Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFalcon Point Booster Pump Station P. aI i i i fg 1 Sowers Engineering, Inc. i Civil, k Environmental Engineers I i Memorandum January 31,2002) I i TO: Board ofDirectors, and Ed Taylor,District water Superintendent! FROM; Keith Knibb,Consulting Engineer SUBJECT: FALCON P INT PLACE BOOSTER PUMP STATION-CEQA I � _ We have completed the pro ' sed Negative Declaration�ad Environmental Initial Study for the Falcon Point place Booster ump Station. These documents need to be circulated to responsible and interested agencies and ode available for public re�lew. The District also needs to schedule a public heating t6receive comments. Filing t}e documents with the county clerk and state clearinghouse will ttigicr a thirty day review perict I RECOMMENDATION I recommend the Board take the following actions regarding the environmental review for the Falcon Point Place Booster Pump Station: I. Authorize the filing ofthe proposed Negative De laratioa and Bnvirotunenlal Initial Study with the Office of the Nevada County Cler�. 2. Authorize the circulE loon of the proposed Neffativia Declaration and Environmental Initial Study with responsit le and interested agencies nr;d with the State Clearinghouse. 3. Authorize publicatio i of a Notice of Public Review Period and Public Hearing on the proposed Negative r eclaration. i 4. Schedule a public he iring for the proposed Ncgat vc Declaration at the regular Board Meeting uu Match 6 2002. i i l I l i I I 440 Lower Grass Valley Road, rite A, Ncvada City. CA 95959 (530) 265.Rtt)l Pax(530)265-6834 i i P. 02 NEGATIVE DECLARATION i III (XX)Proposed ' ( )Final NAME OF PROJECT: Falc in Point Place Booster Pump Station LOCATION: True Icc, California i i i Entity or Person Undertaking Project: (XX) Truckee Donner Public Utility V�strict i Other( } Narrie:_ ; Addi Oss__ i. Pho e: L PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involve 1 the constriction of a new booster.pump station,approximately 500 feet of pipeline, and approximately 00 feet of electrical facilities. i Finding: It is hereby fond that the above named piujcct will out have a siguificacrt offact upon the environment. Initial An initial study of(Yis project was undertaken and prepared in accordance with Article V Study: of the Districts;local environmental guidelioes and Section 15063 of the EIR Guidelines for the California�nvrzo mental Quality Act for� the ar oseofascertaining whether this s project might have a 'isignificant effect upon the environment. A copy of such initial study is attached hereto and incorporated herein by ieferenee. Such initial study documents reasons to support the above finding. i Mitigation The following mitigation measures have been included in the project to avoid potentially r Measures: significant effects: None I i f Date: i)3y:_ s Peter L. Flol.zm.eister, 0cneral Manager I i EN'f'ruckee Mutter Public Utility District VIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY (Prepared pursuant to Article V Of the Environmental Guidelines of the 91strict) { L. Project Title:k'alcon Poi Booster Pump Station I 2, Lead Agency Name and Address: Truckee Do ner Public IJtilityNstriet P ft.Box 3 9 Truckee,C4,96160-0309 3. Contact Person and Pha a Number: ' Peter L_no meister, General Manager (530)582_3 16 i 4. Project Location: � Parcel A,Unit 9,Tahoe nnnner Subdivision,Truckee,Nevada County,CA Nevada Cou�r ty Assessor's Parcel Number A5 670-06 See attnehm pt titled"Falcon Point Doostc i Punip Station,Lotutliun Map:' 5. Project Sponsor's Name Ind Andress: Truckee Doi ter Public Utility District P.O.Box 30 Truckee, Ct 96160-0309 6. General Plan Designatin Tahoe llonu PC 7. Zoning: j pp R•1 1 i S. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action invoided,including but not Bunted to later phases i of the project,and any secondaryl ,support,or off-site features necessary for its implementation.) The project consists of construction of a new booster pump station,pipeline,underground electrical facilities,and pavement at theDistrict's existing Falcon Point Place.Tank Station located in the Tahuu Donner subdivision. Falcon Po Lit Station is cturently tlic silt of the 200,000 gallon Falcon Point Tank, a and also includes paved driveway and parking,underground pipelines,and drainage facilities_ ¢¢ The new pump station will con¢ist of an approximately 400 square foot building housing pumps,motors, valves, and other mechanical and electrical equipment. There Will be construction of appt-oxhuatoly 70 ,p feet of E inch diameter pipeline from the pump station under tlje paved driveway to an existing pipeline in Falcon Point Place along Willi k �usu ucliuu of approximately 500 feet of R"pipe in Hansel Avenue near Falcon Point Place. The project will include an approximately 500 square foot paved parking area. The 1 ! j f i P. OBI F l I 1 ( i it project xvill also include cons etion of approximately 500 Pict of underground elcuuicdl facilities along I, an existing District easement rom the project site south to SairrL Bernard Avernie. This booster station is nne of o stations which were anticrpl tad in the original Tahoe Donner water system design but not built as art o£the original system, The Herringbone Bouslet Pump Station was completed in 1999. The urn,'Satation being proposed uudcr this Initial Study was originally planned to be located at a site on Northwjods Buu1mard between Cham�nix Road and lvlulebach Way. More recent water nctwoik mudolitrl;of lh'Tahoe Donner disrrihution sy tem shows the currently proposed site adjacent to the Falcon Pninr T tk to be a preferable altematVe. It was expected that these stations would be constructed when the subdivision approached 50 percent of buildout. The proposed Falcon Nita Pump Station will function in fie same capacity as the previously proposed Northwontls starion Falcon Point honster pump sta 1jon will pump water from Pressure Zone V to Pressure Zone VI working in parallel with the Innsbruck boolster pump station, Falcon Point booster pump station will be designed such that working in combinntin with the Innsbruck station will provide builduut design capacity to pressure zones which it serves; S uached are two exhibits title "Falcon Point Booster Pump �tation,Preliminary Project Plan,On-Site Improvements"and "Falcon PonIt Booster Pump Station,Preliminary Project Plan,Off-Sit: Improvements." 9. Other agencies whose ap 'rnval is required(and permits needed): Team of Truckee(tncmachm t Permit) California Regional Water Qrt ity Control Board,hahontau Region(Report of Waste Dibchargo) 10. Environmental Setting ul`Ithe Project: The project is located in the T''oe Donner subdivision,a planned community in Truckee. The project site is a District owned parcel #'approximately one-third acre which is currently the site of a foity fool diameter by twenty-four foot high welded steel water tank. The project site has a paved driveway. Tahoe Donner is a residential!esorr community covering approximately 6K square miles and ranging in elevation between 6,200 feet and 7,400 feet above sea level. The subdivision includes single family and multi-family residences, commercial uses including restaurant and food store, and roac'atioual rdcilitics including skiing,golf, tennis,equestrian,swimming,and clubLusc. The project site is located in g ea of single family residences at an elevation of 6,469 feet above sea level. i he parcel sits behind tvPo residential lets,lot 504 and lot 505 of Unit 9, on Falcon Point Placc. The project site is accessed by h existing paved driveway which dlsu serves lots 505 and 506. The. � L project site, including areas of j uildiag and pipeline construction,haq been previously graded as part of t the construction of the Falcon P int Tank. i i 3 I� � A Ii I d 2 l i i I I Pe 05 I 1, Environmental Factors Pulcl }wally Affected. The environmental factors ch- ked halow would be pntentiall�affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a"Potenli.all� Significant Impact"or"Poteodally Significant Unless Mitigated,"as indicated by the checklist on t ¢following pages. ❑ Land Use and Plannuig U Ti a spurtatiun/Ci[uulaliun `❑ Public Services ❑ Population and Housing ❑ BiologiealResources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems U Geophysical U Energy and Mineral Rcpourccs 0 Aesthetics t ❑ Watcr ❑ Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources 'i ❑ Ai,rfhtali_ty 1 ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation t j U Mandatory Findings of Significance d Determination. t; (To be completed by the Lead �Igency.) I I 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 DECLARA ION will be prepared. I I find that although the propos(td„project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant attest in this ease because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheets have been added to the project, A NEGATI` DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have.a significant effect on the environment,and an EN V IRONMEN'1'AL 1MPAC REPORT is required. U d I ' I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect s)on the enviroruneot,but at least i Me effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal t standards,and 2)has been addtessed by mitigation treasures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets,if the effect' s a"potentially significant imliaet"or"potentially significant unless i mitigated." An ENVIRONME TAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain Lu be addm yed. ❑ j I i SignaturC - 5 Peter L.Holzmeister,General Maoaeor Truckee Donner Public Utility District Printed Name FoJ 3 � i p P. 06 i I i ] Evaluation of Environurcntai I pacts: i , 9 1) A brief explanation is require)for aA answers except "Mo Impact"answers that are adequately supported by , the it formation sources a leaf agency cites in the parentheses f?fowing 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 protect will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take aceouu t of the whole actiau involved,incrudiug off-situ as well as on-sire,cumulative as well as project-level,lildireCL M well as dbcct,and voubtruutio i 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. Il;there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact'entries when the determination is made,EiR is required,, ;E 4) ¢Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated"applies where the ioc6rpaiatiun of mitigation incasmcs has reduced F an effect from"Potentially Si�'uillcaul Impact"to a"Lcbs limo Siguifivant Impact"_ The lead agency must &tw ibc the nuiigatiuu mcasuircs,and briefly explain how they t'ednce the eMct to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIi,"Earlier Analyses", may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used ovhere,pursuant to the Geeing,program Elk or other CEQAproecss,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses it are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agcucics ate cneouicigzd to incorporate irdu the checklist aferenees to information sources for potential _. impacts(c.g.general plans,4c ring ordinances). See the swple 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 formj and lead agencies are free to use different nnes. i s I i Sample Question: A Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than �ignificoat Iinlecv Significant No ;I Issues(and Supporting Information ISources) Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Would the proposal res;dt in poter''tial impacts involving: Landslides or mudslides? (1t6) , ❑ ❑ ❑ (Attached source list explain 3 that 1 is the general plan, j and 6 is a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further explanation. i L LAND USE AND PLANNI14C. World the proposal: i x a) Conflict with general pic a designation or zoning? j (source#(s):2,3) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with applicable cavirouutcutai plans or politics adopted by ages Gies WitlUjunisdicliutt over tic project? (2,3) ❑ ❑ ❑ ® , c) Affect agricultural resources or operations(e.g. impacts to soils or fernxl Inds,or impacts from incompatible landuscs) (1) j ❑ ❑ ❑ ® � i 4 4 A i i P. 07 i i Potentially j 1 Potentially Significant Less Than ls6ucs(-tad supporting Iaforman n Sources) significant Volta* Significant No t Impact Mitigated Impact Impact H. POPULATION AND HOUSING, Would the propocatr a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections (2,3) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g.throug projects in an undeveloped 1 area or extension ofm jarinfrastructute)? (2,1) i ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Displace existing hoes ng,especially affordable housing? (2,3) ❑ Q Cl M III. GEOPHVSTCAI.. Would the proposal result in oe expose people to pntanlinl impoetr nt.ohirg: i a) Seismirity: fault ruptu'a? O ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Seismicity_ ground shaking orliquafaciion? O ❑ ❑ ❑ n) Seismicity: seiche or t unami? () ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Landslides or mudslide ? O ❑ ❑ Q e) Erosion,changes in topography or unstable soil , conditions from cxcavalton,grading of fall? O ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Subsidonce of the land'q () ❑ 0 ❑ l� g) Expausivc soils? O ; ❑ ❑ ❑ {� h) Unique geologic or phy�ieal fnatuma?O j © ❑ ❑ ❑ I IV. WATER. Mvuld theprop ul resuh in: i a) Changes in ahsotpti'M ralts,drainage patterns,or the ate attd amount of su ee runoff? () 1 ❑ ❑ N U b) Exposure orpeople or property to water related hazards such as flooding? O ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Discharge into surface graters or other alteration of surface water quality(e g, temperature, dissolved 1 oxygen or turbidity)? O ❑ L.1 ❑ 0 d) Changes in the amount¢f surface water in any water body? O f_j I❑ ❑ M e) Changes in currents,or a course or direction of water movements? O ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Change in the quantity c f ground waters,either through direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquif r by cols or excavations:O ❑ ❑ ❑ N1 g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Impacts to groundwaterquality? O ❑ ❑ ❑ I V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: i a) Violate any air quell y s dard or contribute to an existing or projected air uality violation? () ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Expose sensitive recept is to pollutants? (D ❑ ❑ j'. i I ai i l j 5 i i I P. D8 i i i Potentially j Potcutiwly Stgameaat I:esc Than Issues(ann gnpporriog Informatt n Sources) ! signiticani Ueless Significant No _ Impact Mitigated Impact Impact i i i i c) Alter air movemout,[[ ismre,ox temperature,nr rAnsc any change iu 0itudfel O Q ❑ U d) CreatcobjeuGunablco�oxs? O i d ❑ U , Vh TRANSPORTATION/C1{2C[A.4'1'1t)N_ Would the proposal resin i a) Increased vehicle trips r traffic congestion? O ❑ ❑ ❑ h) HA72rd5 to safety from design features(e.g.ahnrp curves or dangerous in erseetions)or incompatible axes(e.g,Sam,equipm nt)?O ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Inadequate emergency ccess or access to nearby uses? O ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Insufficient parking cal acity on-site or off-site? I) ❑ ❑ ❑ ® „ e) Hazards or barriers for edestria,ls or bicyclists? (,) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Conflicts with adopted 3olicies supporting alternative transportation(e.g.bus tuuruuls,bicycle racks)? O ❑ ❑ ❑ �) g) Rail,waterborne or air raffic impacts? O D ❑ ❑ 4� Y11. BIOLOGICAL RESOUR�ES. flrvuld the proposu/result t�impac[s r0: i "' r a) Endangered,threatened orrare sperieg nr their habitat (including but not limited to plants,fish,insects, animals;and birds)? ( CI U ❑ h) T,onnlly designated spec ies(e.g.heritage trees)? O ❑ ❑ ❑ c) f oral ly designated natural comtnuaities(e.g.oak fnresr costal habitat,et .)? O ❑ ❑ ❑ M d) W efland habitat(e.g.match,riparian and vernal pool)? 1 () ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Wildlife dispersal ormigmlion corridors? () ❑ ❑ �` i VIIi. ENERGY AND Mil`ERr�L RESOURCES Would theproposal. i a} Conflict with adopted c c+g.v wnsc[vation plans? O ; ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Usc non-rencwablo re5orces in it wasteful and i inefficient ntatmeR O ❑ ❑ ❑ IX. HAZARDS. Would the pry oval involve: a) A risk of accidental expingion nr reiPase of hazardous ! substances(including,h it not limited to, oil, I pesticides,chemicals or adia[inn)'t O ❑ ❑ M ❑ b) Passible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuatin plan? O ❑ ❑ Li � i 6 j i i P. 09 I 1 i Potentially j PuLentlally Significant Lees Than i Significant Unlcas Significant No Issues(and supporting rn tormatl n Sources) ' Impact Mitigated Impact Impact i I c) The creation of any he III)hdLald ur p(ten[ial health 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ hazard? O ` d) Exposure of pcupte 10�xisting sourres of potential ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ health hazards? O c) Increased fire hazard i areas w:h flammable brush, grass,or trees? (} ❑ ❑ X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in. 'I i a) Increases in existing n ise levels? O J ❑ ❑ h) .Exposure ol'people to evere noise levels? O ❑ ❑ ❑ X.I. PUBLIC SERVICES. Mo Id the p,oposal huve un effect upon,or result in a need ton new or altered government sorvlees to airy Of follor�lirig crew, a) Firs protection? O � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ n) Police protection? O ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? () ❑ ❑ ❑ (� d) Maintenance of public acilities,including roads? O ❑ ❑ ❑ (Xl e) Other Rvveuuueutal ae 1vices? O ❑ ❑ O XII, UTILITIES AND SERVTCR SYS'r a:-MS. Would the i proposal result to a need fn new ,;swats,orsubstantial alretartonftothefollowing uninipq- I I a) Power or natural pis?( ❑ U l7 b) Cnmmunwadnns systet s? (} ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c) IeaCal At regional water treatment or distribution facilities? O ( ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Sewer or septic tanks?(�) ❑ ❑ ❑ _ e) Storm water drainage?{'1) ❑ ❑ ❑ t) Solid waste disposal?( ❑ ❑ ❑ (� .i 1 XIILAESTHETICS_ fPouldthe ,vposnl: 1 IY a) Affect a scenic vista of conic highway?{) ❑ ❑ ❑ Ill Have a demonstrable nc alive acsthclic crtjx t?I) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Create light or ghee?O i ❑ ❑ ❑ ($� XIV. CULTURAL RESOURC IS. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleon.[oloYtcal tesosrces?{) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Diat.nbwuhaevlogicalrsoinces7 (7 ❑ ❑ ❑ 41 c) Affaaa hisWrical resnurc s? O � ❑ ❑ ❑ 4y' d) IIave the potential to causc a physical change which would affect unique etht is culture values?{) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ `� I 7 I P. 10 i i Polontially 1 potentially Significant Less Than $IgnlGcant IrntCBa Sig.Wk.nt. No !# Issues(and supporting Information{Sources) t Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) Restrict existing religio or sacred uses within the ! - potential impact area? i XV. RECREATION, Would th, proposal: �} a) Increase the demnnd for neighborhood or regional i 4 parks or other recreatio at facilities?O D ❑ 0 b) Affcct existing recrwtit aal opportunities?O XVI.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the projcct have potential to degrade the quality of the environm nt,substantially reduce the t habitat of a fish or wild)fe species,cause a fish or wildlife population to d p below self-susiaming levels, threaten to elim' ale a plant or animal community,reduce the umber or restrict the range of a rare or endangered pla t or animal or eliminate i important examples oft a major periods of California ❑ ❑ 0 history or prehistory? f b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term,to the disadvaatag of long-term,environmental goals? c) Does the project have in Apacts;that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? j ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the N incremental effects of a reject are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, p the effects of other curr at projects,and the effects of i probable future projects.) QO d) Does the project have er vironmental effects which ! will cause substantial ad verse effects on human pI beings,either directly ot indirectly? 0 G XVIL RARLIRR ANALYST. i Farlier analyses may he u.ed where,pursuant to the tiering,program FIR,or other CF.QA prooess,ore a or more effects have been adequately AnAly7ed in An earlier RJR.or negative rlenlAration Section P 15064(n)(`i)(D) Ir this C, aP. n diSCii$$IQn S,IIf1nId identify the fQHnWin$on attACl]ef1sheets. I a) Earlier Analyses use& Identify earlier analyses And'State where they are available for review. h) Impacts adequately ddressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequat y analyzed by the earlier document. I i + P. 11 9 i y,y' tr 4 4 c) Mitigation tneaeurati For effect,that are"potentially significant"or"potentially significant unless mitigated",de ribe tile,mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document andile extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. i � No earlier analysis were used i preparation of this Initial Shtdy. I i� t EXPLANATION OF CHEC Iall ST ANSWERS A brief explanation is required for al tswers cacept"Nu hoVdut" answers drat are adcquatcly supported by the uafvruaation sources a]tad"Soucy cites ill the parentheses�ulluwing each question. I. LAND USE AND PLANING This project is included ifftt the District's"Truckee Watei System Water Master Plan Update"and �. associated environmental documents. This project,alon with all the projects proposed in the masterplan, is based on t e general plan of the agency o jurisdiction. The project is consistent with general plan designation and zoning of the own of I"zuckee. II. POPULATION AND 1- tUUSIA6 The Falcon Point pump s ation will be designed to acco�modate the continued infill development of a portion of the Tahoe lloz ner subdivision consistent with the population and housing projections of the general plan. II[. GEOPHYSICAL The project will be const acted on a site already developed as the Falcon Point Tank site. The project will require a modest amount of grading to prepare the pump station building pad and parking area. Pipeline and underground electrical construction will involve excavation and backfill of trenches. As is standard with all Dist*t construction projects of this type,grading and excavations will include surface restoration either with paving or other permanent erosion control measures. This is considered a less than significant im act. Typical soils in the area f the project site consist of a mixture of sands.gravels,voleanics, and i decomposed organic top oil with underlying volcanic rock such as basalt. These soils are not considered potentially e'x ansive. There are no imigne physical or genlogin features associated with the project site. IV. WATER There will he n slight inr.�((ense in the amrumt of inipervioua surface as a result of this project including l the pump station and paved area. This is expected to be approximately 800 square feet. Drainage will i flow from the impervirnt areas to an infiltration trench. !The infiltration trench will be sized to t accommodate runoff from a I-hour,20-year storm as defined by the Lahontan Regional Board. This is considered a less than si nificant impact. The project will have no affect an groundwater. V. AIR QUALITY There will be no air emir ion,from the pump station. There may be incidental emissions during construction from eontra6tor's operations including vehicles and mechanical cquipmcnt. All. TRANSPORTATION/ IRCULATION During construction thcr will bo an increase in vehicle Sdps to the project site associated with the $ contractor's activities. T is is considcrcd a loss than significant impact. Pipeline eonstructiou alo ig llattsel Averute tray utipuct baffle along that road. It is anticipated ibat � pipelinc will be along the ahuuldw of ITauscl Avcuuc allowing the toad to retrain vpcar in both directions. Disttict{:uustructiuu contracts ruutinely'include spcciGuativns requiring contractors to prepare traffic control and lane closure plans prior to construction. These plans will be made available for review and approval k'y the Town of Truckee through the encroachment permit application ptoccss. 9 I i P. Y2 i d i This is considered a less Titan significant impact. The project will not have any affect on emergency access, access to nearby es,or alternative trarispurLatit n. i The,project will includelarking for District vehicles. I VII. RICIT.OGiC.AT,RESOT RCFS Cornstruction of the pnm sratinn will take place over a relatively small area,appruxirnatcly 900 squaie i feet. The project site is of cnncidered habitat for threatfned or endangered species of plants or i animals. the site containsno locally desigtxared spaciespr nanivai communities. The site is in an upland area containing n)wetlands. "I he project will have no impact on wildlife dispersal or migration. VIII. ENERCY AND MINE RESOURCES ; The pump stations will u e electrical energy, pumps will be chosen which work at high efficiencies under design conditions. I IX. HAZARDS j During construction the is a risk of accidental.release¢f hazardous eubstamees such,as paint,fuel,or t oil from spillage. District construction contracts require the contractor to be prepared for such accidents utd provide cleanup which in this case would,likely be limited to the paved project site. n This is oonsidctvd a less[han significant impact. r X. NOISE j During cunslzuuliuu,Lhc c will be an ittotcase in noise levels associated with contractor operations including uperaLiun of"An1janicid ctluipuMn such as a �ackhoe,genu'ator,and corupressor. This is j considered a less than si nifiumL irripaut. } Xl. PJTJ1T,ICSFRVTCFS p6 This project is based on and consistent with the general blan of the Town of Truckee including 6 projections for the need or public services. I XII. UT1L111-ES AND SEX ICE SYSTEMS The project will result in improvements to the water distribution system by increasing the capacity and reliability of the system. , I it XIII. AESTHETICS The pump station site is ocated along Falcon Point Place and will be visible from the street. Building materials and colors will be chosen to complement the siations's surroundings. Materials will include a rough-hewn split face asonry block building with m§tal roof. Because of the relatively small size of the building and the c�oice of materials,this is consi Bred a less than significant impact, The pump station building is subiocA to review by the Tahoe DonnV Architectural Standards Office. li XIV. CULTURAL RESOU ICES j All ptujact cons haction ill take place on already developed land which has been graded in connection with die con ruction of the existing tank.. Any potential archaeological resources would likely have been lost dui ng the original site developme�d. XV. RF.CRF.ATi(1N ! The project N based no n d consistent with the general plan of the Town of Truckee including projections for needed r creational facilities. TVT. MANbATORY FTNDT GS OF SIGNIFICANCE The project will take pla a on a graded and paved site and will not affect plant or animal species or hahitat or eliminate preh stone or historic resources. I 10 '' P. 13 The project achiever hn h short term and long term environmental goals by increasing water pumping efficiency, avoiding pot ntial shortages in pumping capacity, and allowing the implementation of adopted land use and en.I ' onmental plans. Public water supply is he of many services needed to allow the continued orderly growth and development of the Tru kee area. Issues related to growth and development including intensity, density, location,and tixting,among others, are the responsibility of the appropririatc planning agency, in this case the Town of Truckee. Similarly any impacts associated with 14c growth and development of the Truckee area are Ise the responsibility of the ap�ropi into agencies and are addressed in the various laud use and en ironmental plans adopted by tltuw agencies. The provision of a public water supply is not eonsidercdia significant contribution tuwa�ds impacts which may be associated with the continued growth and development of the Tlal:kce arvayas defined by the appropriate planning agency. i Implementation of this project will allow the District to continue to provide an adequate public water supply. Provisioaas of a are wid aeliablc water supply ii considered to have a beneficial effect on human beings, i REPORT PREPARATION This Initial Study was preparci under contract with the'1'rack"e Donner Public Utility District by Sauers Engineering,Inc. Principal author was Keith ibb. Prepared b I Date: i i I t f I t i t g1l 1 It j 1 I 1- i I I r i i P. 14 I i RF.FERENC*S These references are available for review at the Truckee Dormer Public Utility District office, 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee,Califami . i 1_ USGS Truckee Quadrat gle, 7.5 Minute Series. i 2. Truckee Water System ater Master Plan Updatc,Truckee Donner Public Utility District,March 2001 3. Negative Declaration and Environmental Initial Study,Truckce Water System Wdtcr Master Plan Update, Truckee Donne Public Utility District,March 2001 � 1 i f I i I I i i I, 1 � 19 1 i s it 9 i i s l J1 12 i a P. 15 i i \ i I ralconPump Point Booster \t Pump Station I mom am.° aeon:own Truuce ./ / 4� tole t t o 'I e auk LOCATION ! MAP Tlvrke9 Donner Puoiir unhty Ilisirirt FALCbN POINT e00STER PUMP STATION i LOCATION MAP 1504 T\ \\ P�RCEL „a„\NEV\T NSFO\MER D ,__ T/C\ \ 505 (dEw2�4'X18' P STATf BASE ELE✓eH.Ws.W s4 NE /AVEDPA !NG AREA N ISTING[2(i M.G. � \ h y ORAGE TAN \ CONNECTTO�lA�1K 'ISCONNN T O \y\\ r _-- - -- - - "\ .L-- DP D C \ :„'�-..•,:,� --��""-- �/ NERFL LINE NEW TIDE ND ° \ ELECTRI\FACILITI �� \ \9CGp �' TANK DftNINSUMP \ A R PIPE E 1C'TANKSU'PLV LNI \ 483 \ / \4% \ \ 1010 / \\\\ \ \ UMTS CE PAVEMEY ---f / EXIST C WATER INE \ \ E 482 \\ A�t7 - / Tn;lokee Donner Public UIiI'ty Disfri^i / \\ FALCON POINT BOOSTER PUMP STATION 481 PRELIMINARY PROJECT PLAN ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS P. 17 I i i E \ — EXISTI G M1fN FA CON P INT A Y WITH W T P ADD 0 X U E N �� N W Lb PO l \\\ B OS ER�S � 00 \ / \ E C I , I E D �° I truckee Donner Public Utility District z FALCON POINT BOOSTER PUMP STATION PRELIMINARY PROJECT PLAN OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS' !'s