Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5 Glenshire Water System p s Staff Report To: Board of Directors prom; Stephen Hallabaugh—Assistant General Manager Date: September 17, 2001 Subject: Consideration of a revised draft niffigated negative declaration relating to the acquisition of the Glenshire water system Attached is the revised draft n*igated negative declaration relating to the acquisition of the Glenshire water system prepared for the District by Keith Knibb of Sauer's Engineering. a) Consideration of authorizing staff to file the proposed negative declaration and environmental initial study with the Office of the Nevada County Clerk b) Consideration of authorizing staff to file the proposed negative declaration and environmental study with responsible and interested agencies and with the State Clearinghouse c) Consideration of authorizing staff to publish a notice of public review period and public hearing on the proposed negative declaration •Page 1 P. 02 I I NEGATIVE DECLARATION i (XX) Proposed { ) Final NAME OF PROJECT: Glenshire Water System Acquisitioniand Improvements LOCATION: Truckee, California Entity or Person Undertaking Project: (XX) Truckee Donner Public Utility District i Other( ) Name: Address:_ 1 Phone: I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involves the acquisition,operation,aqIId maintenance of the Glenshire Mutual Water Company water system by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District(District)along with improvements to the water system to provide water for domestic use and fire protection. 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 undertallen 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 of ascertaining whether this project might have a significant effect upon the e vironrnent. A copy of such initial study is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Such initial study documents reasons to support the above finding. i Mitigation The following mitigation measures have ben included in the project to avoid potentially Measures: significant effects: I None Date: By: Peter L. Holzrrreister, General Manager I P. 03 I I � Truck�e Donner Public Utility District ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY (Prepared pursuant to Article V of the Environmental Guldellnes of the Qistrict) ! I. Project Title! Glenshire Water System Acquisition and Ip provcnueuts II 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District P.O. Box 309 Truckee, CA 96160-0309 j I 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: j Peter. L. Holzmeister, General Manager ' (510) 5R2.3916 i C ProjcetLocation: Glenshire area,Town of Truckee,Nevada Sections 4, 5,9, and 10,1'cwnship 17 North,Range 17 East,and Section 33,Township IS North,.Range l 7 East,MDM 5, Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Truckee Donner Public Utility District P.O. Box 309 Truckee,CA 96160-0309 i 6. Cenral Plan Designation; Val les 7. Zoning. Varies I 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole actions involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support,or off-slte features necessary for its Implementation.) i I Project Purpose j The proposed project involves the acgtisition,operation, and maintenance of the Glenshire Mutual Watcr Company water system by the Truckee Donner Public Utility bistrict(District) along with improvements l to the water system to provide water for domestic use and fare i)retection. j Background The Glenshire water system provides service to approximatelyil,361 connections. The Glenshire Mutual Water Company,on behalf of its memhars,approached the District a�th regards to eonaolidation of the Glenshire system with tha District. The system ig currently su�plied by twelve wells of various production napacities. Many of these well,have been undcrgo�ng a degradation iu watct quality g. including increased levels of arsenic,radon,and iron. This has prompted the Mutual Water Company to I I t k i P. 04 take action with regard to securing a long term water supply'of adequate quality and quantity. This has resulted in the proposed consolidation with the District. i The shareholders of the Glenshire Mutual Water Company conducted a vote in which there was overwhelming support for acquisition of the water system by the District. With the support of the shareholders as evidenced by the vole, the Company's Board of Directors approached the District with regards to the District taking over the Glenshire system. i The Glenshire Mutual Water Company currently serves 1,36'� service connections, mostly residential with some commercial uses. The service area is at approximately 88%of build-out with 187 out of a total of 1,548 shares currently undeveloped. The District recently completed a"Due Diligence Report on.the Glenshire Water System"prepared by Bookman-Edmonton and dated August 14, 2001. Informati�n from the report was used in the preparation of this initial study. The report is hereby incorpo£tted by reference into this study. Project Characteristics The acquisition of the Glenshire water system will include the physical assets of Glenshire Mutual Water Company. This would include water system components (pipelines, tanks,pump stations,wells, treatment equipment),records, accounts,property,easements; and vehicles. Consolidation would also require the annexation of the Glenshire service area into the ljistrict's water service area. Following acquisition, the District will provide necessary improvements to the existing Glenshire system and to the District's system to establish a reliable source of supply for the system. The District will continue to use the Glenshire well sources and also construct an inter-tie with the District's system to provide supplemental source water from existing District wells. This would allow the District to eliminate wells from the Glenshire system which are not conskdered viable due to quality or quantity concerns. i In order for the District to be the water service provider for Glenshire, the Glenshire service area will have to be annexed into the District's water service area. The two service areas share a common boundary; a portion of the District's e4tern boundary is the western boundary of the Glenshire service area. The District currently provides electric service to a portion of the Glenshire service area. Adjustment to the District's boundary to include Glenshire would maintain a continuous service territory without involving any infill properties or creating any service area islands- Proposed water system improvements following the acquisiti ii of the Glenshire water system include the following; Modifications to the Featherstone Pump Station to pump to the Glenshire system Upgrade to the Glenshire Drive Well pump Construction of new pipeline to convey District water to the h Glenshire system Replacement and upsize of existing water storage tank in?lenshire system The Featherstone Pump Station is designed as a hydropneuma�ic pump station serving the upper elevation portions of the new Featherstone development. In order to serye Glenshire, the station would be converted to a conventional booster pump station pumping to A 6,160'pressure zone serving Glenshire. The Glenshire Drive Well was completed in 1997. The well was designed, approved, and constructed based on a rated capacity of 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm). I ue to limitations in the pipeline conveying i 2 i P. 95 water from the well, a well pump with a capacity of 1,300 g I m was initially installed and has been operating in the well. Following acquisition of the Glenshir system,the District will upgrade the Glenshire Well with a 2,000 gpm well pump. A new pipeline will be required to convey water between the District's system and the Glenshire system. The pipeline would tie into the Featherstone Pump Station on the District's end and into the existing distribution system.on the Glenshire end. The proposed 16" diameter pipeline would extend approximately 2 miles from the Featherstone station to Glenshire Road, across the Glenshire Bridge and to the Glenshire system. The actual route of the pipeline has not been determined pending the District's acquisition of the Glenshire system. Potential routes which a e being considered include: ► South from the Featherstone Pump Station parallel to an existing District pipeline to the Glenshire Well then along Glenshire Drive to the Glenshire system ► South from the Featherstone Pump Station to Samuel Lop, east along Samuel Loop to Glenshire Drive, then along Glenshire Drive to the Glenshire syste . ► North from the Featherstone Pump Station then east to 0 d Airport Road, southeast along Old Airport Road to Glenshire Drive,then along Glenshire Drive to tie Glenshire system. Because the proposed pipeline alignment has not been determined, it is not feasible to analyze the sitc- specific issues associated with constriction in this study. Following the determination of the pipeline alignment and prior to construction, the District will prepare an environmental review of the pipeline. The District is proposing to replace on;the four existing water storage tanks in the Glenshire system. The new tank would be a larger capacity tank needed to bring the Glenshire system into compliance with District requirements for storage capacity. Replacement of w�ter storage tank will involve the removal of the existing tank and construction of a new tank at the same lgcation. Tanks will be sized using current District design criteria and include capacity for domestic,emergency, and fire protection storage. i 9. Other agencies whose approval is required: State of California,Department of Fleaith Services,Office of Prinking Water(Permit Transfer) California Regional Water Quality Control Board,Lahontan Region(Report of Waste Discharge for pipeline construction) Town of Truckee(Encroachment Permit) Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission(Annexation) 1 10. Environmental Setting of the Project: The project involves the Glenshire Mutual Water Company set ice area. The service area is located in the eastern portion of the Town Truckee. Elevations range be`ween 5,600 feet above sea level near the Truckee River to 6,600 feet above sea level. I The Glenshire service area covers approximately 4.6 square rn(les and includes the Glenshire and Devonshire subdivisions. The area is predominantly single family residential with some commercial development. The area ranges from p;ne and fir tree coverage to open rangeland. I i II 3 P. 06 Emironntontal Factors Potentially A,fftctcd: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one inrpaut 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/Circula(ion ❑ Public Seneca ❑ Population aud Housing ❑ Biological Resources �; ❑ Utilities and Service Systems Cl Genphysical D Energy and Mineral ReIrurceg ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Water U Hazards ® Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality Q Nuise � ® Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination. (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) i On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed piujcut COULD NOT lid"a significatti effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 4 I find that although the proposed project could have a significlnt 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. ❑ r I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the crivironxncnt,and an ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, I I Curd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effecttis) on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier doeunjent 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 imliact" or"potentially significant unless j mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the O effects that remain to he addressed. i i i I p Signature Date i I Peter L.Holzmeister,General Maria Truckee Donner Public Utility District Printed Name Po t i 4 I ; II I ^� P. 07 I I Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No lmp�ct"answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses allowing each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources s .ow that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fa It 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,is lading 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. l;f there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,EIR is require . 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated"applies where the in orporation 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 I l-educe the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section N VII,"Earlier Analyses", ray be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,pro ram EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(e)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section.XVII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into - checklist eferences to information sources for potential impacts(e.g. general plans,zoning mdinances). See the satripl�question below. A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted shoul be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form,and lead agencies are free to use different ones. I Sample Question: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than iSignificant 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 0 Fl (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.) C I I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? O ❑ ❑ (source#(s): ) i b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? () c) Affect agricultural resources or operations(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands,or impacts from incomparible land uses)? (1) 5 P. ®8 i i I Potentially potentially Significant Lcas Than Ifiignincant Unless signincunl No Issues(and supporting information Sources) II Impact Mitigated Impact impact ; i II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theprnposal: a) Cumulatively exceed Official regional Or local population projections? O i ❑ b) induct s ehstan64 growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g.through project:in an undeveloped I area or extension of major infrastructure)? O ❑ 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? O ❑ ❑ b) Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? O ( ❑ ❑ e) Seismicity, seicbeortsunaui? (I) ❑ d) Landslides or mudslides? ( ) ❑ e) Erosion,changes in topography or unstable soil ❑ conditions from cxoavatioa,gfadiug of fill? O 0 S'uLside,rce of tlto land? O ❑ ❑ Q '% g) Expausivo soils? ( ) ❑ h) Unique geologic or physical features?O ❑ 0 0 I � I IV. NVATER. Would the proposal resuir in: i a) Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the Q ❑ Q rate and amount of surface runoffs ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1) ❑ e) Discharge into surface waters of other alteration of surface water quality(e.g.temperature,dissolved ( Q J U oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water U U U body? O e) Changes in currents,or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) U U U t) Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? () Ll i 0 g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?() i 0 U h) Impacts to groundwater quality' O ® l V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal_ # Al a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 0 Elexisting or projected air quality v(olatlon? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? O 6 i a k P. 09 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Issues(and supporting Information Sources) !'Impact w0gated Impact impact c) Alter air movement,moisture,or temperature,or cause any change in climate? ( j d) Create objectionable odors? O VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. j Would the proposal result in: a) increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? O i b) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g.sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)?( ) e) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby ❑ uses? ( ) ❑ d) Insufficient parking capacity on.site or off-site? O Q 0 ❑ e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? O fj Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative ❑ transportation(e.g.bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? O ❑ 0 ❑ g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic irr.pacts? (1) VIf. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to; a) Endangered,threatened or raze species or their habitat i (including but not limited to plants,fish,insects, 0 ❑ Q animals,and birds)? ( ) Q Q b) Locally designated species(e.g.heritage trees)? ( ) ❑ c) Locally designated natural communities(e.g.oak Q Q ❑ forest,costal habitat,etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat(e.g.marsh,riparian and vernal ❑ © Q pool)? ( ) O ❑ ❑ e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ I VIII, ENERGX AND MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) Fk b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ❑ ❑ ❑ O inefficient manner? i IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion o!t'release of hazardous j substances(including,but not li mited to: oil, Q Q Q pesticides,chemicals or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response i ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) i I i 7 i i P. 10 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than SigoMmant Unless 9igntncunt No issues(and supporting Information Sources) Impart &litigated Impact Impact c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health ® ® ❑ 0 hazard? ( ) ❑ d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass,or trees? O ❑ 0 ❑ X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: i a) Tnnrea.w.s in existing noise levels? O ❑ ❑ q b) Fzpoeme of people to severe noise levelO ( } ❑ ❑ ❑ Xi. P1MYJCSERVICES, Would theproposalhaveaneffect upon,or result in a needfor new or altered government 4 services in any of ehefollowing areas: j a) Fire protection? O I ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police protection? O I ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Alaintenanec of public facilities:,including roads? O � 0 � 0 e) Other governmental services? O ( }II. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for rew systems, or substantial ultetvtions to the fullowing uttltttes: a) Power or natural gas?( ) ❑ 0 ❑ b) Communications systems? O � � ❑ ❑ c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ❑ ❑ U facilities? O ❑ ❑ U d) Sewer of septic tanks?O e) Storm water drainage?O ❑ 0 f) Solid waste disposal?O i ❑ U ❑ 4 XIM AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?O I, ❑ ❑ U , b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?O ❑ U ❑ c) Create light or glare?( ) i ❑ U ❑ X1V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Wotdd tire proposal: i p a) Disturb paleontological resources?( ❑ b) Disturb archaeological resources? O © U U c) Affect historical resources? ( ) i ❑ ❑ d) Have the potential to cause a physical ch3lRe which Y, would affect unique ethnic culture va'.ues?O ( ® ❑ ❑ I '1 I P. 11 i Potentially potentially Significant Less Than significant Ualeas significant No Issues(and supporting Information Sources) i Impact Mitigated Im Il Impact I e) .Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ® U potential impact area?( 1 , A I XV, RECREATION. Wmildd,epropo.ral.' a) TnV.re.ACO the demand for neighborhood or regional i parks or other recreational facilities?( ) ; ❑ h) Affect existing recreational opportunities?( } i 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 blew self-sustaining ( . levels,threaten to eliminate a pant of an inial community,reduce the number of mstria the t ange of a rare or endangered plant or animal o, aluuivatz important examples of the ulajol periods of California 0 ❑ histoly Ut prebistury? i b) Dues the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? 1 c) Does the project have impacts teat are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable`! ("Gumulafively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects ofpast projects, ; the effects of other current projects,and the effects of ❑ 0 q probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? U XVIL EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tieriri&,program EIR, or other CEQA process,one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section s 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheds: . a) Earlier analyses used, (Identify earlier analyses a d state where they are available for p review.) None i 9 ti P. 12 4 i t b) Impacts adequately addressed.(Identify which e' ects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed by the earl cr document.) c) Mitigation measures. (For effects that are"pote tinily significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated",describe the mitigation measuies 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. I I. LAND USE AND PLANNING This project involves the acquisition of an existing water system,modifications to existing District facilities, and construction of a new pipeline 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 inc�uded the area to be served by the Bridge Street 6160 Tank. The General Plan sets forth the land use and planning policies for the town. Provision of water supply facilities allows the implementation of the GeneralPlan. II. POPULATION AND HOUSLNG The Glenshire water system acquisition and associated improvements will accommodate the continued development of the Glenshire water service area consistent with the population and housing projections of the Town of Truc:kee's approved general Ian. The project is needed to accommodate the service area's existing customers and proposed new development in order to insure adequate supply during peak demand periods with high quality water which meets State standards. The project does have the potential to serve a population greater thap the current population in accordance with the Town of Te uckee's approved general plan. Although tl�e project will accommodate growth, it is not considered to either directly or indirectly induce growth Water service would be made available to undeveloped areas only after complying with all other panning,land use,and environmental requirements imposed by the Town of Truckee. It is these planning and environmental agencies which are responsible for the level and direction of growth which would be accommodated by this project. III. GEOPHYSICAL The project will require a modest amount of grading to repare the existing tank site for the construction of anew replacement tank. As is typical fo District tanks construction projects, a geotechnical investigation will be done with reeommenlations included in the tank design. This is considered a less than significant impact. Pipeline construction will involve excavation and backfi111 of trenches. As is standard with all District construction projects of this type, grading and excavatioils will include temporary erosion controls and surface restoration either with paving or other permanen erosion control measures. Because the alignment of the pipeline has not been determined, site-specific issues are not analyzed in this study. The District has been involved in large number of pipeline construction projects involving miles of pipeline. None of these projects have resulted in signifi ant environmental 'impacts. Although the Glenshire inter-tie pipeline is not expected to cause any$ignifiearet impacts, the District will provide an environmental review of the pipeline project following determination of the alignment. 10 P. 13 IV. WATER The water source for the Glenshirc system consists oft elve wells ranging in capacity from 25 gpm to 560 gpm. Arsenic is of particular concern in the existing Glenshire wells. Past water quality monitoring has indicated varying concentrations of ars nie in the wells with some wells consistently over the State standard of 0,050 mg/l. Some of the webs, including the single largest producer,have been consistently non-detect for arsenic,while others hive bad concentrations as high as 0.097 mg/l. Other water quality concerns with the existing wells include radon and iron. Following the acquisition of the system, the District intgnds to abandon many of the low producing, poor quality wells.The District will supplement the solrce water from the abandoned wells using the existing Glensbire Drive Well. The Glenshire Drive Well has capacity to provide the needed additional water supply to the Glenshire system. Altho gh the project will result in additional groundwater withdrawals from the Glenshire Drive Wel, this will be offset by the abandonment of existing wells in the Glenshire system. This is conside led a less than significant impact. V. AIR QUALITY Acquisition of the Glenshire water system and improvements to the District's existing facilities is not expected to result in any potential impacts to air quality) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Following acquisition by the District,there will be a sh bt increase in vehicle trips as District operation and maintenance personnel travel between thgexisting service area and Glenshire for routine service. This is considered a less than significant impa It. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The acquisition of the Glenshire system and water system improvements arc not expected to have any affect on biological resources. i Vllii. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Upgrading the pump in the Glenshire Drive Well and converting the Featherstone hydropneumatic station to a booster pump station will require installatioi} of larger pump motors requiring more electrical energy. This will be offset by the abandonme t of existing well pumps in the Glenshire system. This is considered a less than significant impac . IX. HAZARDS The project will have no impact on emergency response . The project is not considered to involve the creation of or exposure to a health hazard. The increased water supply reliability and water storage capacity will increase the level of fire protection for the�roject area. 1 X. NOISE The project will not result in any long-term increase in oise levels,but may increase noise levels temporarily during construction activities. District cons�ntction contracts contain restrictions for hours of operation to reduce noise level concerns. This is con ndered a less than significant impact. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES The acquisition of the Glenshire system by the District will result in the elimination of the Glenshirc Mutual Water Company. This may reduce the sense of cal control that the Mutual Water Company shareholders now enjoy with respect to ownership and operation of the water system. The Truckee Donner Public Utility District has been providing water ervice to the Truckee community since the 1940'8. The District has a proven record of providing w ter service of the highest quality. The District is a public agency whose directors are elected from and y the District's customers, including those in the Glenshire service area. Being served by a local pub) c agency gives District customers a voice in i 11 P. 14 I 1 policy decisions thrrnigh direct access to their created representatives on the Board of Directors. This is considered a less than significant impact. This project will require the annexation of the Glenshir service area into tho District's water service area. The annexation would result in a continuous Dis Pict bouaddiy without involving any infril properties or creating any service area islands. The GJ�nshire service area including the Glenshire and Devonshire subdivisions is included in the District's Five Year Sphcrc of Influence. The portion of the Glenshire service area south of the subdavisien is inclu'cd in(tic Districts Ten to Fifteen Year Sphere of Influence. This is considered a less than significant urpact. XIT. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Acquisition of the Glenshire water system tepresents a�igniffeant increase in service area and water customers for the District. Opttaliotr and maintenance of the system will require additional resources including personnel and equipment. The District has a�uccessf it track record of operations, maullenancc, arid system repairs completed by District forces. I he District also has access to outside u conacturs wurking under the direction of the water de artment to help with repair projects. This is wnsidcrcd a less than signifleaat impact. i XIII. AESTHETICS The acquisition of the Glenshire water system and system upgrades are not expected to have any affect on aesthetic resources. 1 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES The acquisition ofthe Glenshire water system and system upgrades are not expected to have any affect on cultural resources, The proposed pipeline will invol e excavations and may be constructed through unimproved areas, Because the alignment of the pipet' e has not been determined,site-specific issues are not analyzed in this study. The District has been involved in large number of pipeline construction projects involving miles of pipeline. Alone of these projects have resulted in significant environmental impacts. Although the Glenshire inter-tic pipeline is not expected to cause any significant impacts,the District will provide an environmental review of the pipieline project following determination of the alignment. XV. RECREATION The acquisition of the Glenshire water system and syste upgrades are not exparted to have any affect on recreation resources. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The determinations of mandatory findings of significance are mipported by the discussions contained within the Initial Study. The Initial Study did not identiFtFt.++,, any potentially significant effects,and there is no substantial evidence that the projert may have.a significant effect on the environment. REPORT PREPARATION This Initial Study wac prepared under contract with the Truckle Donner Public Utility District by SaucYs Engineering, Inc_ Principal aut r was Keith Knibb. Prepared by: Date: 0 i I i 12 ggG i Id9 I P. 15 I 1 i 1 l i RFFERENC�S These references arc available for review at the Truckee Doni ler Public Utility District ullicc, I I570 Runner Fna3 Road,Truckcc,California, 1, USGS Truckee Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series. ?. Truckee Water Systc r Water Alastcr Flan Updatq Tiu lckce Duuuca Public Utility District,Match 2001 3, Negative Declaration and Enviruiuuotrtal Initial Study,Truckee Water System Water Master Plan Update,Tiuckcc Duuncr Public Utility District,March 001 4, Revised Due Diligence Study Report on the Gienshire Water System, Truckee llonner Public Utility District,August 14,2001 i 3. Sphere of Influence Report,Trtekee Donner Public Utility District, January 1998 I� i j i l I I r{ sa i i 4 r I '} I 13 i I I 1 o jecl oa,.r td=. N O i _ Sauers Engineering, Inc. Truckee Donner Glenshire mutual"later Co. CMI ant Elv[mmmwtat Englnsem Public Utility District 4i0 i.o war Grass Veliey Rood, $u11r A, Nevadq Ci'y, CA 95959 rnRLOW , cAurom+u Vicinity Map hlephgne (530) 265-8021 d 9 r ar t a b a _ _ s g a_. S • �fey- :.�•-` / � - to A'LV.IAuuI p�GYN�w'24� _ PublicI r Sauers Engii-neeringll Inc---I Truckee Donner Glenshire Mutual Water Co. CTvfI and E"Ironmorftl Engineers; District