by
increasing the capacity and reliability of the system. Following construction, the project will not
generate any appreciable amount of solid waste. Solid waste generated during construction will be
disposed of by the contractor at the local refuse transfer station.
Mitigation Measures: None required
XIII. AESTHETICS
The tanks near Donner Lake Road(Cedar Point Tank and Donner Lake Road Tank)may be visible from
Donner Lake Road and the house at the end of Cedar Point Court. The tanks will be partially screened
by trees located around the tank sites, except for the house at the end of Cedar Point Court. The tank
color will be chosen to blend with the surroundings. There will be no new lights associated with the
tanks. This type of facility may be considered to have a negative aesthetic effect,but given the existing
tree screening and topography, it is considered less than significant. However, in the interest of
providing additional screening to the house at the end of Cedar Point Court, trees will be planted
between the tank and the house consistent with Mitigation Measure BI04.
The pump station sites located along Donner Lake Road,Richards Drive,and Truckee Airport Road will
be visible from the adjacent streets. Building materials and colors will be chosen to complement the
stations's surroundings. Materials will include a rough-hewn split face masonry block building with
metal roof. Because of the relatively small size of the buildings and the choice of materials, this is
considered a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures:None required
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
An archeological review was conducted for all of the project sites. A preliminary heritage resource
study is included as Appendix C. As indicated, some potentially significant cultural resources were
identified on the Greenpoint Springs project site. Because the project involves excavation,there is a
possibility of uncovering cultural resources not identified during the field review. The following
mitigation measure will reduce the potential impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-l:Prior to any site disturbing activities at the Greenpoint Springs site, further evaluation of the
potentially significant cultural resources will be conducted by a qualified archeologist. Based
on the evaluation,recommendations and/or mitigations will be incorporated into the project.
CUL-2 If artifacts, paleontological or cultural, or unusual amounts of stone, bone, shell, or artifacts
related to the early settlement of the Truckee area are uncovered during construction activity,
work shall be halted and a qualified archeologist shall be consulted for an on-site review.
Mitigation measures,as recommended by the archeologist in accordance with Appendix K of
the CEQA Guidelines,shall be implemented prior to recommencement of construction activity.
If any bone appears to be human,California law mandates that the Nevada County Coroner and
the Native American Heritage Commission be contacted.
XV. RECREATION
The project includes the decommissioning of any existing dirt road from Denton Avenue to the
Greenpoint Springs Tanks in order to facilitate the restoration of the historic wetlands in the Greenpoint
Springs area. The road is approximately 700 feet long. The road may be used as a walking trail. In
order to allow for the restoration of the wetland, any traffic through the area including pedestrian will
be highly discouraged. Because of the relatively short length of the road and the benefit to allowing the
restoration of the wetland,decommissioning of the road is considered a less than significant impact.
24
Mitigation Measures: None required
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The determinations of mandatory findings of significance are supported by the discussions contained
within the Initial Study. The Initial Study did not identify any potentially significant effects,and there
is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
REPORT PREPARATION
This Initial Study was prepared under contract with the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by Sauers
Engineering, Inc. Principal author was Keith Knibb.
Prepared by: Date: '`'8 -03
25
REFERENCES
These references are available for review at the Truckee Donner Public Utility District office, 11570 Donner
Pass Road,Truckee,California.
1. Biological Inventory and Impact Analysis for the Truckee-Donner Public Utilities District Donner Lake
Water Supply Improvements Truckee,California,Garcia and Associates,July 2003
2. Prosser Village Production Well-site Evaluation,Aqua Hydrogeologic Consulting,LLC,July 2003
3. Truckee Donner Public Utility District Donner Lake Water System Rehabilitation Project Phase 2,
Heritage Resource Study,Phase 1, Susan Lindstrom, Ph.D.,July 2003
4. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Amended Environmental Initial Study for Donner Lake Water
System Acquisition and Rehabilitation,Truckee Donner Public Utility District,February 2001
26
APPENDIX A
Biological Inventory and Impact Analysis for the
Truckee-Donner Public Utilities District
Donner Lake Water Supply Improvements
Truckee, California
Prepared by
Garcia and Associates
July, 2003
APPENDIX B
Prosser Village Production Well-site Evaluation
Prepared by
Aqua Hydrogeologic Consulting,LLC
July,2003
Prosser Village Production Well-site Evaluation
The purpose of this document is to provide an aquifer evaluation and impact potential for
the proposed production well at the Prosser Village site. As a result of the Featherstone
exploration well that was drilled to a depth of 1,197 feet approximately 150 feet south of
the proposed Prosser Village site a good understanding of the local geology has been
created. Using this geologic information and the aquifer parameters that were generated
during the Mattis Valley production well pumping tests conducted in March 2001, a good
understanding of the geology and aquifer for the proposed Prosser Village site is now
available. The following comparisons and parameters were used in the development of
an analytical ground water model for making ground water impact projections at the
Prosser Village site:
Findings
• A similar thickness and sequence of basalt and alluvial material were encountered
at both the Featherstone well-site and at the Martis Valley well-site.
• The downhole geophysical survey logs for the two boreholes showed similar
characteristics with respect to the basalt layer and underlying alluvial material.
• Analysis of the pumping test data completed at the Mattis Valley well produced
the following aquifer parameters; 1) a transmissivity value of 45,000
gallons/day/ft(gal/d/ft), and 2) a storage coefficient value of 0.0026.
• Currently the static water level at the Featherstone well is 111 feet below land
surface. This level is similar to the non-pumping level recorded at the Martis
Valley production well.
Conclusions
• There were enough similarities between the two sites to use the accumulative
information and data as input into the analytical flow model. To be a little
conservative, a transmissivity value of 35,000 gal/d/ft. was used along with a
storage coefficient value of 0.026. The transmissivity value was lowered just to
be on the conservative side, while using 0.026 value instead of 0.0026 reflects the
thought that the aquifer would be slightly more unconfined at the Prosser Village
site than what was observed at the Martis Valley well-site
• Results from both projections show a specific capacity value approximately 14
gpmlft.dd. This value is similar to the value recorded during the pumping test
conducted at the Martis Valley well.
• Projections from the model indicate that after three days of pumping the Prosser
Village well at 1,200 gallons per minute(gpm) there would be 84.9 feet of
drawdown at the pumping well. At the Featherstone monitoring well located
approximately 150 feet south of the proposed well-site the drawdown was
projected to be 17 feet. The attached map/figure shows the projected drawdown
contours.
• When a pumping value of 1,000 gpm is used, the drawdown value at the pumping
well was calculated to be 70.7 feet. At the Featherstone monitoring well,the
drawdown was projected to be 12 feet. A second attached map/figure shows the
drawdown contours for this pumping scenario.
• Drawdown impact projections for both pumping scenarios indicate relative little
effect as you move away from the propose pumping well. Both of the pumping
scenarios are with the proposed well pumping for a72 hours at a constant
pumping rate, when in reality the production pump probably will not be operating
more than 12 hours per day on an annual basis. That being the case,the
drawdown contours would show an impact of less than half what both
map/figures currently show.
Recommendations
The production well to be conducted at the Prosser Village site should constructed
with blank casing to a depth of approximately 300 feet below land surface. This
action will eliminate the potential of impacting near surface water contained in the
vadose zone (tree and brush root zone).
,
f
l 3 f r`
,
CA—
M 583
P
rosser Village Production Well
V"
/ ,� { Featherstone Monitoring Well
,ABM \.
i
� Y
�g40 �sas+
\BM 5829
1
BM 674
i �.___- -_-
- &
_i Figure 2. DraMown contours for 1,000 gpm pumping rat
Potas3s `� 'l
00
l I V
I if Prosser Village Production Weli
CV
J •
1 f
Featherstone Monitoring Well
1 6 i, any 14
0
�BM 6829
z �
r
J Figure 1. Drawdown contours for 1,200 gpm pumping rate --
r) F S
8M 5mi p
APPENDIX C
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Donner Lake Water System Rehabilitation Project Phase 2
Heritage Resource Study,Phase 1
Prepared by
Susan Lindstrom, Ph.D., July 2003
July, 2003