The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8 Truckee Water System Agenda Item # Sauers Engineering, Inc. Civil & Environmental Engineers Memorandum March 29, 2004 TO: Board of Directors, and Ed Taylor,District Water Operations Manager FROM: Keith Knibb, Consulting Engine< �l SUBJECT: TRUCKEE WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE- CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 1. Why this matter is before the Board: The District is proposing to adopt an update to its Water System Master Plan. Prior to adopting the master plan update, the District is required to complete an environmental review in compliance with CEQA. 2. History The District last adopted its Water System Master Plan Update in March of 2001. Since then, the District has seen considerable changes in the water service area. The two most significant developments were the acquisition of the Donner Lake Water System in May of 2001 and the acquisition of the Glenshire Water System in February of 2002. An update of the 2001 Master Plan is needed to reflect the integration of these large-scale additions, along with new projected development, into the District's water system. 3. New information We have prepared the proposed Negative Declaration and Environmental Initial Study for the Water System Master Plan Update. 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. 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 Water System Master Plan Update: L Authorize the filing of the proposed Negative Declaration and Environmental Initial Study with the Office of the Nevada County Clerk and the Office of the Placer County Clerk. 440 Lower Grass Valley Road, Suite A, Nevada City, CA 95959 (530) 265-8021 Fax (530) 265-6834 1 Authorize the circulation of the proposed 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 Negative Declaration at the regular Board Meeting on May 5, 2004. Attachments: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Initial Study NEGATIVE DECLARATION ( X) Proposed ( ) Final NAME OF PROJECT: Truckee Water System Water Master Plan Update LOCATION: Truckee, California Entity or Person Undertaking Project: (XX) Truckee Donner Public Utility District 11570 Donner Pass Road P.O. Box 309 Truckee, CA 95959 Other ( ) Name: Address: Phone: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Adoption of an update to the District's water system master plan and water facilities fees. 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 FIR Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act for the 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: None. 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) L Project Title: Water System Water Master Plan Update 2004 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District 11570 Donner Pass Road 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: See Exhibit A, "Project Location Map". The master plan update encompass all of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District. This includes portions of Nevada and Placer Counties. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District 11570 Donner Pass Road P.O. Box 309 Truckee, CA 96160-0309 6. General Plan Designation: General plan designations vary throughout the master plan study area.The master plan update is in part based on the current general plan designations of the Town of Truckee, County of Nevada, and County of Placer making the project compatible with existing planning and zoning. The water system improvements proposed in the master plan are intended to allow the continued implementation of the general plans of the three jurisdictions. In areas of existing development, improvements are proposed to provide an adequate level of service to existing customers and to accommodate infill development to the extent indicated in the appropriate general plan. For areas of little or no existing development, improvements are proposed to accommodate aprojected level of development based on general plan uses and densities. Should there be changes to general plan designations, these changes would be analyzed, and the master plan and facilities fees revised if appropriate, as part of an ongoing update process. 7. Zoning: Zoning varies throughout the master plan study area. The master plan update used the existing zoning as defined by the appropriate planning agency to project the level of development to be accommodated by the master plan improvements and paid for by facilities fees. This included all zoning districts within the District boundaries and those areas within the District's sphere of influence which were included in the master plan. 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.) A copy of the DRAFT Truckee Water System Water Master Plan Update 2004 is available at the Truckee Donner Public Utility District office, 11570 Donner Pass Road, 1 Truckee, California. The project is the adoption of the "Truckee Water System Water Master Plan Update,"an update of the District's existing"Water Master Plan Update" adopted in March 2001. The updated master plan serves two primary functions. First, the master plan is a comprehensive planning report providing information on existing District water system facilities and the current Level of service provided to the District's customers. Second, the master plan is a blueprint for the orderly expansion of the District's water system to accommodate the anticipated growth and development of areas served by the District. The master plan will be used as the basis to evaluate the District's water facilities fee. The facilities fee is the implementation of Government Code 66000 et seq., commonly referred to as AB 1600. Government Code 66000 et seq. provides a mechanism by which the District may establish fees on new development for water system improvements attributable to new development. The master plan analyzes the existing water system to see if it is adequate to meet the demands of the District's customers. Water system components included in the analysis are availability of water supply, water treatment, and water conveyance including pump stations and distribution pipeline. Design criteria in the master plan will establish a level of service for each of the water system components and determine the adequacy of the existing system. This is also the level of service applied to the design of proposed future projects in the master plan. The master plan identifies current system deficiencies and proposed system improvements needed to provide the defined level of service. The master plan also gives growth projections of new residential and commercial water services within the master plan study area. The projections are based on and are consistent with the general plans of the Town of Truckee, County of Nevada, and County of Placer for areas within their respective planning jurisdictions. The master plan identifies water system improvements which will be needed to accommodate the projected future development. Implementation of the master plan with regard to construction of proposed new facilities to accommodate development would be in response to land use planning conducted through the appropriate planning agency. The Water Master Plan Update of March 2001 is being updated again in response to significant changes in the District's service area. Shortly after adopting the document,the District acquired the Donner Lake Water System in May of 2001. Then in February of 2002, the District took possession of the Glenshire Water System from the Glenshire Mutual Water Company. There are a number of new water system facilities proposed in the master plan. Because the locations are approximate, no site specific issues are discussed in this initial study. Rather, environmental issues related to the proposed water system improvements are discussed in general with potential impacts and levels of significance identified in terms of projects previously undertaken by the District that are similar in scope to the proposed improvements. Adoption of the master plan will not, in and of itself,constitute a decision to construct any of the proposed improvements discussed in the master plan. No individual proposed project will be constructed without a separate decision by the District's Board of Directors. Some of the potential projects identified in the water master plan update include the following: 1. New 12" Pipeline(-1,780') - Cedar Point Tank to Donner Lake 6334 Tank 2. New Storage Tank( 1.5 MG) -Donner Lake 6124 Tank 2 3. New Storage Tank(0.63 MG) - Donner Lake Upper Tank 4. New 12" Pipeline(-2,690') - Tahoe Donner 32 Acres to Northwoods Boulevard 5. New 24" Pipeline (-2,550) - Easement n/o Coachland MHP 6. New Well -Prosser Flats Well No. 3 7. New 14" Pipeline(-2,990') - Prosser Flats Well No. 2 to Featherstone 5988 Tank 8. New 20" Pipeline (-2,140') -Brockway Road- Southside PS Site to Hilltop 9. New Pump Station (1,000 hp)-Euer Valley PS 10. New Well -Prosser Flats Well No. 5 it. New 8" Pipeline(-1,620) - Olympic Boulevard-Easement to Highland Drive 12. New Well - Prosser Flats Well No. 1 13. New Storage Tank(-1.5 MG) -Glenshire Lower Tank 14. New Storage Tank(-1.5 MG) - Hilltop 6170 Tank 15. New Storage Tank(-3.0 MG) -Bridge Street 6170 Tank No. 2 16. New Well - Prosser Flats Well No. 4 17. New Storage Tank (-1.5 MG) -Glenshire Lower Tank No. 2 18. New Well- Prosser Flats Well No. 6 19. New Storage Tank(-1.5 MG) -Bridge Street 6170 Tank No. 3 20. New Storage Tank(-1.5 MG)-Hilltop 6170 Tank No. 2 The master plan is prepared as a planning tool to assist the District in(1) identifying existing water system deficiencies and budgeting for corrections of such deficiencies, (2) anticipating areas where growth is likely to occur, consistent with the general plans of the Town of Truckee, Nevada County, and Placer County, and identifying system improvements necessary to serve such growth, and, (3) analyzing and evaluating water facilities fees. Government Code Section 66000 et seq. requires that agencies charging facilities fees to developers establish a rational basis for those fees. The master plan satisfies the intent of the Code with regards to the establishment of a capital improvements plan. By analyzing the adequacy of the District's existing water system and the need for future system improvements to accommodate anticipated new development, the share of costs can be determined on an equitable basis. 3 9. Other agencies whose approval is required (and permits needed): No other agencies are required to approve or give a permit for the adoption of the master plan update. Some agencies may become involved in approving or permitting construction of some of the individual improvements proposed in the master plan. These agencies may include the Town of Truckee, Nevada County, Placer County, Caltrans, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, and others. 10. Environmental Setting of the Project: See Exhibit B, "USGS Topo". The Truckee Donner Public Utility District is located on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains approximately 100 miles east of Sacramento and 40 miles southwest of Reno, Nevada. The project area ranges in elevation from approximately 5,600 feet to approximately 7,600 feet above sea level. The area is a mix of residential subdivisions, commercial and retail centers, recreational facilities including skiing and golf, a regional airport, and large areas of undeveloped forest and rangeland. The Truckee River flows through the District in route from Lake Tahoe to Pyramid Lake in Nevada. Tributaries include Donner Creek, Trout Creek, Martis Creek, Cold Creek, and Prosser Creek. Lakes in the area include Donner Lake,Prosser Creek Reservoir, Mattis Creek Lake and Boca Reservoir. The project area contains numerous cultural resources both prehistoric and historic. The project area contains portions of the overland emigrant trail, the Dutch Flat and Donner Lake Wagon Road, the transcontinental railroad and historic Old Highway 40. Old town Truckee contains over 160 historic structures. The project area also contains a number of prehistoric archaeological sites associated with Native American inhabitation of the region. The flora and fauna of the Truckee area are typical for mountainous regions of the east slope of the Sierras. The District can be generally characterized as lodgepole-fir belt, Jeffery pine belt and sagebrush belt(Storer et. al. 1963). 4 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 ❑ water ❑ Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ 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 DECLARATIONT 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 an attached sheet 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 5 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 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: Landslides or mudslides? (5,7) ❑ ❑ ❑ (Attached source list explains that 6 is the general plan, and 8 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): (5) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (5) ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Affect agricultural resources or operations(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands,or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (5) ❑ ❑ ❑ 6 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1,6) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g.through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? () ❑ ❑ W ❑ 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? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ W b) Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? O ❑ ❑ ❑ ud c) Seismicity: seiche or tsunami? O ❑ ❑ ❑ M d) Landslides or mudslides? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Erosion,changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,grading or fill? O ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Subsidence of the land? O ❑ ❑ ❑ UJ g) Expansive soils? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ UJ h) Unique geologic or physical features? O ❑ ❑ ❑ 12 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and amount of surface runoff? () ❑ ❑ W ❑ b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ M c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality(e.g. temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? () ❑ ❑ ❑ UJ d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1) ❑ ❑ U ❑ e) Changes in currents,or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ fl Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? (1 ,2 ) ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?(2) ❑ ❑ 12 ❑ h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (2) ❑ ❑ W ❑ 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? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 7 Potentially Potentially Signiflcant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact c) Alter air movement,moisture, or temperature,or cause any change in climate? O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Create objectionable odors? O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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)? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ if Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? O ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle ❑ ❑ ❑ racks)? ( ) g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? O ❑ ❑ ❑ 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,animals,and birds)? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ ul 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? O ❑ ❑ ❑ VHI. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Wound the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?( ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 8 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) The creation of any health hazard or potential health ❑ ❑ ❑ Cia hazard? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ �j 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? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? ( ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? ( ) ❑ ❑ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?( ❑ ❑ ❑ 12 e) Other governmental services? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ Da XIL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need far new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas?() ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 b) Communications systems? O ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Sewer or septic tanks?O ❑ ❑ ❑ M e) Storm water drainage?O ❑ ❑ ❑ 12 Ti Solid waste disposal?( ❑ ❑ ❑ XIII.AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?O ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?O ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Create light or glare?( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources?O ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Disturb archaeological resources? O ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Affect historical resources? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic culture values?( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area?O ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional ❑ parks or other recreational facilities?( ) ❑ ❑ b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) Ll 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 history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term,to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? FA e) 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? rA 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 FIR 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. e) 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. No earlier analysis were used in preparation of this Initial Study. 10 Explanations for Checklist Answers: I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a,b - The master plan update is based on the general plans of the Town of Truckee, County of Nevada, and County of Placer for their respective jurisdictions within the master plan study area. Construction of master plan improvements for new development would be in response to land use and environmental planning decisions made by the appropriate agency and would not be in conflict with those plans. Adoption of the master plan or construction of master plan improvements will have no affect on land use or planning. c - There are no notable agricultural resources in the District or master plan study area. H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. a - The projections of new residential and commercial water service customers used for the master plan update are based on population projections from the Town of Truckee general plan and historical population growth. Through the regular process of review and update, the master plan and facilities fees may be revised to reflect any changes in planning agency population projections. b - Adoption of the water system master plan update will give the District the tools to provide an adequate public water supply system to accommodate continued growth within the Truckee area. Public water supply is one of many public services necessary to accommodate growth but does not contribute significantly to the location, intensity or density of such growth. These growth related issues are dealt with on a regional basis by the appropriate planning agencies, in this case the Town of Truckee,Nevada County, and Placer County. Construction of master plan improvements in response to regional planning decisions will avoid shortages in public water supply and allow implementation of the appropriate general plans. c- By identifying and providing water system improvements needed to accommodate new development,the master plan helps avoid potential adverse impacts to existing housing associated with additional demands on the existing water system. HI. GEOPHYSICAL a,b, c, d, - Adoption of the master plan update and facilities fees will not involve any of the listed f, g, h geophysical impacts . Prior to construction of improvement projects, the District regularly conducts investigations to determine the suitability of proposed project sites to avoid geophysical impacts. e - Construction of improvement projects may involve changes in topography from excavations, grading, and fill for such projects as pipeline construction,valve vaults,pump stations, and storage tanks. The design and construction of all District projects routinely include soil stabilization and erosion control measures utilizing accepted best management practices. This is not considered a potentially significant impact. IV. WATER a - Some of the master plan improvement projects may involve changes in absorption rates or surface runoff due to the placement of impervious surfaces such as pump station buildings, storage tanks,or pavement. District water projects typically involve trenching in existing paved surfaces. Where new impervious surfaces are created, the areas are usually small in scope, —5,000 square feet or less, and are not expected to adversely affect drainage. These issues would be studied in more detail during the planning for the individual projects but are not considered potentially significant. b, c, e, h- Adoption of the master plan update is not expected to have any affect on the listed resources. 11 r d- Implementation of the master plan update will involve decommissioning the Donner Lake Intake. Presently, the intake facility has the capacity to draft up to 1,400 gpm from Donner Lake. The District will replace this surface water source with groundwater sources. This is not considered a potentially significant impact. f- The proposed capital improvement plan includes eight-(8) new groundwater wells through the year 2025. The District anticipates that average day water demands will increase to 12.59 mgd by the year 2025. This reflects an increase of 6.18 mgd over current levels. Historically the District has relied upon groundwater sources and will continue to depend on groundwater as its main source of supply. Most groundwater is extracted from the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin, A 2001 study entitiled,"Ground Water Availability in the Mattis Valley Ground Water Basin"projected a total sustainable yield of 24,000 AFY. Currently,the District withdraws 6,060 AFY. Total withdrawls, including those from TDPUD, the Ponderosa Golf Club, PCWA's Lahontan Subdivision, and Teichert Aggregates, amount to an estimated 8,300 AFY. The implementation of the master plan update, including construction and improvements to groundwater wells could result in total withdrawls by the District from the groundwater basin of up to 14,103 AFY,well below the estimated availability of 24,000 AFY. This is not considered a potentially significant impact. g- Total ground water flux through the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin has been calculated to be 34,598 AFY, with most ground water moving from topographically high areas to lower discharge areas. Construction of new wells may involve changes in ground water flow rates and directions; however,potential impacts will be addressed on a project specific basis once precise well sites have been determined.The design and construction of all new District wells routinely includes hydrogeologic studies to assess impacts to ground water resources. Implementation of the master plan update is not considered a potentially significant impact to ground water flow rates and directions. V. AIR QUALITY a, b, c, d- Adoption and implementation of the master plan update will not affect air quality resources. Also, construction and operation of water system improvements is not expected to impact air quality resources. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a, b, e, d, - Adoption and implementation of the master plan update will not impact transportation or e, f, g circulation. The District routinely provides access and parking for operations equipment and personnel to avoid impacts to off-site facilities. VIL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a, b, c, d,- Adoption and implementation of the master plan update will not impact the listed biological e, resources. Individual water system improvement projects will include studies in compliance with CEQA to identify any potential impacts. Most water projects, with the exception of large scale pipeline "linear construction projects", are typically small enough to not affect natural communities or wildlife habitat or migration corridors. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES a, b- There are no adopted energy conservation plans affected by the master plan update improvements. IX. HAZARDS a,b, e, d, - There are no risks of hazards associated with the adoption of the master plan. e, 12 X. NOISE a, b - Except for short term increases in noise associated with construction of proposed master plan improvements, there will be no significant noise impacts. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES a,b, c, d, - Adoption and implementation of the master plan update will not have an affect on the listed e public services. XH. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a- The master plan update and facilities fees are intended to provide planning and funding for new water system infrastructure. This is considered beneficial to the water utility. b, c, d, e, Adoption and implementation of the master plan update and facilities fees would not have an f- affect on the listed utilities and service systems. XIII. AESTHETICS a,b, c- Although some water system facilities such as pump stations and storage tanks may be visible to the public,they are not considered aesthetically offensive or have negative aesthetic impact. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a,b, e, d, - Adoption and implementation of the master plan update is not expected to affect cultural e, resources. The District routinely conducts cultural resource investigations prior to construction projects to identify and avoid impacts. This issue would be evaluated for any individual project through the CEQA compliance process. XV. RECREATION a,b - The adoption and implementation of the master plan update and facilities fees will not affect recreational opportunities. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a- As discussed in the explanations to checklist items,the adoption and implementation of the master plan update is not expected to have an affect on the listed resources. These issues will be studied in greater detail through the CEQA compliance process for any individual improvement project which may be undertaken by the District. b - The master plan update has the potential to achieve both short term and long term environmental goals. By continuing to provide the public water supply to accommodate the growth anticipated by the appropriate planning agencies, the master plan update will allow the implementation of adopted land use and environmental plans. c- Public water supply is one of many services needed to allow the continued orderly growth and development of the Truckee area. Issues related to growth and development including intensity, density, location, and timing, among others, are the responsibility of the appropriate planning agency, in this case either the Town of Truckee,Nevada County, or Placer County. Similarly any impacts associated with the growth and development of the Truckee area are also the responsibility of the appropriate agencies and are addressed in the various land use and environmental plans adopted by those agencies. The provision of a public water supply is not considered a significant contribution towards impacts which may be associated with the continued growth and development of the Truckee area as defined by the appropriate planning agency. d- Adoption and implementation of the master plan update and facilities fees will allow the District to continue to provide an adequate public water supply. Provisions of a safe and reliable water supply is considered to have a beneficial effect on human beings. 13 INITIAL STUDY PREPARERS This Initial Study was prepared for the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by Sauers Engineering, Inc. The report was primarily authored by Erik D. Johnson and Keith Knibb, P.E. 4Pr " y. Date 14 ...................................... .. REFERENCES These references are available for review at the Truckee Donner Public Utility District office, 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, California. 1. DRAFT Truckee Water System Water Master Plan Update, Truckee Donner Public Utility District, 2004 2. Groundwater Availability in the Mattis Valley Groundwater Basin, March 2001, Nimbus Engineers, Reno, NV. 3. Negative Declaration and Environmental Initial Study, Water System Masterplan 1995-2015 and Water Facilities Fees, Truckee Donner Public Utility District, March 1997. 4. Storer and Usinger, Sierra Nevada Natural History, University of California Press. 1963. 5. Town of Truckee General Plan 1996,Town of Truckee, 1996 6. Truckee Water System Water Masterplan Update, Truckee Donner Public Utility District, January 2001. 7. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topo quad S. Water System Masterplan 1995-2015, Truckee Donner Public Utility District, March 1997. 15 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Boundary To Sierramlie To.Rena s .'....,. . .........., ...... . ......, ....,.,. .. F // � 88 Glmshire x tlr s e �1 �To oe 0 nm 1 I i F !To Sacramento i E TDPUD Office D wntow \ g �racke P F E l^ Donner Lake t................_. -.. ,.....,W... «...». .„,';�. uu .. ...... .Nepoda»_"' P...tXX....»...i €"' Placer Cc y To Tahoe City $ Re ding g 99 89 Nev¢ gp T kee 20 Tahoe Au m, Saar oto 49 San Fran Truckee Donner Truckee Water System EXHIBIT A Public Utility District Master Plan Update PROJECT VICINITY MAP TRUCNEE.CALIFORNIA ApN12004 1 y l tr•u �.� � k 4.�ry 1. Q,X �.•/C 4 ti D ...^ •' . .1 titi, ." YY ry• Y } t h"TM�yyY`S Y 4 Cr 4 S} „r Gn t , Y y e 'ti �k„�✓.Y ti'YS t 4 q t jc M1. rY Y <v M yL} y t L 1 � 44 ru` 44 rvr L Av.�Y ✓ o � i l 'h y1♦.. M y J 4 T 1 •M14 h .f ✓ M r„y.. '.reyy yt Yy Truckee Donner Truckee Water System EXHIBIT B Public Utility District Master Plan Update USGS TOPO TRUCKEE,CALIFORNA April 2004