Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6 Featherstone Environmental Review f Agenda Item # 6 z Memorandum To: Board of Directors From: Peter Holzmeister Date: December 10, 2004 Subject: Featherstone environmental review Why this matter is before the board: This matter involves completion of the environmental review for construction of a new well. Part of the environmental review process is conducting a public hearing. These hearings are conducted before the board of directors History: District staff prepared and the board of directors adopted a water system master plan to guide development of our water system. The master plan identified a series of water facilities that would be needed to serve our customers as Truckee continues to grow. The master plan identified a need to develop additional wells to meet the growing demand for water. The District then drilled a series of test holes to locate water supply and test for water quality. One of the test holes we drilled identified a site near the Featherstone tank as promising a good quantity of water with excellent water quality. That site was chosen for the next well. Prior to developing a well there we needed to perform an environmental review of the site. The District retained Sauers Engineering in Grass Valley to perform that task. Their report is attached for your review. A public hearing is scheduled for this meeting to receive comments from the public regarding the proposed Negative Declaration. New information: The draft Negative Declaration has been sent to the California State Clearinghouse, the Department of Health Services, the Town of Truckee and Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. We have not responses as of this date. Keith Knibb of Sauers Engineering will be at the meeting to answer questions that may come up. We will not be able at this meeting to take final action on the Negative Declaration. That action will appear on a future agenda. Recommendation: I recommend that the board conduct the public hearing and, at the close of the hearing, no other action is needed. Sauers Engineering, Inc. Civil & Environmental Engineers Memorandum October 14, 2004 TO: Board of Directors, and Ed Taylor, District Water Operations Manager FROM: Keith Knibb, Consulting Engineer SUBJECT: FEATHERSTONE TANK WELL AND PUMP STATION - CEQA 1. Why this matter is before the Board The District is proposing to construct a new production well and pump station at the site of the Featherstone Tank. Prior starting construction activities, the District is required to complete an environmental review in compliance with CEQA. 2. History The District's "Truckee Water System Master Plan Update," adopted in May, 2004, identified eight new production wells proposed for construction by the year 2025. The proposed Featherstone Tank Well constitutes one of those wells. In 2003, the District conducted a geologic test hole program whereby a number of test holes were drilled around the District to ascertain favorable locations for future production wells. A test hole was drilled at the Featherstone Tank site which showed promise as a high production, high quality water source. 3. New information We have prepared the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Initial Study for the Featherstone Tank Well and Pump Station. 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 clerk and state clearinghouse will trigger a thirty day review period. 4. Recommendation I recommend the Board take the following actions regarding the environmental review for the Featherstone Tank Well and Pump Station: 1. Authorize the filing of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Initial Study with the Office of the Nevada County Clerk. NEGATIVE DECLARATION (XX) Proposed ( ) Final NAME OF PROJECT: Featherstone Tank Well and Pump Station 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 construction of a new production well and pump station at the site of the existing Featherstone Tank near the Old Greenwood development. 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 forthe purpose of ascertaining 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: M-1. Temporary BMPs will be incorporated into the project design to be implemented before and during construction. BMPs include preservation of existing vegetation, placement of straw mulch, covering temporary spoils piles to protect from rainfall, and removal of spoils material to permanent locations protected from offsite migration. M-2. Permanent BMPs will include revegetation of exposed soil areas, asphalt pavement on pipeline trenches, pump station access road and parking area, and permanent disposal of surplus excavated material at an acceptable location protected from offsite migration. DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FOR FEATHERSTONE TANK WELL AND PUMP STATION OCTOBER, 2004 Truckee Donner Public Utility District P.O. Box 309 11570 Donner Pass Road Truckee, CA 96160-0309 (530) 587-3896 .................. f i underground electrical facilities, and pavement on the site of the existing Featherstone Tank located on Fairway Drive in the Old Greenwood development. The 0.47 acre project site is currently developed as a tank site and includes an existing 360,000 gallon water storage tank. The District is proposing to acquire an easement covering the tank site property to facilitate the well and pump station project. During the planning and construction of Old Greenwood, the proposed project site has been developed as a site for water system facilities. Along with the tank,the site includes pipelines tied into the distribution system,electrical facilities, and communication facilities. The site has been graded and an access road exists from the well site to Fairway Drive. The District's "Truckee Water System Master Plan Update,"adopted in May,2004,identified eight new production wells proposed for construction by the year 2025. The proposed Featherstone Tank Well constitutes one of those wells. In 2003, the District conducted a geologic test hole program whereby a number of test holes were drilled around the District to ascertain favorable locations for future production wells. A test hole was drilled at the Featherstone Tank site which showed promise as a high production, high quality water source. Project Characteristics 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 1,000 to 1,200 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 construction will also include well development and pump testing. Water extracted from the well during development and testing will be discharged to the surface by spray irrigation through a series of sprinklers near the well site. There will be an estimated 14,400,000 gallons of water discharged during development and testing. Featherstone Tank and Proposed Well/Pump Station Site 2 { 4 9. Other agencies whose approval is required (and permits needed): State of California, Department of Health Services,Office of Drinking Water(Well Permit) California Regional Water Quality Control Board,Lahontan Region(Temporary Land Application Permit) 10. Environmental Setting of the Project: The project is located in the Old Greenwood planned development east of downtown Truckee. Old Greenwood is a mixed use development including residential, lodging, and recreational facilities. Old Greenwood includes a 0.47 acre parcel with a graded pad for a water storage tank and pump station. A welded steel water storage tank was constructed on the site in 2000. Tank construction also included pipelines and underground electrical and communication conduits and an access road from Fairway Drive to the tank/pump station site. The well and pump station will be constructed on the prepared pad adjacent to the existing tank. 9 � .F k yq Existing water storage tank and graded well/pump View of tank, well/pump station site, and access station pad road Ate. r Tank/pump station access road Electrical and communications equipment adjacent to access road 4 The Featherstone Tank is located in the Town of Truckee, east of the downtown area,between Interstate 80 and the Truckee River. Elevation of the project site is approximately 5,960 feet above sea level. According to the Information Center for the Environment, U.C. Davis, the project area is located in an Urban Agricultural Complex vegetation classification including Eastside Ponderosa Pine Forest and Great Basin Mixed Shrub. Other vegetation classifications surrounding the project area include Basin Sagebrush,Jeffrey Pine, and Mixed Conifer-Fir. Because the construction of the well and pump station will take place on the existing graded pad, there will be no disturbance to vegetation,wildlife habitat,streams, riparian zones, or wetland features. The existing water storage tank and site of the proposed pump station are generally screened from view by trees which surround the site on three sides and a hill one side. The new pump station will be approximately half the height of the tank so should be less visible to the surrounding area. a jA •l;',;, rift~ .., i View of the water storage tank from Fairway Drive View of the project site from the direction of the Old Greenwood lodge and club house area. Tank is partially visible through trees in the center of the photo. 6 i { Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) 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. A`No Impact"answer i 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 be 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: O Landslides or mudslides? (1,6) (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.) 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 0 (source#(s):) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the ❑ O 0 project? () c) Affect agricultural resources or operations(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands,or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1) 8 { 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? O VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? O 0 0 ® 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g.sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible O ca uses(e.g.farm equipment)?() c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby ❑ ❑ 0 ca uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? O 0 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? O L) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative 0 transportation(e.g. bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? O 0 0 Qd g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? O 0 VH. 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, El ❑ animals,and birds)? () 171 Ll b) Locally designated species(e.g.heritage trees)? () 0 c) Locally designated natural communities(e.g.oak forest,costal habitat,etc.)? () d) Wetland habitat(e.g. marsh,riparian and vernal pool)? ❑ ❑ 12 U e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? O VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? O Ll b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? () 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 0 or emergency evacuation plan? () Q 10 s Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Issues(and supporting Information.Sources) Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area?() XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional 0 parks or other recreational facilities?() O 0 b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?() XVI.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,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 ❑ 0 history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of ❑ probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human ❑ beings,either directly or indirectly? 0 XVII.EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document. 12 S 'd { F S IV. WATER K There will he a slight increase in the amount of impervious surface as a result of this project including the pump station building and paved area. This is expected to be approximately 1,116 square feet. Drainage will flow from the impervious areas to a detention basin. The detention basin will be sized to accommodate runoff from a 1-hour, 20-year storm as defined by the Lahontan Regional Board. This is considered a less than significant impact. During well development and pump testing of the proposed well,water from the well will be discharged via spray irrigation to an vegetated area near the well site. Water will be conveyed from ; the well through a pipeline to a number of sprinkler heads where it will be applied to the surface and allowed to percolate back into the ground. This discharge will be under a Temporary Land California Regional Water Quality Control Board-Lahontan Application Permit administered by the 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 Mattis 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 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. 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. Mitigation Measures: M-1. Temporary BMPs will be incorporated into the project design to be implemented before and during construction. BMPs include preservation of existing vegetation, placement of straw mulch,covering temporary spoils piles to protect from rainfall, and removal of spoils material to permanent locations protected from offsite migration. M_2, Permanent BMPs will include revegetation of exposed soil areas, asphalt pavement on pipeline trenches, pump station access road and parking area, and permanent disposal of surplus excavated material at an acceptable location protected from offsite migration. V. AIR QUALITY There will be no air emissions from the well or pump station. There may be incidental emissions during construction from contractor's operations including vehicles and mechanical equipment. 14 Y 1 t IX. HAZARDS s 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 r less than significant impact. The production well pump station will include chlorination facilities utilizing a liquid chlorine s' 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 During construction of the well, there will be increased noise levels associated with the operation Of the drilling rig and equipment. Because of the distance to any sensitive receptors, these noise levels are considered a less than significant impact. During pump station construction,there will be an increase in noise levels associated with contractor operations including operation of mechanical equipment such as a backhoe, generator, and compressor. This is considered a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None required XI. PUBLIC SERVICES The project will not result in the need for new or altered government services. The project is based on and consistent with the general plan of the Town of Truckee including projections for the need for public services. Mitigation Measures: None required XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The project will result in improvements to the District's water system 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 pump station site may be visible from Fairway Drive, however because of the surrounding trees, the view would be filtered. 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 or asphalt shingle 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 16 1 } REFERENCES x These references are available for review at the Truckee Donner Public Utility District office, 11570 Donner t Pass Road,Truckee,California. i 1. USGS Martis Peak Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series. s 2. Truckee Water System Water Master Plan Update,Truckee Donner Public Utility District,May k 2003 3. Negative Declaration and Environmental Initial Study,Truckee Water System Water Master Plan Update,Truckee Donner Public Utility District,May 2003 i 4. Donner Lake Water System Rehabilitation Phase 2/Old Greenwood Test Wells, Heritage Resource Inventory, Phase 1, Susan Lindstrom, Ph.D.,July 2003 18 i i Y V TANK SITE FINDINGS • A nominal 6-inch diameter borehole was drilled to a total depth of 930 feet below ground surface. Geologic samples and water quality samples were collected to total depth. A geophysical survey was completed to a depth of 350 feet. `z During the drilling of the borehole from 720 feet to total depth of 930 feet, zones • of coarse rounded gravels were encountered with very little clay. Drilling could not proceed below 930 feet because the formation material was filling the 1 borehole as fast as the material was being air-lifted out. Water production from the bottom of the borehole was measured as 213 gpm. • After the geophysical survey was completed to 350 feet, the borehole was abandoned per State of California regulations TANK SITE RECOMMENDATIONS At this location, it is anticipated that a production well constructed to a depth of 1,000 to 1,200 feet will be capable of producing between 1,000 and 2,000 gpm. Because the exploration borehole was only drilled to a depth of 930 feet, the production rating of this well may be conservative. Final production of the well may exceed 2,000 gpm. Based on results of the water samples collected during the exploration drilling, it is anticipated that the production well water pumped will meet State of California drinking water standards for iron, manganese, and arsenic. FIELD ACTIVITY AT TANK SITE This section presents results of the drilling, geology, and water chemistry results at the Tank site. The following details the field activity at this site. 6_1 Drillin Drilling commenced on September 25, 2003 at 5:09 p.m. with the drilling and installation of an 8-inch diameter blank steel surface conductor casing to a depth of 30 feet. A nominal 6-inch diameter borehole was drilled to a total depth of 930 feet using the air- reverse dual tube drilling method. At a depth of 930 feet the downhole drilling conditions prevented proceeding with completion of the borehole to the projected depth of 1,200 feet. Total time spent drilling the borehole was 48 hours and 30 minutes. Drilling of the borehole was completed on September 27, 2003 at 5:39 p.m. After the borehole was drilled, a geophysical survey was completed to a depth 350 feet. Due to downhole conditions, the geophysical survey was not able to be completed below 350 j } Table 3. Water Chemistry Results for Tank Site Arsenic Iron Man anese Sam le De th Results Standard Results Standard o d Resume) s(m�� (m lL) (m 0.05 280 <0.005 0.01 0.36 0.3 0.055 320 0.001 0.01 0.11 0.3 0.05 0.05 0 05 340 <0.005 0.01 0.2 0.3 0.047 0.05 380 <0.005 0.01 0.11 0.3 I 0.09 420 <0.005 0.01 0.1 0.3 0.094 0.05 460 <0.005 0.01 O.I2 0.3 0.067 0.05 500 0.052 0.05 <0.005 0.01 0.13 03 0.05 540 <0.005 1 0.01 0.11 0.3 0.036 580 0.001 0.01 0.08 0.3 0.029 0.05 620 0.001 0.01 0.09 0.3 0.022 0.05 60 0.001 0.01 0.13 0.3 0.029 0.05 0.05 700 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.3 0.025 0.017 OAS 740 0.001 0.01 <0.05 0.3 0.05 780 0.013 0.01 <0.05 0.3 0.033 820 0.007 0.01 <0.05 0.3 0.028 0.05 p,pg7 0.05 860 0.006 0.01 0.06 0.3 0.05 900 0.007 0.o1 0.14 0.3 0'�5 0.05 920 0.004 . 0.01 0.09 0.3 0.041 red indicates values exceeds drinking water standards 6_4 Summary and Potential Based on drilling and water quality results, a production well constructed at this location should be drilled to an approximate depth of 1,000 to 1,200 feet. It is anticipated that the yield of a production well completed to the proposed depth would be capable of yielding approximately 2,000 gpm. Final production of the well may exceed 2,000 gpm dependent upon the geologic material encountered below the exploration depth reached of 930 feet. Based on results of the water samples collected during the exploration drilling program, it is anticipated that the production well water would meet State of California drinking water standards for iron, manganese, and arsenic.