The URL can be used to link to this page

AP 06-21-07SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT "Basic Services for a Complex World" Richard Solbri•, General Mana•er Eric W. Schafer, President Duane Wallace, Director 7. ITEMS FOR BOARD ACTION a. Sewer Financing Pg. 77 (Rhonda McFarlane) REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:00 P.M. District Board Room 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California Mar BOARD MEMBERS Lou Mosbacher, Director 1. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR MEETING — PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 6. PRESENTATION a. South Tahoe Public Utility District's Turf Buy -Back Program (Shelly Barnes, District Water Conservation Specialist) Paul Sciuto, Assistant Mana•er James R. Jones, Vice President Kathleen Farrell, Director 2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (Short non - agenda items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the District. Five - minute limit. No action will be taken.) 3. CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA OR CONSENT CALENDAR 4. ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR (Any item can be discussed and considered separately upon request.) 5. CONSENT ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR ACTION / DISCUSSION REQUESTED BOARD ACTION Authorize Staff to Engage Bond Counsel Services for the Sewer Financing REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA - JUNE 21, 2007 PAGE-2 b. Sewer Financing Pg.79 (Rhonda McFarlane) Authorize Board President and Chief Financial Officer to Sign Documents and Execute Transaction for the Sewer Financing c. Pg.81 Payment of Claims Approve Payment in the Amount of $1,962,318.30 d. Pg.101 2:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility Project (Ivo Bergsohn) (1) Hold a Public Hearing to Take Public Comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration of Environ- ment Impact; and (2) Certify the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact 8. BOARD MEMBER STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS (Discussions may take place; however, no action will be taken) a. Water & Wastewater Operations Committee (Jones / Farrell) b. Finance Committee (Wallace / Schafer) c. Executive Committee (Schafer / Jones) d. Planning Committee (Mosbacher / Schafer) 9. BOARD MEMBER AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORTS (Discussions may take place; however, no action will be taken) a. Building Ad Hoc Committee 10. EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE REPORT (Discussions may take place; however, no action will be taken) 11. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS (Discussions may take place; however, no action will be taken) 12. GENERAL MANAGER REPORTS (Discussions may take place; however, no action will be taken) a. Fallen Leaf Lake Stanford Camp Force Main Damage b. Emergency Management Plan / Training c. Federal Section 219 Grant Program 13. STAFF REPORTS (Discussions may take place; however, no action will be taken) 14. NOTICE OF PAST AND FUTURE MEETINGS / EVENTS Past Meetinas / Events 06/12/07 - STPUD Contracts Commission Meeting (Alpine County) 06/18/07 - Building Ad Hoc Committee Meeting 06/18/07 - Operations Committee Meeting 06/20/07 - Employee Recognition Event Future Meetinas / Events 06/25/07 - 11 :00 a.m. - Groundbreaking Event of the Chateau at Heavenly Village (across from the Heavenly Village Gondola) 06/27/07 - 8:00 a.m. - ECC (Employee Communications Committee) Meeting at District Office (Director Mosbacher is Board representative) REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA - JUNE 21,2007 PAGE-3 Future Meetinas 1 Events (can't) 07/02/07 - 4:00 p.m. - Water and Wastewater Operations Committee Meeting at District 07/03/07 - 9:00 a.m. - Alpine County Regular Board Meeting in Markleeville 07/04/07 - Office Closed -Independence Day 07/05/07 - 2:00 p.m. - STPUD Regular Board Meeting at District Office 07/11/07 - 9:00 a.m. - EI Dorado County Water Agency Regular Board Meeting 15. CLOSED SESSION (Closed Sessions are not open to the public) a. Pg.103 Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)/Conference with Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation re: Meyers Landfill Site: United States of America vs. EI Dorado County and City of South Lake Tahoe and Third Party Defendants, Civil Action No. S-01-1520 LKK GGH, United States District Court for the Eastern District of CA b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)/Conference with Legal Counsel- Pg.105 Existing Litigation re: Action Filed by Advanced Companies against Nicholas Construction, Inc., EI Dorado County Superior Court Case No. SC-2007-0042 c. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)/Conference with Legal Counsel- Pg.107 Anticipated Litigation (One Case) d. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957/Public Employee Evaluation Pg.109 Title: General Manager 16. ACTION 1 REPORT ON ITEMS DISCUSSED DURING CLOSED SESSION 17. ADJOURNMENT (To the next regular meeting, July 5,2007,2:00 p.m.) The South Tahoe Public Utility District Board of Directors regularly meets the first and third Thursday of each month. A complete agenda packet, including all backup information is available for review at the meeting and at the District office during the hours of 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Items on this agenda are numbered for identification purposes only and will not necessarily be considered in the order in which they appear on the agenda. Designated times are for particular items only. Public Hearings will not be called to order prior to the time specified, Public participation is encouraged. Public comments on items appearing on the agenda will be taken at the same time the agenda items are heard; comments should be brief and directed to the specifics of the item being considered. Comments on items not on the agenda can be heard during "Comments from the Audience;" however, action cannot be taken on items not on the agenda. Please provide the Clerk of the Board with a copy of all written material presented at the meeting. The meeting location is accessible to people with disabilities. Every reasonable effort will be made to accommodate participation of the disabled in all of the District's public meetings. If particular accommodations for the disabled are needed (Le., disability-related aids, or other services), please contact the Clerk of the Board at 530.544.6474, extension 6203, at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR JUNE 21, 2007 ITEMS REQUESTED ACTION a. Re-Roofing of the Maintenance and Electrical Award Bid to the Lowest Respon- Pg. 1 Building sive, Responsible Bidder, EI Dorado (Kyle Schrauben) Roofing, Inc., in the Amount of $111,915 b. Purchase of Computers for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Authorize Purchase of Budgeted Pg.5 (Bill Frye) Computers, in an Amount Not to Exceed $70,700 (including tax) c. General Manager Performance Evaluation (1 ) Approve General Manager's Pg.9 (Nancy Hussmann) Incentive Pay Up to a Maximum of $16,116 for Achievement of 2006/ 2007 Performance Goals d. Temporary Water Educators Approve Contract with Substitute Pg.11 (Lisa Coyner, Shelly Barnes) Personnel for Three Temporary Water Educators, in the Estimated Amount of $30,000 e. Schue Water Main Extension Authorize Water Main Extension Pg 13 (Lisa Coyner) Agreement and the Upsizing of a Water Main Extension with Respect to a Residential Project being Constructed by Clinton Schue, in an Estimated Amount of $86,400, which Includes Labor, Materials, and Equipment Costs, with Final Terms Subject to Approval by Staff and Legal Counsel. The District's Portion will be Approximately 60% of Estimate f. Sky Forest Acres Water Main Extension Adopt Resolution No. 2833-07 Pg.31 (Lisa Coyner) Accepting the Sky Forest Acres Water Main Extension CONSENT CALENDAR - JUNE 21, 2007 PAGE - 2 g. 2007-2008 Sodium Hypochlorite Supplies Award Bid to the Lowest Respon- Pg.43 (Randy Curtis) sive, Responsible Bidder, Sierra Chemical Company, in the Estimated Amount of $24,657.15 h. San Moritz 50 KW Generator (1) Waive Bidding Procedures, as Pg.45 (Randy Curtis) Outlined in the District's Purchasing Policy, for Standardized Equipment from the Sole Area Supplier, and (2) Approve Purchase of One Katolight Generator (Model D50FJJ4T2) from Nevada Generator Systems, Inc., in the Amount of $22,769, Plus Tax and Shipping i. 2007 Asphalt Patching and Paving Services Award Bid to the Lowest Respon- Pg.51 (Randy Curtis) sive, Responsible Bidder, G.B. Engineering Contractor, Inc., in the Estimated Amount of $171,269.25 j. Engineering Interns Approve Contract with Substitute Pg.55 (John Thiel) Personnel for Two Engineering Interns, in an Amount Not to Exceed $30,100 k. Customer Service Facility - Landscaping Authorize Staff to Advertise for Bids Pg.57 (John Thiel) to Install Landscaping on the Customer Service Facility Site and Selected Sites on the Treatment Plant Property I. Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement (1) Authorize Board President to Pg.59 with Alpine County Concerning Grant Sign an Amendment to the Inter- Services governmental Agreement with the (Rhonda McFarlane) County of Alpine to Provide Grant Coordinator Services by South Tahoe Public Utility District for the County of Alpine; and (2) Authorize the General Manager to Sign an Amendment to the Grant Coordinator Employment Agreement to Incorporate the Change m. Regular Board Meeting Minutes: Approve Minutes Pg.65 May 17, 2007 (Kathy Sharp) CONSENT CALENDAR - JUNE 21, 2007 PAGE - 3 Approve Minutes n. Special Board Meeting Minutes: Pg.69 May 19, 2007 (Kathy Sharp) o. Pg. 71 Regular Board Meeting Minutes: June 7, 2007 (Kathy Sharp) Approve Minutes South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive · South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614 · www.stpud.us ~""~IiW" ~H.'" South Tahoe Public Utility District ~ ~ f...". ~ 1t.J0ne6 Marylou ~ Du.IN .WlIIa:I Eric; &tulftIr . I 1275 Meadow Crest DrIve. South Lake Tahoe.CA 96150-1401 f'hor16 530 544-6474. Fax 530 54HJ614. WWW.5tputue BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4a TO: Board of Directors FROM: Kyle Schrauben, Heavy Maintenance Supervisor MEETING DATE: June 21,2007 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Re-Roofing of the Maintenance and Electrical Building REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Award bid to lowest responsive, responsible bidder, EI Dorado Roofing Inc., in the amount of $111,915. DISCUSSION: Bids came in substantially higher than the estimated amount of $80,000. Upon inspection from six prospective bidders, and two manufacturers, there was a general consensus that full tear off of the old roof system and replacement of the insulation, which provides the proper fall for drainage, would be required to obtain a fifteen year warranty. The full tear off and the cost of the new flintboard ISO taper system is where the added cost came in. The roof is in dire need of replacement after a large section at the south end of the building was uplifted by the wind last winter. When this occurred, a large area of the existing Perlite insulation was subject to extensive water damage. In other areas of the roof, delaminating of the overlapping seems was discovered and water damage to the Perlite exists there too. SCHEDULE: July 1, 2007 COSTS: $111,915 ACCOUNT NO: 1004-8812 BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $80,000 ATTACHMENTS: Bid Results CATEGORY: Sewer CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES 4t144 NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~ NO -1- SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT BID RESULTS RE-ROOFING OF THE MAINTENANCE & ELECTRICAL SHOP BUILDING BID NUMBER 07 -08-03 OPENING June 11, 2007 2:00 p.m. EI Dorado Roofing Inc $ 111,915.00 15 year NDL warranty for material as specified Dillon Roofing Co 130,900.00 exception: Offered a 15 year material warranty but not the required NDL (manufacturer guaranteed labor, material & workmanship) -3- ~~ ~tt...... South Tahoe Public Utility District Dfrclctcn K..thloen F."". Jam. R. .JonH Marylou ~ Duane w.a..c. ErIc~ J 1275 Meadow Cn3st Drive · South Lalce Tahoe - CA 96150-7401 Phon6 530 544-6414- Fax 530 541..0014 * wwwstpud.u5 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4b TO: Board of Directors FROM: Bill Frye, NetworklTelecommunications System Administrator MEETING DATE: June 21,2007 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Purchase of Computers for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Authorize purchase of budgeted computers, in an amount not to exceed $70,700 (including tax). DISCUSSION: Computers will be purchased from a vendor using the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) contract. The California Department of General Services (DGS), as well as 14 other western states, participates in the WSCA. The WSCA establishes cooperative multi-state contracts in order to achieve cost effective and efficient acquisition of quality products and services. Staff finds this contract to be very competitive as compared to other government association contracts. Staff is seeking authorization to purchase currently budgeted computer systems (see attached list). Purchases will be made one or two computers at a time, and subsequent purchases made as previously purchased systems are installed. SCHEDULE: July 2007 through June 2008 COSTS: Not to exceed $70,700 ACCOUNT NO: Various, see attached list BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $70,700 ATTACHMENTS: Budgeted account numbers and amounts with description CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES M../ NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~ e..trc- NO CATEGORY: Sewer & Water -5- 2007-2008 Computer Purchases DEPT BUDGET DEPARTMENT CODE aTY AMOUNT Non-capital purchases (Desktop PCs) Under Repair 01 2 $3,200 50/5037-4840 Pumps/Water Ops 02 1 $1,600 50/5037-4840 Heavy Maintenance 04 1 $1,600 50/50 37-4840 Equipment Repair 05 1 $1,600 50/5037-4840 Operations 06 1 $1,600 50/50 37-4840 Lab 07 2 $3,200 50/5037-4840 Admin 21 1 $1,600 50/5037-4840 Human Resources 22 1 $1,600 50/5037-4840 Engineering 29 1 $1,600 50/5037-4840 Information Systems 37 1 $1,600 50/5037-4840 Customer Service 38 2 $3,200 50/50 37-4840 Finance/Accounting 39 2 $3,200 50/5037-4840 Purchasing 39 1 $1,600 50/50 37-4840 Total 17 $27,200 Capital purchases Underground Repair Sewer 01 1 $2,500 1037-8839 laptop Underground Repair Water 01 1 $2,500 2037-8870 laptop Engineering 29 1 $4,500 1037-8841 workstation Engineering 29 1 $4,500 2037-8872 workstation IS 37 2 $5,000 1037-8842 laptop Customer Service 38 1 $2,500 2037-8871 laptop Hansen/GIS server 37 1 $11,000 2037-8869 server File/PrinVlntranet server 37 1 $11,000 1037-8838 server Capital Total 9 $43,500 Grand Total 26 $70,700 -7- South Tahoe Public Utility District <HnIIrW ......... 1&tlftH.... f>IreGtonJ I\AthL!lcln F."". JsmC$ R..x-. MlIIrylou ~ Dua.,., w.a... Eric 6c:Mfet I 1275 Meadow Crest Drive - South l.,aIce Tahoe. CA 96t5().7401 f'hor16 530 544-6474- Fax 530 541..0014- www.5tpJtLu9 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4c TO: Board of Directors FROM: Nancy Hussmann, Human Resources Director MEETING DATE: June 21,2007 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: General Manager Performance Evaluation REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: (1) Approve General Manager's incentive pay up to a maximum of $16,116 for achievement of 2006/2007 performance goals. DISCUSSION: According to the General Manager's current contract, up to 10% of total compensation shall be allocated to incentive pay on May 31,2007, based on the General Manager's performance in the prior year. The Executive Committee met with Richard Solbrig, General Manager, to discuss the status of his 2006/2007 performance goals and to develop the 2007/2008 performance goals. The Executive Committee subsequently met with the full Board in closed session to discuss same. SCHEDULE: June 22, 2007 - Notify payroll to process incentive pay COSTS: Up to $16,116 ACCOUNT NO: BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~ NO CATeGORY: Genet.. -9- ~""rt^'JIII' ~lt606rie South Tahoe Public Utility District ~ Kahlocltt F MrIlH ~~ ..JoM6 Mary Lou ~.a- DI.l.tnI W.dac;e Ertc~ :~. I 1275 ~en.t Drive. South L.akB Tahoe.CA 96150-7401 Phor18 530 544-6474. Fax 5M 541-De14.www.stpud.u5 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4d TO: Board of Directors FROM: Lisa Coyner, Manager of Customer Service Shelly Barnes, Water Conservation Specialist MEETING DATE: June 21, 2007 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Temporary Water Educators REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Approve contract with Substitute Personnel for three temporary water educators, in the estimated amount of $30,000. DISCUSSION: These temporary employees will begin employment on June 25,2007, and ending after the Labor Day weekend 2007. They will be employed as Water Educators with the District's Water Conservation Program, under the supervision of Shelly Barnes, Water Conservation Specialist. SCHEDULE: As above noted COSTS: $30,000 (estimate) ACCOUNT NO: 2038-4405 BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $167,7452006/07; $55,0002007/08 ATTACHMENTS: None CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~ NO CATEGORY: Water -11- ~~ ~.tl Sc6rfe South Tahoe Public Utility District ~ K.1tth'-' famlll J.fIIllm; It ...Iofte6 M.ry Lou Mol;I>.-cfw DuanoJ W... !:rfc 5o::NIf<< 1275 MeatJowCmst Drfw-5out;h Lake Tahoe*CA 96150-7401 f'hon6 530 544-6474-Fax 530 541-OO14*www.5tpud.U5 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4e TO: Board of Directors FROM: Lisa Coyner, Manager of Customer Service MEETING DATE: June 21, 2007 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Schue Water Main Extension REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Authorize water main extension agreement and the upsizing of a water main extension with respect to a residential project being constructed by Clinton Schue, in an estimated amount of $86,300, which includes labor, materials, and equipment costs, with final terms subject to approval by staff and legal counsel. The District's portion will be approximately 64% of estimate. DISCUSSION: Mr. Schue requested a water main extension because there is no water main to serve his project. He has contracted with Ferguson Excavating Inc. to install a new 2-inch water main to his residence, extending from an existing 8-inch water main on Glorene by 262 feet. District will pay for the incremental difference to upsize the main extension to 8-inches and extend the main by 458 feet pursuant to Administrative Code Section 3.1.47. Total length of the water main extension is 720 feet. SCHEDULE: COSTS: $55,232 (estimate) ACCOUNT NO: 2029-7053 BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: 0 ATTACHMENTS: Water Main Extension Agreement, Estimate from Ferguson Excavation Inc., Application for Main Extension. CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES* RWC... NO CATEGORY: Water -13- WATER MAIN EXTENSION AGREEMENT This Water Main Extension Agreement (Agreement) is made by and between the South Tahoe Public Utility District, a California public agency formed in 1950 pursuant to the public utility District Act (District), and Clinton Schue (Applicant) on this 21 st day of June 2007, at South Lake Tahoe, California, with reference to the following facts and intensions: A. The District owns and operates a water treatment and distribution system (System) for the beneficial use by the District and its customers located within the City of South Lake Tahoe and certain portions of the County ofEI Dorado, California; B. Applicant owns certain real property and improvements located at 703 Roger Avenue, California, Assessor Parcel No.23-152-07, and more particularly described in the legal description attached as Exhibit A, which is incorporation by this reference (Applicant's Property); c. Applicant has submitted an application, dated May 31, 2007, (Application) requesting the District to approve a water main extension (Main Extension) to provide water service to Appliqant' s property. D. The District's Board of Directors approved and authorized the District to enter into this Agreement of June 21, 2007; E. The District provided the Applicant with a copy of its main extension procedures (procedures); F. Applicant intends to commence construction on the Main Extension, which consists of approxima~ly 720 feet of an 8 - inch pipeline; G. The District will pay to upsize the Main Extension pipeline from 2 - inches to 8- inches, add additional fire hydrant(s), and add connection valves for use by potential future customers; and H. Applicant desires the District to accept the dedication of the Main Extension and provide regular water service to Applicant and the District agrees to accept the Main Extension and provide such water service pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. -15- NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Water Main Extension. 1.1 Comoliance. The Applicant shall comply with all of the District's rules, regulations and procedures related to main extensions including, but not limited to, the Application and the Procedures. 1.2 Construction. The Main Extension will be constructed by the Applicant's contractor and will include all of the water transmission facilities necessary to provide the requested water service including, but not limited to, mains service lines, valves and fire hydrants, and other appurtenances as shown on the Contract Documents and specifications approved by District staff, dated June 5, 2007(Contract Documents), and approved by the District. 1.3 Construction Standards. The Contract Documents prepared by Applicant's engineer and the construction performed by Applicant's contractor will be in accordance with the District's standards and specifications. The Contract Documents were submitted to and approved by the District prior to preparation of this Agreement. The construction of the Main Extension will be in conformance with the Contract Documents, except modifications, if any, that are reviewed and approved by the District. The Applicant will furnish the District with one (1) complete set of duplicate originals and two copies of approved as-built Contract Documents. 1.4 Permits. Applicant affirms that the Main Extension will comply with all local, state and federal laws, regulations and orders. Applicant, at hislher sole cost and expense, will obtain all permits and approvals from such governmental agencies having jurisdiction as necessary for performance of the activities related to this Agreement prior to construction. 1.5 Environmental Analvsis. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRP A), the City of South Lake Tahoe, and/or EI Dorado County Department of Transportation and/or CalTrans are permitting agencies for the project. Applicant agrees to comply with all applicable environmental laws, including, but not limited to, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Protection ACT (NEP A) and to submit copies of all environmental documents related to the project to the District as they are finalized. 1.6 Encroachment Permits. The Main Extension will be constructed in a public right-of-way for which the District has a blanket encroachment. 1.7 Reimbursement to District. Applicant shall make such deposits pursuant to the Application to reimburse the District the Costs and expenses incurred by the District with respect to the Main Extension including, but not limited to, planning, design, construction, document preparation, inspection, and other such costs and expenses, whether performed by the District's employees, agents or consultants. -16- 1.8 Accountin2 to Aoolicants. Prior to acceptance of the Main Extension by the District, the District will furnish Applicant a written accounting of all deposits made by the Applicant for the District's costs and expenses incurred in relation to this Agreement for which the Applicant is responsible. 1.9 Indemnitv. Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the District and its directors, elected officials, officers, agents, contractors and employees, from and against any and all claims, liabilities, damages, losses, costs and expenses of any nature whatsoever, including attorneys, paralegals and expert fees and costs which arise out of, relate to or result from Applicant's and their agents', contractors', and engineers' activities and obligations under this Agreement including, but not limited to, design, planning, permitting, construction, testing, maintenance and repair of the Main Extension, except to the extent of any liability, loss, cost or expense caused by the District's active negligence or willful misconduct. 1.10 Joint and Several Liabllitv. Applicants shall be jointly and severally liable to the District for all obligations under this Agreement. 1.11 Insurance. Applicant shall cause its Contractor to procure and/or maintain, in full force and in effect during the construction of the Main Extension, the insurance required by this section. a. Workers Compensation Insurance. Insurance to protect the Contractor and its subcontractors from all claims under California Workers Compensation and Employer's Liability Acts, including Longshoreman's and Harbor Workers Act. Such coverage shall be maintained, in the type and amount, in strict compliance with all applicable State and Federal Statutes and regulations. b. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Insurance to protect against claims arising from death, bodily or personal injury or damage to property resulting from actions, failures, operations or equipment of the insured, or by its employees, agents, consultants, or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by the insured. c. Automobile Liability Insurance. Insurance to protect against claims arising from death, bodily or personal injury or damage to property resulting from actions, failures, operations or equipment of the insured, or by its employees, agents, consultants, or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by the insured. Coverage shall include all owned, non-owned and hired vehicles. d. General Provisions. The above insurance coverages shall be subject to the District's reasonable approval. The District shall be named as the additional insured on the commercial general liability and automobile policies. The above insurance shall be primary as respects the interest of the additional insured, include a cross liability and severability of interest endorsement, a waiver of any and all transferable rights of recovery (subrogation) against the additional insured. In addition, the above insurance shall not limit the indemnification obligations of Applicant. -17- 1.12 Guarantv. a. Applicant guaranties that the Main Extension will be construction in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement and in a good and workmanship like manner. Applicant agrees to reimburse the District, upon demand, for the full cost and expense of any repairs or replacements made necessary by defects in materials or workmanship that become evident within one (1) year after the date of acceptance by the District. b. Replacement of earthfill or backfill, where settlements below the required finish surfaces, shall be considered as part of any such repair work. Any such repair or resurfacing which becomes necessary by reason of such settlement shall be likewise considered part of such repair work, unless Applicant shall have obtained a statement in writing from the affected private owner or public agency, as applicable, releasing the District from liability and responsibility in connection with such settlement. 1.13 Bond. Prior to commencement of construction, Applicant shall cause its contractor to furnish the District with a performance bond in an amount equal to the construction cost of the Main Extension. The performance bond shall be maintained in full force and effect during the construction of the Main Extension and the guaranty period for the purpose of ensuring that the Applicant will pay for any repairs or replacements to the Main Extension. District shall have the right to enforce the performance bond to ensure the Main Extension is completed pursuant to this Agreement. The performance bond shall be in the District's standard form for such bonds. 1.14 Notice of Como let ion. Applicant will cause to be recorded, a Notice of Completion (NOC) in the manner, form and time required by Title 15 of the Civil Code of the State of California and shall furnish District with a conformed copy of the recorded Notice endorsed by the EI Dorado County Recorder's office. Not less than sixty (60) days or more than seventy (70) days after the recording of the Notice, Applicant shall furnish to District evidence that no claim of lien has been recorded, or if any lien has been recorded, evidence that it has been satisfied or bonded against. 1.15 Dedication. After compliance with all of the above requirements, Applicant will execute an irrevocable offer to dedicate the Main Extension to the District on a fonn provided by the District. The District will then place the offer to dedicate on the District Board of Directors' meeting agenda for acceptance. The District will not accept the offer until all of the requirements of this agreement have been satisfied. 1.16 Connection With Other Lands. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to preclude the District from allowing persons or properties, in addition to those owned by the Applicant, from connecting to the Main Extension. 1.17 Covenants ronnin!! with the Land. This Agreement and the rights, duties and obligations of the parties shall be construed as covenants running with the land pursuant to California Civil Code section 1468, and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit and burden of the parties and their successor owners. -18- 2. Pro..rata Reimbursement of Applicant and District 2.1 Reimbursement Chal'2e. If the owner of any property located within the area to be served by the Main Extension, other than the property owned by the Applicant (Benefited Property), connects to the Main Extension during the term of this Agreement, the District shall impose a charge (Reimbursement Charge) on each such Benefited Property's proportional use of the Main Extension based on the number of total connections. 2.2 Connection Chal'2e. The Reimbursement Charge shall be in addition to any connection fee, permit fee, inspection fee, service charge, or any other payment imposed by District as a condition of approva~ the connection of improvements to District's water system and providing water service. District shall not be required to impose a Reimbursement Charge (i) for properties other than a Benefited Property; or (ii) for temporary connections. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall prevent District from imposing fees or charges other than the Reimbursement Charge on any property. 2.3 Pro-rata Reimbursement of AODlication and the District. The Reimbursement Charges imposed on any Benefited Property which are collected by the District during the tenn of this Agreement shall be paid in proportion to the Applicant's and the District's respective payment for the cost of the Main Extension. 2.4 Reimbursement Limit. The total of all Reimbursement Charges paid to Applicant by the District shall not exceed the Applicant's pro-rata share of costs paid for the Main Extension. No payments shall be made to Applicant for any fees or charges collected by the District other than Reimbursement Charges imposed on any Benefited Property. 2.5 Term. The term of section 2 of this Agreement shall expire on July I, 2010 unless earlier terminated as provided in Section 3.4 hereof Any Reimbursement Charges collected by District following the expiration of the term of section 2 of this Agreement shall belong solely to the District. 2.6 Assismment. Applicant's right to receive Reimbursement Charges are not personal to Applicant and shall not survive the sale by Applicant of all or any portion of Applicant's property, but shall entitle the subsequent owners of the Applicant's property to such reimbursement. -19- 3. Water Service 3.1 General. Upon acceptance of the Main Extension by the District, the District shall provide water service pursuant to the District's Administrative Code, rules and regulations to Clinton Schue located on the Applicant's property, as described at the beginning of this Agreement. 3.2 Connection ChaNe. The Applicant shall pay the District, in addition to any other costs and expenses related to this Agreement, a connection charge as a condition to permitting the connection of improvements to District's water system and providing water service. The connection charge shall be in accordance with the District's Administrative Code, rules, regulations and policies as applicable to all of the District's customers. 3.3 Administrative Code. The water service provided by the District to Applicant pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the District's Administrative Code, rules, regulations and policies to the extent not inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the District's Administrative Code, rules, regulations or policies, this Agreement shall control in all respects. 4. General Provisions. 4.1 Recitals. The recitals stated at the beginning of this Agreement of any matters of facts shall be conclusive proof of the truthfulness thereof and the terms and conditions of the recitals, if any, shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. 4.2 Notices. All notices, approvals, acceptances, requests, demands and other communications required or permitted, to be effective, shall be in writing and shall be delivered, either in person or by mailing the same by United States mail (postage prepaid, registered or certified, return receipt requested) or by Federal Express or other similar overnight delivery service, to the party to whom the notice is directed at the address of such party as follows: TO: SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, California 96150 Attention: Lisa Coyner, Customer Service Manager With a copy to: Gary Kvistad, Esq. Hatch & Parent 21 East Carillo Street Santa Barbara, California 93101 -20- TO: Applicant Clinton Schue Post Office Box 10876 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96158 Any communication given by mail shall be deemed delivered two (2) business days after such mailing date, and any written communication given by overnight delivery service shall be deemed delivered one (l) business day after the dispatch date. Either party may change its address by giving the other party notice of its new address. 4.3 Successors and Alsisms. This Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. Nothing in this Agreement, expressed or implied, is intended to confer on any person other than the parties or their respective heirs, successors and assigns, any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities under or by reason of this Agreement. 4.4 Assismabilitv. This Agreement shall not be assignable, except to subsequent owners of Applicant's property, by [insert applicant's name here] without . prior written consent of the District, who shall have the sole discretion to consent or not to consent to any proposed assignment. Any attempted assignment without the approval of the District party shall be void. 4.5 Waiver. No waiver by any party of any of the provisions shall be effective unless explicitly stated in writing and executed by the party so waiving. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no action taken pursuant to this Agreement, including, without limitation, any investigation by or on behalf of any party, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver by the party taking such action of compliance with any representations, warranties, covenants, or agreements contained in this Agreement, and in any documents delivered or to be delivered pursuant to this Agreement. The waiver by any party of a breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. 4.6 Headio2s. The section headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. 4.7 Severabilitv. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be or become illegal, null, void or against policy, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be affected, impaired or invalidated. The term, provision, covenant or condition that is so invalidated, voided or held to be unenforceable, shall be modified or changed by the parties to the extent possible to cany out the intentions and directives set forth in this Agreement. -21- 4.8 Counteroarts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. 4.9 Governin2 Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and interpreted in accordance with, the laws of the State of California to the extent California Law is applicable to the Untied States, with venue proper only in the County ofEI Dorado, State of California. 4.10 Parties in Interest. Nothing in this Agreement, whether expressed or implied, is intended to confer any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Agreement on any persons other than the parties to it and their respective successors and assigns, nor is anything in this Agreement intended to relieve or discharge the obligation or liability of any third persons to any party to this Agreement, nor shall any provision give any third persons any right of subrogation or action against any party to this Agreement. 4.11 Attornev Fees. Ifany legal proceeding (lawsuit, arbitration, etc.), including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover actual attorneys' fees and costs, which may be determined by the court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose. The attorneys' fees award shall be made as to fully reimburse for all attorneys' fees, paralegal fees, costs and expenses actually incurred in good faith, regardless of the size of the judgment, it being the intention of the parties to fully compensate for all attorneys; fees, paralegal fees, costs and expenses paid or incurred in good faith. 4.12 Good Fai~. The parties agree to exercise their best efforts and utmost good faith to effectuate all the tenns and conditions of this Agreement and to execute such further instruments documents as are necessary or appropriate to effectuate all of the tenns and conditions of this Agreement. 4.13 Construction. The provisions of this Agreement should be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes. The language of all parts of this Agreement shall be construed simply according to its plain meaning and shall not be construed for or against either party, as each party has participated in the drafting of this document and had the opportunity to have their counsel review it. Whenever the context and construction so requires, all words used in the singular shall be deemed to be used in the plural, all masculine shall include the feminine and neuter, and vice versa. 4.14 SeveralObli2ations. Except where specifically stated in this Agreement to be otherwise, the duties, obligations, and liabilities of the parties are intended to be several and not joint or collective. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create an association, trust, partnership, or joint venture or impose a trust or partnership duty, obligation, or liability on or with regard to either party. Each party shall be individually and severally liable for its own obligations under this Agreement. -22- 4.15 Authoritv. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform all acts required by this Agreement, and that the consent, approval or execution of or by any third party is not required to legally bind either party to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 4.16 OwnenhiD. Applicants represent and warrant to the District that, with respect to each or their properties, that they are the sole owners, in fee, and no other person or entity has an ownership interest. 4.17 Entire A2reement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties, and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, oral and written, between the parties. There have been no binding promises, representations, agreements, warranties or undertakings by any of the parties, either oral or written, of any character or nature, except as stated in this Agreement. This Agreement may be altered, amended or modified only by an instrument in writing, executed by the parties to this Agreement and by no other means. Each party waives its future right to claim, contest or assert that this Agreement was modified, canceled, superseded or changed by any oral agreement, course of conduct, waiver or estoppels. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year and at the place first written above. By: Eric Schafer, Board President .;AP.,;~ ~ -,." 2ture C frY] 'fc.-.- ~ ~ Name Title DISTRICT South Tahoe Public Utility District ATTEST: By: Kathy Sharp, Clerk of the Board -23- FERGUSOt~ EXCA\I A T Ir'lG PAGE 82 Ferguson ~ Excavatlnglne. ~ P.O. BOX 10816 SO. LAKE TAHOE, CA 961 sa June 8, 2007 Dear Lisa~ Per our conversation on June 8,2007. here is a breakdovro of my estimate for the Rodger A -ve. water line extension. J spoke with the underground contractor that did the line extension down the street. He indicated that the soil \\-CiS loose with a lot of tree roots. He was able to construct (100 1.f.) per day. I bascd my estimate on that 100' per day figure. Here are more details: 1.) Mobilization $3,450.00 2.) Temporary 8.M.P.'s $1,150.00 3.) Demolition (Saw cut! vacuum) $2,950.00 4.) Waterline Construction Per day: Remove 100 L.F. ofalc. Export to ale plant. Dig (l00 L.F.) of 54" deep trench. Supply and install 100 L.P. of8" C900. Import, place and compact base rock with 6" below pipe and 12" above pipe. Place and compact 18" of native soil. followed by 8" of base rock to alc grade. Bxport excess native soil to a/c plant. 7 days: Connection and blow off at 13 th Street Fireline and domestic line at property Fire hydrant and valve Sanitize Fl ush $49,850.00 Y2 day Y2 day l/~ day each ~day Y:1 day 5.) Ale Patch $13,350.00 Private inspector $11,400.00 Engineering $3,000.00 Traffic control $1,150.00 Total: $86,300.00 If you need anymore information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely. Jim Ferguson G ENE R ALE N GIN E E -Rl4} N G CON T RAe TOR 530/541-5074 · FAX: 530/577-5075 · CA LIe. #520564 . NY LIe. #46824 06/08/2007 14:18 5305775075 FERGUSON EXCA\JA TI t-IG PAGE 03 Ferguson ~ EXcavatlnglne. ~ P.O. BOX 10816 SO. LAKE TAHOE, CA 96158 Estimate Date Estimate # 6/7/2007 358 Name I Address S.T.P.U.D. ATTN: USA COYNER 1275 MEADOWCREST DR. SO. LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 Project 703 RODGER Description Qty Total 1.) MOBIUZATION. 2.) TEMPORARY B.M.P.'S A.) SUPPLY AND PLACE STRAW WATTLES DOWN SLOPE OF WORK AREA EACH DAY. B.) SUPPLY AND PLACE STRAW WATILES AROUND AND D.Io'S IN WORK AREA. 3.) DEMOUlION A.) SAW CUT AND VACUUM WORKING AREA IN 13TH STREET. REMOVE A/C AND EXPORT TO REFUSE. B.) SAW CUT AND VACUUM (720 LF.) OF 36" WIDE TRENCH LINE FROM 'vALVE AT 13TH STREET TO LOCATION SHOWN ON PLAN AT 703 RODGER. NOTE: THIS nEM FIGURED THAT THE A/C IS 6" THICK. 4.) WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION TRENCHING: . A.} DIG AND EXPOSE EXISTING 8" GATE VALVE IN 13TH STREET B.) TRENCH (720 LF.) OF 54n DEEP TRENCH TO ACCOMMODATE NEW 8" WATER UNE INCLUDING (2) FIRE HYDRANTS. EXPORT EXCESS EXCAVATED SOIL OFFSITE. P e 530/541-5074 · fAX: 530/577-5075 · CA lie. #520564 . NV Lie. #46824 136/88/213137 14:18 531357751375 FERGUSON EXCAVATH-iG PAGE 04 Ferguson ~ ExcavQtlnglnc. ~ P.O. BOX 10816 SO. LAKE TAHOE, CA 96158 Estimate Date Estimate # 6/7/2007 358 ::.' -~J I ~i Name I Address ,~ ')1 '~ '1 4 5.T.P.U.D. AlTN: USA COYNER 1275 MEADOWCREST DR. 50. LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 Project 703 RODGER Description Qty Total INSTALLA1l0N: A.) SUPPLY AND INSTALL (720 L.F.) OF 8" C900 WATER UNE INCLUDING REQUIRED RESTRAINTS, TRACE WIRE AND TURUsr SLOCKS. 8.) SUPPLY AND INSTALL 2" SERVICE SADDLE. P.E. UNE AND 2" CURB STOP, INCLUDING STAND PIPE AND VALVE BOX AT 13TH STREET. INSTALL (2) 8" X 8" X 6" TEES, (2) 6" GATE VALVES (2) FIRE HYDRANTS, (1) 8" GATE VALVE AND (1) 8" END CAP INCLUDING ALL MJ'S REQUIRED. C.) INSTALL 2" FIRE UNf SADDLE, P.E. FIRE UNE AND 2" CURB STOP INCLUDING STAND PIPE AND VALVE BOX AT 703 RODGER. D.) INSTALL 1" SERVICE SADDLE, P.E. UNE AND 1" CURB srop INCLUDING STAND PIPE AND VALVE BOX AT 703 RODGER. E.) SANITIZE NEW WATER UNE EXTENSION. BACKFILL: A.) IMPORT, Pt..A.CE AND COMPACT 6" OF BASE ROCK UNDER PIPE AND 12" ABOVE PIPE. B.) PLACE AND COMPACT NAllVE SOIL TO BASE ROCK SUBGRADE. C.) IMPORT, PLACE AND COMPACT 6" OF BASE ROCK TO AIC SUBGRADE. Total p ~ 530/541-5074 · FAX: 530/577-5075 · CA LIe. #520564 . NV LIe. #46824 86/88/2887 14:18 5385775875 FERGUSON EXCAVATING C!Sbc I b PAGE 85 ~O<ti,~ Estimate Ferguson ~ ExcQvatlnglnc. ~ P.O. BOX 10816 SO. LAKE TAHOE, CA 96158 Date Estimate # 6/7/2007 358 Name I Address S.T.?U.D. AlTN: USA COYNER 1275 MEADOWCREST DR. SO. LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 Project 703 RODGER Description NOTE: THIS BACKFIll. IS PER PLAN. If THE NATIVE SOIL CAN BE USED THROUGHOUT THERE WOULD BE A SAVINGS. IF THE NATIVE SOIL WILL NOT COMPACT TO 95% THERE WOULD BE AND INCREASE IN COST. THIS ESTIMATE INCLUDES THE PRIVATE INSPECTOR AND ENGINEERING COSTS. Qty Total 5.) A./C PATCH A.) PATCH (720 LF.) OF 36" WIDE TRENCH WITH (2) 2" LIFTS PER CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE STANDARDS. BID 86,300.00 S.T.P.U.D. REIMBURSEMENT NOTES: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 265 L.F. OF 2" WATER UNE AS OPPOSED TO 8" WATERUNE. MATERIAL ONLY IS $1,426.00. 8" WATERUNE CONSTRUCTION AS DESCRIBED IN ESTIMATE INCLUDING HYDRANTS, INSPECTOR, ENGINEERING, ETC., IS $123.60 PER FOOT. . 2" WATERUNE CONST~~~~CRIBED IN ESTIMATE INCLUDING HYDRANT~~GINEERI~G ETC., IS $113.60 PER FOOT. V-.)e t~,J)l\ rro'J)d~ IF THERE IS FURTHER BREAK DOWN NEEDED PLEASE DO NOT HESttATE TO CALL. Total $86,300.00 P e- 530/541-5074 · FAX: 530/577 -5075 · CA lie. #520564 . NY LIe. #46824 Account No. 19 r;f;cg '-0 0 ._(1) Amount of Deposit $ J L , RECEIVED BY APPLICATION FOR MAIN EXTENSION LISA M. COYNER ~ South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe. CA 96150 Name of Owner(s): e ( "^~ s~v-~ Name of Applicant(s): l l tl 70") ~ot\ er- ~ J2- ') L 1; ck- SL't If cA- 't Ct. {5"~ (E>~ 13 Location of Property to be served: ~~(~ Mailing Address: YO. ~O ~ This main extension is needed for Assessors Parcel Number(s): OJ.. 3-19-07 The civil engineer responsible for design of the proposed plans and specifications for the Main Extension is: Name: N \'c.,~ 2e "'-ft!..t.. t~ ~ Telephone: -:; -}() - 9- 77 - ~ ':) <j(;- California Civil Engineer License Number: Address: The contractor responsible for construction of the Main Extension is: ~< w..YlA ~ . (. Name: '5 \ V""- fe.t~'>ifV'l Telephone: ~~D- S' f f-sD,4 California Contractor License Number/Classification: <) J-D <;; (p t.; 0e l\ ~I\.... l A- Address: ? 0 (1, 0 X. l 0 <6 \ ~ L) L +- I /!A- q Ll I )~ A tentative subdivision map or other maps are attached showing all road, sanitary, and storm drain work proposed in conjunction with the main extension, which were prepared by: Name: Address: Telephone: -28- Environmental Compliance o Initial Study, a copy of which is attached; o Notice of Exemption, proof of recordation is attached; D Negative Declaration, proof of recordation is attached; D Environmental Impact Report, a copy of which is attached has been prepared by: D County of EI Dorado D City of South Lake Tahoe o Tahoe Regional Planning Agency o Other, please specify Application Requirements ~OO.~ I. Applicant has submitted to the District an application and deposit of ~ for the (Project). 2. The application and Project plans have been submitted to and reviewed by the District to determine completeness for processing and to estimate the staff and other related costs of completing the District's action on the Project. 3. Applicant understands and agrees that the District's ordinances authorize the District to charge and collect all processing costs. 4. Applicant agrees that the estimate of processing costs is a good faith effort to establish a reasonable basis to collect a deposit adequate to cover the costs of review, and that this estimate is based on thorough review of factors relevant to the costs of reasonably foreseeable Project review. 5. Applicant agrees that factors which are unforeseen after the initial review of the Project may arise during subsequent review and that such factors may substantially increase the level of effort and resultant cost of completing action on the Project. Where such circumstances occur, the District will notify Applicant of these factors, and if determined to be necessary to maintain a positive balance on account, the District may request an additional deposit. Applicant agrees to make the additional deposit within fifteen (15) days of notice. 6. Applicant agrees that in the event that a positive balance on deposit is not maintained in order to pay for the cost of processing the Project as described in Paragraph 5, the District may at its discretion elect to suspend processing and may place the Project on the next available agenda to the District's Board of Directors with a recommendation for denial. Such recommendation will be based in part on the incomplete review and lack of verified information available to make required finding for Project approval. -29- 7. Applicant is advised by the District that approval of the Project will be subjected to the condition that all fees applicable under the District's fee schedule must be paid prior to the District's acceptance of the Project facilities after completion of construction and compliance with all other requirements. 8. Applicant is advised by the District that costs associated with post discretionary Project clearance, such as compliance, building permits and permitting and processing required for other review and decision-making entities for the Project must be paid by the Applicant. 9. Applicant is further advised by the District that charges for maintaining accounting records will accrue on any past due amount thirty (30) days after date of final bill. 10. Applicant agrees to abide by all the District's rules and regulations now in force or hereafter adopted. Executed this day of , 2005 APPLICANT Name: Signed: ~ _ _ m OWNER (Owner is required to sign if not the same as Applicant) Name: Signed: -30- ~ .......If' ~H.""" South Tahoe Public Utility District 0Irlrct0re "-tIthWtl F,."". ~ R.JonH Mary Lou MotlItIlChlr DiI.tn.l w.-. Eric;~ , --_ I 1275 fvtdadow er.t ()rfw. South Lake Tahoe- CA 96150-7401 f'tton6 530 544-6474- Fax 530 541-D014-www.5t:fudJJ5 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4f TO: Board of Directors FROM: Lisa Coyner, Manager of Customer Service MEETING DATE: June 21, 2007 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Sky Forest Acres Water Main Extension REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 2833-07 accepting the Sky Forest Acres Water Main Extension DISCUSSION: The Board of Directors approved the owner's request for the water main eXtension on July 6,2006. The main was completed on May 18, 2007. The water main was completed in conjunction with the development of the Sky Forest Acres, a disabled housing project on Emerald Bay Road. SCHEDULE: COSTS: ACCOUNT NO: BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 2833-07, Notice of Completion, Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Main Extension. CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES*" fJJYb, NO CATEGORY: Water -31- 1 2 3 4 5 6 WHEREAS, the District owns and operates a water treatment and distribution 7 system (System) for the beneficial use by the District and its customers located within 8 the City of South Lake Tahoe and certain portions of the County of EI Dorado, 9 California; and RESOLUTION NO. 2833-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT ACCEPTING THE SKY FOREST ACRES WATER MAIN EXTENSION 10 11 WHEREAS, Accessible Space, Inc. (Owner) owns certain real property and 12 improvements located on Emerald Bay Road, EI Dorado County, California, as more 13 particularly described in the Main Extension Agreement, defined below; and 14 15 WHEREAS, Owner wished to develop project known as Sky Forest Acres; and 16 17 WHEREAS, the District's Board of Directors approved Owner's request for the 18 main extension (Main Extension) on July 6, 2006, subject to execution of a Main 19 Extension Agreement, which was executed by the Owner and by the District on July 6, 20 2006 (Agreement); and 21 22 WHEREAS, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has determined that the 23 project is exempt from review under the National Environmental Protection Act; and 24 25 WHEREAS, Owner completed construction of the Main Extension which consists 26 of approximately 1,000 feet of an 8-inch pipeline for which Owner paid One Hundred 27 Seventy-Three Thousand, Nine Hundred Seventy-Five Dollars ($173,975.00) to its 28 contractor for construction of the Main Extension and reimbursement for permit fees; 29 and 30 -33- 1 WHEREAS, Owner executed an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate the Main 2 Extension to the District, dated June 21, 2007 (Dedication); and 3 4 WHEREAS, the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate was recorded in the County 5 Recorder's Office on June 21, 2007; and, 6 7 WHEREAS, Owner desires the District to accept the Main Extension and provide 8 regular water service to Owner's above described property. 9 10 NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Board of Directors accepts the 11 dedication of the Sky Forest Acres Water Main Extension and authorizes the President 12 of the Board of Directors to execute the Certificate of Acceptance of the Dedication. 13 14 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing 15 Resolution was duly adopted and passed by the Board of Directors of the South Tahoe 16 Public Utility District at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 21st day of June, 2007 17 by the following vote: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Eric W. Schafer, Board President South Tahoe Public Utility District 27 ATTEST: 28 29 30 Kathy Sharp, Clerk of the Board -34- Recording Requested By: Lisa Coyner, Manager of Customer Service SOUTH T AROE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT And When Recorded Mail To: South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 TITLE (S) NOTICE OF COMPLETION SKY FOREST ACRES WATER MAIN EXTENSION -35- JUN-08-2007 11:51 STPUD 530 541 0614 P.03 NOTICE or COMPLETION Notice purswmt to Civil Code Section 3093, must be filed within 10 dAys after completion Notice Is htteby given that; 1. The undersigned is owner or corporate officer of the owner of the interest or estate mated below in the property herefnatt.er dcsoribc:d: 2. The full natM otthe owner is S Lake Tahoe ous ing, Inc. 3. The full address ofthoowueris c 0 Accessible S 2550 University Avenue Suite 330N. St. Paul. MN 55114 4. 11w nature oftbc mtmlt or estate of the owner is; in fee. 5. The full naznes and full addresses of aU persons, if any, wOO hiJId title with the undetsigned as joint tenants or as tenants in coJJDIlDn are: NAMES ADDRESSES N/A 6. A WOIk of iJnprovemant on the property hereinafter described was oompleted on A{>P~V.. S - l s: - e.q Thewotkwas: \1J~ ~~U~ ~o~ . ,. The Dame of the coDtra*.!i., J! any, for such wozk of i.a1ptowment was \S~~...~-C> ~O~. ~c... B- '"'Z-\ - 0<.:, : (lfDO ~ far wark oflmproVemotlt at a ",bolo, inIc:rt "1lOIle") (Dale of CcdJlld) ~ 8. Tho property on which said work otimprovemem Wlt$ c;omplcted is in the city of ~ ~tcc t A.~t;. ConntyofB- "'b6~'t>o . StateofCaUtomia, snd is dcscribedas follows: ~ UAt'l.,,}\..\.~ b('(e:~~\()~ ~ ':r:i..)~s.a:...l'\t\~ 6t= \O~"E"T /i<<("<;:~ +..\IE.. ~o~~ C>~ ~ A"E:.. \'Q ADbRe:.s ' 9. The street address ofsaid property is {50 F J.t~ ~ ~. ~ LA.\<.€.. \A.l-tt.. I C4.. (If DO fII'MC adcJtws bas beaI ollicU1fy ...ipod, im<<t "Dodej Dated: .T}lQe 11. 7007 V~ f<< IDclividu&l ow.- ~~~ s~ ofOMlCr or corpcnte OIl oCOWllCrIWDCCi In pangraph2 or bD agent Bradl~y A. Fuller, Vice-President VERIFIC4TION I, the undersigned, say; I am the Board Ptesidgg the dcclatant of the foregoing notice of completion; I have read said notice of completion and know the coDtcDts thmot, the same is true of my own knowledge. I declare under penalty of peJjuty that the foregoing is troe and ocnrect.. Executed on . at South Lake Tahoe. California. (D8ta o(Jipmro) (l'enoaaI tipdDl'G o{fbt iDdividual who .. sweariDS dIIt tbc oontcutI olUle aodct' of COGlpIttiOll see 1nIe.) ERIC SCILU'&R -36- JUN-08-2007 11:51 STPUD 530 541 0614 Date: I HEREBY CERTIFY on . before me, the undersigned Clerk of the Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District. personally appeared Eric Schafer, Board President. blown to me to be the person whose name subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledgo that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Kathy Sharp, Clerk of me Board -37- P.04 TOTt:t.. P. 04 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Lisa Coyner South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 THIS SPACE RESERVED FOR RECORDER ONLY (Gov. Coe Section 27361.6) IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO DEDICATE MAIN EXTENSION This Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Main Extension (Offer) is made by Accessible Space. roc. (Grantor) to the South Tahoe Public Utility District, a California public agency formed in 1950 pursuant to the Public Utility District Act (District), on this 21st day of June ,200-2, at South Lake Tahoe, California, with reference to the following facts and intentions: A. The District owns and operates a water treatment and distribution system (System) for the beneficial use by the District and its customers located within the City of South Lake Tahoe and certain portions of the County ofEI Dorado, California; B. Grantor [insert reason for Main Extension here] and therefore requested the District to approve a water main extension (Main Extension) to provide water service to hislher property; C. The District's Board of Directors approved Grantor's requested for a Main Extension on , 200-E-, subject to the terms ofa Main Extension Agreement, dated .luly 6. ' which required dedication of the Main Extension facilities to the District after completion of construction; and; D. Grantor completed construction of the Main Extension and desires to dedicate the Main Extension facilities to the District pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Offer. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor agrees as follows: 1. Offer of Dedication. FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt of which is acknowledged, Grantor does irrevocably offer to dedicate the Main Extension to the District including, but not limited to, all of the water distribution facilities installed by Grantor pursuant to the Main Extension Agreement and located within the right-of-way described in Exhibit A, which is incorporated by this reference. 2. Guarantv. Grantor represents and warrants to the District that the Main Extension shall be free from all defects and material in workmanship for a period of one (1) year from May 18 , 2007 -38- 3. Liabilitv. District shall neither incur liability nor assume responsibility with respect to the Main Extension until this Offer has been accepted by the District. After acceptance of this Offer, the District shall bear all costs and expenses related to the Main Extension, except that the Grantor shall reimburse the District the full cost and expense of any repairs or replacements made necessary by defects in materials or workmanship that become evident within one (1) year after the date of acceptance by the District. '4. Main Extension Al!reement The terms and conditions of the Main Extension Agreement are incorporated by this reference. Grantor represents and warrants to the District that Grantor has installed the Main Extension in compliance with the Main Extension Agreement. 5. Entire Offer. This Offer constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Offer and may not be modified in any way except, with the prior approval of the District, by an instrument in writing, signed by Grantor. 6. General Provisions. 6.1. Recitals. The recitals stated at the beginning of this Offer of any matters or facts shall be conclusive proof of the truthfulness thereof and the terms and conditions of the recitals, if any, shall be deemed a part of this Offer. 6.2. Notices. All notices, approvals, acceptances, requests, demands ad other communications required or permitted, to be effective, shall be in writing and shall be delivered, either in person or by mailing the same by United States mail (postage prepaid, registered or certified, return receipt requested) or by Federal Express or similar overnight delivery service, to the party to whom the notice is directed at the address of such party as follows: TO: SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, California 96150 Attention: Lisa Coyner, Customer Service Manager With a copy to: Gary K vistad, Esq. Hatch & Parent 21 Carrillo Street Santa Barbara, California 93101 TO: GRANTOR Accessible Space. Inc. 2550 University Avenue, Suite 330N St. Paul, MN 55114 Any communication given by mail shall be deemed delivered two (2) business days after such mailing date, and any written communication given by overnight delivery service shall be deemed delivered one (1) business day after the dispatch date. Either party may change its address by giving the other party written notice of its new address. -39- 6.3. Successors and Assigns. This Offer shall be binding and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. Nothing in this Offer, expressed or implied, is intended to confer on any person other than the parties or their respective heirs, successors and assigns, any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities under or by reason of this Offer. 6.4. Assignability. This Offer shall not be assignable, except to subsequent owners of Grantor's property, by Grantor without the prior written consent of the District, who shall have the sole discretion to consent or not to consent to any proposed assignment. Any attempted assignment without the approval ofthe District party shall be void. 6.5. Waiver. No waiver by any party of any of the provisions shall be effective unless explicitly stated in writing and executed by the party so waiving. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no action taken pursuant to this Offer, including, without limitation, any investigation by or on behalf of any party, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver by the party taking such action of compliance with any representatives, warranties, covenants, or agreements contained in this Offer, and in any documents delivered or to be delivered pursuant to this Offer. The waiver by any party of a breach of any provision of this Offer shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Offer shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. 6.6. Headings. The section headings contained in this Offer are for convenience and reference only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Offer. 6.7. Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Offer shall be or become illegal, null, void or against public policy, or shall be held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, null, void or against policy, the remaining provisions ofthis Offer shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be affected, impaired or invalidated. The term, pn;>vision, covenant or condition that is so invalidated, voided or held to be unenforceable, shall be modified or changed by the parties to the extent possible to carry out the intentions and directives set forth in this Offer. 6.8. Counterparts. This Offer may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. 6.9. Governing Law. This Offer shall be governed by, and interpreted in accordance with, the laws ofthe State of California to the extent California Law is applicable to the United States, with venue proper only in the County of EI Dorado, State of California. 6.10. Parties in Interest. Nothing in this Offer, whether expressed or implied, is intended to confer any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Offer on any persons other than the parties to it and their respective successors and assigns, nor is anything in this Offer intended to relieve or discharge the obligations or liability of any third persons to any party to this Offer, nor shall any provisiondgive any third persons any right of subrogation or action against any party to this Offer. -40- 6.11. Attorney Fees. If any legal proceeding (lawsuit, arbitration, etc.), including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or intetpret the provisions of this Offer, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover actual attorneys' fees and costs, which may be determined by the court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose. The attorneys' fees award shall be made as to fully reimburse for all attorneys' fees, paralegal fees, costs and expenses paid or incurred in good faith. 6.12. Good Faith. The parties agree to exercise their best efforts and utmost good faith to effectuate all the terms and conditions of this Offer and to execute such further instruments and documents as are necessary or appropriate to effectuate all of the terms and conditions of this Offer. 6.13. Construction. The provisions of this Offer should be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes. The language of all parts of this Offer shall be construed simply according to its plain meaning and shall not be construed for or against either party, as each party has participated in the drafting of this document and had the opportunity to have their counsel review it. Whenever the context and construction so requires, all words used in the singular shall be deemed to be used in the plural, all masculine shall include the feminine and neuter, and vice versa. 6.14. Several Obligations. Except where specifically stated in this Offer to be otherwise, the duties, obligations, and liabilities of the parties are intended to be several and not joint or collective. Nothing contained in this Offer shall be construed to create an association, trust, partnership, or joint venture or impose a trust or partnership duty, obligation, or liability on or with regard to either party. Each party shall be individually and severally liable for its own obligations under this Offer. 6.15. Authority. The individuals executing this Offer represent and warrant that they have the authority to enter into this Offer and to perform all acts required by this Offer, and that the consent, approval or execution of or by any third party is not required to legally bind either party to the terms and conditions of this Offer. 6.16. Entire Agreement. This Offer contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties, and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, oral and written, between the parties that have not been explicitly incorporated into this Offer. There have been no binding promises, representations, agreements, warranties or undertakings by any of the parties, either oral or written, of any character or nature, except as stated in this Offer. This Offer may be altered, amended or modified only by an instrument in writing, executed by the parties to this Offer and by no other means. Each party waives its future right to claim, contest or assert that this Offer was modified, canceled, superseded or changed by any oral agreement, course of conduct, waiver or estoppel. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, grantor has executed this Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Main Extension on the day and year and at the place first written above. Grantor ~f"""'o.....~E? (Signature) ~ ~....Jwr- ~C (Name) -41- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT \\\ \ {\t\.€'~Cl>~ State of Califul1lia- CountYOfE~ ) ) ) On'""S.'-'-N) ~ , 200l before me, bo-n',f"\ \(' L'-\ t\(\. W'rT{'\'fi--- \\\~tl,~otary Public, personally appeared ~ ~ \Jc:J.no-or~h~-1a~ , personally known to me, or proved to me on the basis of satisfa tory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) Is/are subscnbed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. ~~i:S~' 8DAN'ELlE LYNN HERRERA.tt.',~KWALD NOTARY PUBLIC MINNESOTA urCan IIIIlIla.EIqlkn_31, 2011 -42- ~..~... ~It..... South Tahoe Public Utility District -~ 0IrClGtcn ~1eM fM'nlll .hImH R. .JoftN MlIryloo ~ ~ w.a.c:. Ertc St;Mfer :: "., J 1275 MeadowCrest Drive. Sooth Lake Tahoe.CA 96150-1401 Phone 530 544--6474- Fax 530 541..oo14-www:5tpUd.u5 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4g TO: Board of Directors FROM: Randy Curtis, Manager of Field Operations MEETING DATE: June 21, 2007 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: 2007-2008 Sodium Hypochlorite Supplies REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Award bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Sierra Chemical Company, in the estimated amount of $24,657.15.* DISCUSSION: Request for bids were sent to 14 suppliers, but only one bidder responded. The price quoted is reasonable (at -5% higher than last year's prices). *The total dollar amount is based upon an estimated quantity that the District will use during the coming fiscal year. The actual quantity and grand total may vary, but unit prices are firm. SCHEDULE: July 1, 2007 - June 30,2008 COSTS: $24,657.15 ACCOUNT NO: 2002-4755 BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $20,500 - 2007/08 Budget ATTACHMENTS: None CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES /LH) NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~ NO CATEGORY: Water -43- ~~ ~.H.~ South Tahoe Public Utility District ~ Kathllr<lt1 Farrd ~ 1t.J0n06 Mary lOtl ~.aw ~ W.lI.ace E/'l(; ScMfer 1215 MeadowCMst Drive. South I...aks Tahoe.CA 96150-7401 F'tton6 530 54+&474. Fax 530 541-0614- WWW.5tpud.U5 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4h TO: Board of Directors FROM: Randy Curtis, Manager of Field Operations MEETING DATE: June 21,2007 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: San Moritz 50KW Generator REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: (1) Waive bidding procedures, as outlined in the District's Purchasing Policy, for standardized equipment from the sole area supplier, and (2) Approve purchase of one Katolight Generator (Model D50FJJ4T2) from Nevada Generator Systems, Inc., in the amount of $22,769, plus tax and shipping. DISCUSSION: A new generator is needed to replace the old existing genset at the San Moritz Sewer Pump Station (Tahoe Keys area). It has become unreliable and parts are unavailable. During the last formal bid processes for gensets, the District has purchased Katolight models from Nevada Generator Systems, Inc., which is the sole area distributor for Katolight Generators. These gensets have proven to be very reliable, and the supplier is readily available in Reno to provide technical service and support if needed. Katolight models were standardized for purchases of portable and pump station generators due to their reliability, the operational familiarity of staff, and parts interchangeability. The District's Purchasing Agent has reviewed this item. SCHEDULE: As soon as possible COSTS: $22,769 plus tax and shipping ACCOUNT NO: 1005-8815 BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $50,000 ATTACHMENTS: Quote from Nevada Generator Systems, Inc., dated May 31,2007. CATEGORY: Sewer CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES 141-..1 NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~ NO -45- Nevada Generator Systems 1520 Glendale Avenue Sparks, Nevada 89431 775/356-8010 775/356-8017(fax) Proposal For San Moritz Sewer Station May 31, 2007 Paul Carrion South Lake Tahoe P.U.D. 1275 Meadow Crest DrIve Souttr Lake ~ CA 96150 5301544-6474 (phone) 530154+6359 (Fax) pcarrlon@stpud.dst.ca.us Nevada Generator submits the following proposal for the project: sam Moritz Sewer Station KATOLlGHT MODEL: (Qty -1) - D50FJJ4T2 GENERATOR: 50 kW, 62.5 kYA VOLTAGE: 120/240 ACV 3-Pha.. (J) ENGINE: John Deere 5030TF270, 60 Hz Diesel, 1800 RPM Standard F..tu....lncluded: Steel Sub Base. BaUery Cables, Battery Box, Flex Fuel Connector, 011 Drain Extension, Lube Oil and AntHr8eze Selected Model F..tures Included: . Isochronous Governor + I - .25% CONTROL PANEL: Model 50 Control Panel 12 LIGHT CONTROL PANEL: 50 Series, generator-vibration mounted, NEMA 1 enclosure Voltmeter - (3-112"). 2% accuracy, Ammeter - (3-112"), 2% accuracy, 4 position combination voltmeter/ammeter selector switch, Frequency meter, dial type - (3-112"), Panel lights and switch, Running time meter - (2"), Battery voltmeter - (2"), Water temperature gauge - (2"), 011 pressure gauge - (2") AUTOMATIC ENGINE CONTROL - KASSEC, single or cycfic cranking with 12 indicating lights for: Low 011 pressure shutdown and light, High water temperature shutdown and light, Low water level shutdown and light combined with high engine temperature, Overspeed shutdown and light. Overcrank shutdown and light, Low battery voltage light, Charger malfunction light, EPS supplying load light, Low water temperature light, High engine temperature preshutdown and light, Low 011 pressure preshutdown and light, Low fuel light, Unit not in auto light, 3 position manuak>ff-automatic switch. Repetitive alann buzzer and silencing switch COOUNG SYSTEM: Unit Mounted Radiator CIRCUIT BREAKER: 150 AMP 12'~ Three Phase - Mounted and Wired In a NEMA 1 Enclosure (Qty: 1) Included Acc...orles: Shunt Trip BATTERY: Lead Acid Battery 750 CCA @ 0 F -47- BLOCK HEATER: Standard @ 20 F 1000 Watts Included Acceslories: Heater wired to a Terminal Engine Block Heater isolation Valve - 3/4 . Engine Block Heater Isolation Valve - 3/4 . VIBRATION ISOLATION: Seismic Zone'" BATTERY CHARGER: LC 12-3.5-500-2B (12 Volt. 3.5 Amp) Includ.d Acc...orl..: LC 12-3.5-500-2B - Mounted-Wired AC & DC SUB BASE TANK: Open Powered Unit (without Stub Up) - 82x34x24 (175 Gal.) Fuel tank(s) factory Installed. Features include double wall UL 142 approved, constructed in accordance to NFPA 30, fuel leak detection standard (low fuel level alarm standard), 1.5 . normal vent cap, 2" fill with lockable fill cap, 2-6" NPT opening for emergency vent Included Acceuories: Fuel leak detectlon float switch only (signal for control panel LED lndicating light) AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH: ASCO 300 Poles: 3 3003200C (200 Amp) NEMA-1 (Qty: 1) Included Accessories: Warranty (2 Year-standard) Test SwItch Manual Bypass of Transfer to Nannal TO A TS SwItch Position Indicating Lights Source Available Indicating Llghts Automatic Engine ExercIser with LoadINo Load Selector SWItch A TS Position tncflC8flng Contacts (1 NonnaI, 1 Emergency) Provisions for Remote Transfer Contact (peak Shaved) bypassed If Emergency Falls In-Phase Monitor for Motor Load Control SelectIve Load Dlsconnect Provisions for Inhibiting Transfer to Emefgency TIme Delay MomenIaIy OUtage Ovenide (NonnaI) TIme Delay Momentary Outage Ovenide (Emergency) TIme Delay Transfer to Emergency TIme Delay Re-tnlnsfer to Normal TIme De1ay EngIne Cool Down MISCELLANEOUS: Wananty - Two-Year 11500 Hour Paint - KatoIight Tan Testing - standard Commercial Test Manual - Three InstJuction Manual Startup and Commissioning Exhaust Blankets NOTES: 1. This proposal II our inteIprvtation of your NqUir8ment and includes 0JIIy the IIems listed. Should there be other nKlUlNments or specifications, we win requote acconIingIy. 2. FOB Jobslte. 3. Nevada Gen.rator Systems takes a geneAlexception to any o8Ier~. componenls,melbods of manufacture, fabrication or testing. This quotation Is based upon providing a functional equal that Is manufactured to current Industry standards. 4. Local regulatory agencies have final jurisdiction regarding approval of pennlts at the time of application. Any required equlpm.nt. environmental or oth.r that is not specifically Included In this quotation, is not part of this quotation and is not Included In the quoted price. 6. Tax.... P.nnlls or Ucenses are not included In this proposal. Nevada Generator Systems assum.. no responsibility for obtaining any type of Pennlt or Licens. that may be required. 6. Off loading from carrier is not Included In this proposal. T. Installation of any equipm.nt Is not included In this proposal. 8. Fu.1 for any purpose is not Included In this proposal. 9. Fee. for cancelled, returned or changed ord... will b. charged to buyer based upon our costs. 10. Material I. Invoiced from the date of shipm.nt and upon approval of credit. Is payable In full 30 days afterward. No supplied material will be subject to retention. All risk of loss shall pass to the buyer as soon as goods are loaded on the carrier. 1.5% per month will be added to palt due accounts. 11. Current d.llvery schedule Is 12 to 14 week. upon release to production. This Is based upon best avallabl. infonnatlon at the time of this quotation and II subject to change. Nevada Generator Systems will not be held llabl. for any delays or loases occasioned by any clreumltances that are beyond our direct control. 1&& AAA,.A..A,..............'" ""u\A&&&&& &4& &&4/..\11'*........ -48- Proposal Summary: TOTAL PROPOSAL PRICE: *****"***,..,.,........*..."..",......'.A........",,.,"A"'" $ 22,769.00 Quoted prices do not Include Federal, State or Local taxes which may be applicable. Quoted prices Include nonnal testing, packaging and Instructional literature. Special testing, packaging, additional Instructional literature, parts, provisioning lists or prints are not Included, and prices will be quoted separately. Quotation Firm For 30 Day(s) Delivery Notes: Approximate Shipping Weight: 2,251 Ibs. (1,021 Kgs.) BY: Nevada Generator David Bard.1II + "Y. ~r % SAJ-G.5 .,-~)( ~l/I 'I L 'L :?!"- -49- ~ .......... RI!lhlIrcIH. ... South Tahoe PublicUtflity District ~ "Bthloen FlImllI JMtt.- R. JClflH .....ry lau ~ac:t1Ill' DuaN w..... Eric Sc:haf<< I 1275 Meadow Crest Drive'South l..ake Tahoe' CA 96150-7401 Phone 530 544-6474' Fax 5M 541-0614' www.stpud.u5 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4i TO: Board of Directors FROM: Randy Curtis, Manager of Field Operations MEETING DATE: June 21,2007 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: 2007 Asphalt Patching and Paving Services REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Award bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, G.B. General Engineering Contractor Inc., in the estimated amount of $171,269.25. DISCUSSION: Underground Repair WaterlSewer Departments complete repairs of numerous waterline leaks and service tie-ins. Upon completion temporary cold mix asphalt patches are installed to the damaged or cut out asphalt. Later, when the weather permits, these patches must be permanently repaired by professional paving contractors. Bids were opened May 29th. Two bids were received. SCHEDULE: Spring, summer, and fall 2007 COSTS: $170,000 - 220,000 (estimated) ACCOUNT NO: 2001-6052, 1001 -6052 BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: 2001-605207/08 $300,000; 1001-605207/08 $70,000; 2001-6052 06/07 <$64,323>; 1001-6052 06/07 <$1,080> ATTACHMENTS: Bid results. CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES tl+J NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~ NO -51- CATEGORY: Sewer & Water SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT BID TABULATION BID# 06-07 -06 FOR 2007 Asphalt Patching OPENING DATE May 29, 2007 G.B. General Engineering ContIac:tcw Inc_ Harold Hutson Contruction $ 171,269.25 183,650.25 Total bid values are estimates based upon al$a bid prices multiplied by an estimated number of patches and related work.. The esIiI.ded factors are based upon historical data together with new projections of work.. Although, the actual quantities and total may vary, unit bid prices will remain firm. -53- Gcmraf .......... ~H.. Solltrit South Tahoe PubUcUtility District OIrea.ore K.athleetl F MnlII J41m~ R. ..Jono6 Mary lou Mof;tIactIllI" lJtlaN W.1Iaoe Eric Sckaffll" I 1275 Meadow Cmst Drive - South Lake Tahoe -CA 96150.7401 Phon6 550 544-&414. Fax 530 541-0614. WWW.5tpud.us BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4j TO: Board of Directors FROM: John Thiel, Principal Engineer MEETING DATE: June 21, 2007 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Engineering Interns REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Approve contract with Substitute Personnel for two engineering interns, in an amount not to exceed $31,000. DISCUSSION: The engineering department requests the services of two engineering students from June to September 2007. They will be working as engineering assistants on various projects including the Collection System Master Plan, BMP planning and design, ICR oxygenation system, GIS data collection, final filters assessment, standard details and specifications. SCHEDULE: June to September 2007. COSTS: NTE $31,000 ACCOUNT NO: 1029-8721 ($6,000),1029-8737 ($7,000),2029-8745 ($8,000),1006- 8862 ($4,000), 2037-8446 ($6,000). BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: 2037-844606/07 $24,927,07/08 -0-; 1029-8721 06/07 <$359,500>,07/08 $20,500; 1029-873706/07 $106,477,07/08 $120,000; 2029- 874506/07 $107,000,07/08 $110,000; 1006-8862 06/07 -0-, 07/08 $80,000 ATTACHMENTS: None CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~ NO -55- CATEGORY: Water ~........ IIIlofwwI tt. s.IIrie South Tahoe Public Utility District ~ I\6thI&ln F.emllI JMn_lt Jol1I6 M.rylou ~ DuaMW~ Eric: ScMfer I 1275 Meadow Crest Driw. South lake Tahoe' CA 96150-7401 f'hon6 530 544-6474' Fax 530 54HJ614. WWW.st.pud.U5 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4k TO: Board of Directors FROM: John Thiel, Principal Engineer MEETING DATE: June 21,2007 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Customer Service Facility - Landscaping REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Authorize staff to advertise for bids to install landscaping on the Customer Service Facility site and selected sites on the treatment plant property. DISCUSSION: The landscaping element of the Customer Service Facility project includes the installation of dripline infiltration trenches, cobble and pine mulch, shrub and tree plantings, and a drip irrigation system. Some additional revegetation areas on or near the treatment plant site will likely be included in the project. SCHEDULE: Complete by October 15,2007 COSTS: $80,000 (estimate) ACCOUNT NO: 2029-8801 BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $481,5002007/08 ATTACHMENTS: None CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~ NO CATEGORY: Water -57- ~........ ......tt... South Tahoe Public Utility District ~ ~ F.""u .J.1ImtII; It Jono6 Mary Lou Mo6Itacfw DuaN W.., Eric; ~ , I 1275 ~Cr8elt Drive-South L..ake Tahoe. CA 96150-7401 Phone 530 54+6474 - Fax 530 541-0014- www.5'tpUd.u5 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 41 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Rhonda McFarlane, Chief Financial Officer MEETING DATE: June 21, 2007 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement with Alpine County concerning Grant services REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: (1) Authorize the Board President to sign an amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement with the County of Alpine to provide Grant Coordinator services by South Tahoe Public Utility District for the County of Alpine; and (2) Authorize the General Manager to sign an amendment to the Grant Coordinator Employment Agreement to incorporate the change. DISCUSSION: The Intergovernmental Agreement with County of Alpine (County) documents the costs of providing the services to the County. The amendment will provide the Grant Coordinator position with a salary level that is competitive with current labor market conditions. Providing a competitive salary will help the Finance Division retain an excellent employee and maintain the grant program's current momentum. The County Board of Supervisors approved the amendment at their June 5, 2007, meeting. The Executive Committee and staff met in May on this issue and recommend the amendment. SCHEDULE: Effective June 28, 2007 to June 30, 2009 Co.STS: Additional $10,000 per year (District's 50% share of the additional wages and benefits) ACCOUNT NO: 1039/2039-4101,4301-4306,4312 BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $92,951 ATTACHMENTS: 2006 Grant Activity Report CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES I{l{tj NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~ NO -59- CATEGORY: General ANNUAL GRANT ACTIVITY REPORT 2006 (January 1 - December 31) CURRENT GRANTS ADMINISTERED: Prior Year Grants: Grant Title Project Timeline Funding status 319(h) Nonpoint Source Piping 2900 lineal feet of Start date: $ 758,000 Total costs Protection the Dressler agricultural December I, 2004. Implementation Grant, ditch in Alpine county to $ 250,000 SWRCB Total State Water Resources increase fresh water Extension Control Board delivery to Indian Creek requested to $ 500,000 STPUD Total Reservoir December 2007 Local Groundwater Grants awarded to A ward date: $ 200,000 Total costs Assistance Fund Grant groundwater studies and April 30, 2003 Program (AD 303), projects that contribute $ 200,000 Grant request California Department to basin and subbasin Project must be of Water Resources management objectives. final bv Julv 31. $ 0 STPUD match 2007 Lake Tahoe Restoration Two projects were Contracts signed; S 275,000 Total Costs Funds approved: billing can begin USFS Lake Tahoe from September 7, S 137,soo USFS grant MTBE Well Treatment ZOOS througll Management Unit MTBE WeD Closure and September 7,2007 S 137,soo STPUD match Abandonment Program Total Prior Year Grant Awards: $ 587,soo 2006 Grants Awarded Grant Title Project Timeline Funding status Prop 50, Integrated Two projects awarded: Start date: July 1, S Total Costs waterlines: Regional Water 1. Water line 2007 $2,183, 703 Management Plan replacement End date: June 30, S 1,965,333 Prop 58 Funding 2. Water conservation 2011 State Water Resources measures in partnership S 218, 730 STPUD match Control Board with Tahoe Resource STotal Costs water Conservation District conservation: $ 418,204 S 375,704 Prop 58 S 42,500 STPUD Match -61- Prop 40, Consolidated Requesting a two year Project start date: $ 4~57 Total Costs Grants Program water conservation State Water Resources project in partnership November 1, 2006 $ 325,168 Grant amount Control Board with TRCD End date: August $ 108,389 STPUD match 31,2_ 319 (h) Non Point Indian Creek Reservoir Project start date: $ 812,221 Total Costs Source Pollution Control TMDL project November 1,2006 $ 609,166 Grant Program, State Water Resources Control Project end date: $ 203,055 STPUD match Board October 31, 2009 Lake Taboe Erosion Utility line replacement Project start date: $300,000 Total Costs Control Program on EIP projects; July 1, 2007 $ 200,000 Grant planning and USFS Funding implementation End date: $ 100,000 STPUD matcb June 30, 2008 Erosion Control Projects Planning for meeting Project start date: $200,000 Total Costs Funding Best Management May 21, 2007 $200,000 Grant Practices as defined by California Taboe TRP A on district sites Project End Date: $ o STPUD match Conservancy May 21, 2011 Total 2086 Grant Awards: S 3, 675, 371 2006 GRANT SUBMISSIONS WAITING FOR AWARD NOTIFICATION: Grant Title Project Timeline Funding Status Prop SO Seeurity measures for Application S289,4SO Total Costs Water Seeurity, Clean wells, water tanks, pump submitted Dee. 1, $144,725 SWR Drinking Water, Coastal stations 2004 and Beacb Protection Denied in 2006, is still $144,725 STPUD Act of2002 being considered for State Water Resources 2007; Project is approved but placed on waiting list for available funds. FEMA Mitigation New culvert on Harvey $ Total requested: $ 91, 225 Funding Place Acc::ess Road in $ 68,419 OES CA Office of Emergency Alpine County $ 22,806 STPUD Services Total outstanding requests: S 213,144 -62- IN PREPARATION FOR SUBMISSION: Grant Title Project Timeline Funding Status Prop SO; IRMWP Waterline replacement Tentative Due date: AlIIOunt to be requested: Round 2 August 31, 2007 $1, 000,000 State Water Resources Control Board (Tentative) Prop SO Anenic Arsenic Treatment Pre-applications are $ Dollar amount to be Treatment Grant, State Study on Bakersfield due August 1, 2007 requested undetermined Water Resources WeD Tentative $500,000 Control Board Total to be requested: S 1,500,000 SUBMITI'ED, NOT AWARDED Grant Title Project TimeUne Funding Status FEMA P~Mitigation Water pipeUne projects Applieation submitted $ 3,758,800 Total Costs Disaster Grant that meet the benefit Nov. 2S, 2006 for water cost ratio analysis lines replacement. Project DeRied due to $ 3,000,000 FEMA funding constraints this fiseal year and limited $ 750,000 STPUD priorities; will check to Match see if funding is viable in 2007 Prop SO Security measures for Application submitted 5289,450 Total Costs wells, water tanks, pump Dee. 1, 2004 Water Security, Clean stations Denied in ZOOS and $144,725 SWR Drinking Water, Coastal again in 2006 $144,725 STPUD and Beach Protection Act of 2002 State Water Resources 2006 Total awards denied: S 3,144,725 -63- ..-<('"~~ '~':;?,~ " t~.,< '. ""j q 'f }''r!l .. ~~~,~, :\(,,\.<,;~\~;,- 'ce." ',' .~ 11'(\ ~\~. . "';??,~ ~<.'~,,,> :,:.Ji"' ,,/. ,,\/~ ~ ~ ~,~ '<\ ~L;""" ~,'" i': J!! ~ '<:~~. ~ " ""'~>;;:':' ,~~ .. ~,,~\~,V~:,:~r~ .. .;: ?:,::">?'j~7'~ ,\,"/':,<,,') '\;..'-- ,.' :,' , ; ,',~ \~;:';~"'SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT "':' ." ~1 ....;;~:.~d "Basic Services for a Complex World" Richard Solbrig, General Manager Eric W. Schafer, President BOARD MEMBERS Paul Sciuto, Assistant Manager James R. Jones, Vice President Duane Wallace, Director Mary Lou Mosbacher, Director Kathleen Farrell, Director REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT MAY 17,2007 MINUTES The Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District met in a regular session, May 17, 2007, 2:00 P.M., District Office, 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, Ca. BOARD OF DIRECTORS: President Schafer; Directors Wallace, Jones, Farrell, Mosbacher ROLL CALL STAFF: Solbrig, Sharp, Sciuto, McFarlane, Bergsohn, Cocking, Ryan, Coyner, R. Johnson, Hoggatt, Bird, Thiel, Attorney Herrema GUESTS: Andy Hauge and Garth AllinglHaugelBrueck, Eric McGrath/Stantec, Ernie Claudio, Julie Threewit, Scott Brooke Moved Farrell I Second Wallace I Passed Unanimouslv to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted: CONSENT CALENDAR a. FinallSecondary Effluent Pump Station - Approved proposal from Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers for additional design services and bid period services in the amount not to exceed $145,226; b. Bayview Well Controls Building Facility - (1) Approved the project Closeout Agreement and Release of Claims K.G. Walters Construction Company, Inc., and (2) Authorized staff to file a Notice of Completion with the EI Dorado County Clerk; -65- REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - MAY 17, 2007 PAGE - 2 c. Indian Creek Reservoir TMDL Mitigation Project - Approved proposal from Hauge Brueck Associates to complete the initial environmental review require- ments as stipulated by the California Environmental Quality Act and National Enviornmental Policy Act, in the estimated amount of $20,000; d. South Upper Truckee Well No.3 Controls Building I Corrosion Control Treatment Facility - Approved proposal from Boyle Engineering Corporation to complete an operations plan, in the estimated not-to-exceed amount of $19,624; e. Customer Service, Operations and Laboratory Facility - Approved releasing Roebbelen Construction, Inc. securities; f. Diamond Valley Ranch Master Plan EIR - Authorized staff to enter into a contract for legal services with the law firm of Dyer, Lawrence, Penrose, Flaherty & Donaldson, in the amount not to exceed $25,000. CONSENT CALENDAR (continued) ITEMS FOR BOARD ACTION Julie Ryan reported only one bid was received for this project, and it came in significantly higher than the engineering estimate. After careful consideration, staff recommended rejection of the bid. Bid documents will be revised to help the bidding climate, and rebid the project in the fall. Moved Wallace I Second Jones I Passed Unanimously to reject the sole bid, received from K.G. Walters $8,146,375. FINAL/SECONDARY EFFLUENT PUMP STATION Moved Farrell I Second Mosbacher I Passed PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Unanimouslv to approve payment in the amount of $952,421.02 Water and Wastewater Operations Committee: The STANDING COMMITTEE committee met May14. Minutes of the meeting are REPORTS available upon request. Director Jones reported on his attendance at the BOARD MEMBER REPORTS A CW A conference. 2:30 P.M. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES Paul Sciuto reported this is the second public scoping MASTER PLAN meeting held for this project. The first was held May 16 in Markleeville, California. That meeting was tape recorded and video taped, as this one will be. The comment period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is through May 22, 2007. -66- REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - MAY 17, 2007 PAGE - 3 It was advertised starting on April 20 and was dis- tributed to approximately 70 interested parties, and can be found on the District's web site. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING: RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN (continued) The purpose for this scoping meeting is to inform the public and accept comments on the new EIR process that is underway to develop a long-term plan for the disposal of treated effluent and associated actions to convey, store, and apply fresh water. Andy Hauge, HaugelBrueck, using a PowerPoint slide show, reviewed: the CEQA regulations, the purpose of the NOP and scoping meeting, the District's respon- sibility, and the components of the master plan. Eric McGrath, Stantec, reviewed the background and history for this project. Referring to a paper map, he showed the locations of the District's facilities and operations. He continued the PowerPoint presentation and covered project types and each of the 27 master plan components that are listed in the NOP. He reviewed the next steps in the process. The draft EIR is anticipated to be circulated in the fall of 2007, and the final EIR is expected to be completed the winter of 2007/2008. 2:45 p.m. - Paul Sciuto requested public comments: Scott Brooke reported he attended the meeting in Markleeville, which was well received. No other public comments were received. Andy Hauge reviewed all of the public comments that will be addressed as a result of the May 16 public scoping meeting. President Schafer closed the public scoping meeting at 2:55 p.m. No Board action was taken. Director Mosbacher reported on her attendance at the Meyers Roundtable meeting. President Schafer reported the annual CASA Conference will be held in August and encouraged staff to review the agenda for items of interest. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS General Manager: Richard Sol brig reported the Army GENERAL MANAGER REPORTS Corps of Engineers formed a group of Lake Tahoe basin public utility districts, to apply for a project to be funded by the federal government budget section 21 9 . After meeting with the group, the recommendation was to apply for funds to upsize water lines, and possibly add more fire hydrants for improved fire suppression. -67- REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - MAY 17, 2007 PAGE - 4 Chief Financial Officer: Rhonda McFarlane reported on a meeting held with Lake Valley Fire District. They discussed undersized waterlines and the need for additional fire hydrants on the lines that are not undersized. Break - 3:25 - 3:35 3:25 - 3:35 P.M. 3:50 P.M. STAFF REPORTS MEETING BREAK AND ADJOURN- MENT TO CLOSED SESSION RECONVENED TO REGULAR SESSION ACTION 1 REPORT ON ITEMS DISCUSSED DURING CLOSED SESSION No reoortable Board action. No reportable Board action. Moved Wallace I Second Jones I Passed Unanimously to approve the 2007-2008 litigation budget as submitted. 3:55 P.M. ATTEST: Kathy Sharp, Clerk of the Board South Tahoe Public Utility District -68- Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)/Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation re: Meyers Landfill Site: United States of America vs. EI Dorado County and City of South Lake Tahoe and Third Party Defendants, Civil Action No. S-01-1520 LKK GGH, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Ca. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)/Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Two Cases) 2007-2008 LITIGATION BUDGET ADJOURNMENT Eric W. Schafer, Board President South Tahoe Public Utility District ~~ ~,'~ -', \~ <.;.^.:':~':\: . ~ ", ,?,,-\ ' ;.,,~t0'<~"'; ":-.;' ~~~) A<0" \('" 'd' , .;~~''''~/--:''? \~ ~., ~~iI,-':), ,~;i;~>\i ~;:?:~;::(~, SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT "Basic Services for a Complex World" Richard Solbrig, General Manager Eric W. Schafer, President Paul Sciuto, Assistant Manager BOARD MEMBERS James R. Jones, Vice President Duane Wallace, Director Mary Lou Mosbacher, Director Kathleen Farrell, Director SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT MAY 19, 2007 MINUTES The Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District met in a special session, May 19, 2007, 2:00 p.m., District Office, 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California. BOARD OF DIRECTORS: President Schafer, Directors Wallace, Jones, Farrell, Mosbacher ROLL CALL STAFF: Sol brig, Sciuto, Sharp, McFarlane, Cocking, Henderson, Alsbury GUESTS: David Kelly/Tahoe Area Coordinating Council for the Disabled, Joy Ellison, Lew Long, A. Caribudi MAJORITY PROTEST HEARING Pursuant to the requirements of Proposition 218, Rhonda McFarlane reported that on March 30, all customers were mailed notification of the proposed rate changes for the sewer and water enterprise funds, both of which will include an overall rate change of 4 % . STAFF REPORTS -69- SPECIAL BOARD MEETING MINUTES - MAY 19, 2007 PAGE - 2 McFarlane gave a PowerPoint presentation showing the proposed sewer and water enterprise budgets for 2007/2008, including: funding sources, overall service charges, typical residential rates, comparisons to other Lake Tahoe agencies, operating costs, depreciation, infrastructure projects, and debt service. She also distributed a list of capital projects planned. Debbie Henderson reported a total of 188 protests were received by the deadline. Of those, 138 were determined to be valid protests (Le., they included the required information such as parcel number, name, etc.). She stated the valid protests constituted 1.6% of the 50% required to be considered a valid protest. Staff will perform an analysis of the protests and respond to specific requests. They will also use comments received to provide educational opportunities for District customers. David Kelly, Tahoe Area Coordinating Council for the Disabled, spoke in favor of the rate increases. He felt the District keeps the rates as low as possible without putting the infrastructure in jeopardy. Mr. Kelly also spoke in favor of developing a rate reduction program for people with low incomes who own properties in Lake Tahoe. STAFF REPORTS (continued) PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FOR BOARD ACTION Moved Jones I Second Farrell I Passed Unanimously to enact Ordinance No. 499-07 amending Ordinance No. 464, and Superseding Ordinance No. 495-06 in its entirety. Moved Farrell I Second Wallace I Passed Unanimouslv to adopt Resolution No. 2830-07 adopting the budget for the sewer enterprise fund. Moved Jones I Second Farrell I Passed Unanimouslv to adopt Resolution No. 2831-07 adopting the budget for the water enterprise fund. 2:35 P.M. ATTEST: Kathy Sharp, Clerk of the Board South Tahoe Public Utility DistriQ.t70_ RA TE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGET: FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 WATER ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGET: FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 ADJOURNMENT Eric W. Schafer, Board President South Tahoe Public Utility District ~~ <Ii\,\~;~0,;":,,~<~~) ~~..".'" . "", dfo;, '~:,f~:"'.>} ':' " ,4",~.. \. ~~'~\ 'i~ ~'-:::. '~';~J ~."Y' " \ ~.../o.. . ~"~']:~~',);~ ~ .' o~"'~"~'i '" Co r,'~ ,,"/'.,/;~ C" . 'p ". <~;~.,1:;>~~i~ , " ,(/) . ": .'.~~':,. , ".~''':'::-~~ SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT "Basic Services for a Complex World" ~. .~ Richard SolbriR' General Manager Eric W. Schafer, President BOARD MEMBERS Paul Sciuto, Assistant Manager James R. Jones, Vice President Duane Wallace, Director Mary Lou Mosbacher, Director Kathleen Farrell, Director REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT JUNE 7, 2007 MINUTES The Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District met in a regular session, June 7, 2007, 2:00 P.M., District Office, 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, Ca. BOARD OF DIRECTORS: President Schafer, Directors Wallace, Farrell, Mosbacher. Director Jones arrived at 2:20 p.m. ROLL CALL STAFF: Sciuto, Sharp, McFarlane, Adams, Henderson, Swain, Brown, Coyner, Cocking, Curtis, Nolan, Barnes, Ryan, Hoggatt, Bergsohn, Donovan, Powers, Attorney Herrema GUESTS: Andy Hauge, Hauge/Brueck; Ernie Claudio Lisa Coyner introduced Shelly Barnes, who was selected to fill the new grant-funded Water Con- servation Specialist position. Consent Item a. (Collection System Spot Repairs), and Item g. (Amendment to Settlement Agreement with Lakeside Park Association) were brought forward for discussion prior to Board action. CONSENT CALENDAR Moved Wallace I Second Mosbacher I Jones Absent I Passed to approve the Consent Calendar as amended: a. See Consent Items Brought Forward; -71- REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 2007 PAGE - 2 b. Fencing - Awarded bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Tahoe Fence Company, Inc., in the amount of $22,840; c. Temporary Help for Underground Repair Water - Approved contract with Substitute Personnel for two temporary employees, in the estimated amount of $50,000; d. Annual Software Support Costs for Utility Billing - Approved payment to Spring brook Software, Inc., for software support in the amount of $18,107.35; e. Remit Processing/Electronic Deposit Software System - (1) Authorized exception to the bidding procedure as outlined in the District's Purchasing Policy for sole brandlsole source purchases; and (2) Authorized staff to purchase AudioTel Remit Plus Software and related scanning equipment, in the amount of $14,632, plus tax; f. Sewer Enterprise 2007-08 Appropriations Subject to Limitation - Adopted Resolution No. 2832-07 setting the limitation on appropriations for Fiscal Year 2007-08; g. See Consent Items Brought Forward; h. Approved Regular Board Meeting Minutes: April 1 9, 2007; I. Approved Regular Board Meeting Minutes: May 3, 2007; J. Approved Public Meeting Minutes: May 3,2007. CONSENT CALENDAR (continued) CONSENT ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO ACTION Director Mosbacher received clarification that the newest UV technology, quoted by the lowest bidder, would not be used until results are proven and re- commendations can be tracked down. Pilot tests may be performed in feasible areas to ascertain UV effectiveness. Moved Wallace I Second Farrell I Jones Absent I Passed to: (1) Make the finding that the bid specifications are incomplete since they did not specify the" ambient" cured-in-place process, which is proven reliable, (2) Rejected all bids; and (3) Authorized re-bid with additional language. -72- COLLECTION SYSTEM SPOT REPAIRS (Consent Item a.) REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 2007 PAGE - 3 Director Mosbacher received clarification regarding the suspension of payments from Lakeside Park Association (LPA). Moved Mosbacher I Second Farrell I Jones Absent I Passed to authorize execution of the amendment to the settlement agreement. (This will document that both water service providers will serve the Redevelopment Project 3 and that neither party will provide any compensation to the other for resulting customer charges. In addition, the District will suspend payments from LPA on the 2004 settlement amount July 1, 2007 to July 1, 2012.) AMENDMENT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH LAKESIDE PARK ASSOCIATION (Consent Item g.) ITEMS FOR BOARD ACTION (2:20 p.m. - Director Jones arrived at this point in the meeting. ) Ivo Bergsohn reported three bids were opened at the June 5 bid opening. Two bids contained deviations, which staff and legal counsel deemed to be minor in nature. Moved Mosbacher I Second Jones I Passed Unanimouslv to award the contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Thomas Haen Company, Inc., in the amount of $2,087,855.00. Moved Farrell I Second Wallace I Passed Unanimouslv to approve payment in the amount of $2,041,363.79. Finance Committee: Director Wallace reported on the topics of discussion at the June 7 meeting. Minutes of the meeting are available upon request. 2:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING President Schafer opened the public hearing. Ivo Bergsohn reported Bayview Well is being added to the District's system and this public hearing is being held to satisfy Department of Health requirements. Bergsohn gave a PowerPoint presentation that covered the posting and noticing period for public comments, a project description, regulatory compliance, and impacts and mitigation. No public comments were received during the 30-day noticing circulation period, and no members of the public were in attendance at this hearing. -73- SOUTH UPPER TRUCKEE WELL NO.3 CONTROLS BUILDINGI CORROSION CONTROL TREAT- MENT FACILITY PROJECT AND LUTHER PASS PUMP STATION SEISMIC UPGRADE PA YMENT OF CLAIMS STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS BA YVIEW WELL CONTROL BUILDINGS FACILITY REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 2007 PAGE - 4 The public hearing was closed at 2:50 p.m. Moved Jones I Second Mosbacher I Passed Unanimouslv to certify the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Director Wallace reported on his attendance at the last Water Agency Board meeting. The main topic was the supplemental water rights application funding agreement. The EPA issued new guidelines to evaluate what constitutes navigable waters of the U.S. that are different from what congress originally intended. The court invited congress to change the legislation if it differs from the court's ruling. Staff will write a letter of protest over the new legislation proposed by Senator Boxer which would broaden the interpretation. Assistant General Manager: Paul Sciuto gave updates on: the 219 grant program, the Lake Tahoe Water Infrastructure Partnership with other waste agencies in the basin, and arsenic reporting requirements. Legal Counsel: Attorney Herrema reported on the possible impacts of conflicting information regarding interpretation of the fire code and water requirements. District Information Officer: Dennis Cocking reported on the efforts underway to AB 1260 (the Bighorn Decision) with regards to the notification process. He also received a letter complementing the District for the H20 Helping Hands Program. 3:20 - 3:30 P.M. 5:00 P.M. BAYVIEW WELL CONTROL BUILDINGS FACILITY (continued) EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY PURVEYOR REPRESENTATIVE REPORT STAFF REPORTS MEETING BREAK AND ADJOURN- MENT TO CLOSED SESSION RECONVENED TO REGULAR SESSION ACTION 1 REPORT ON ITEMS DISCUSSED DURING CLOSED SESSION No reportable Board action. -74- Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)/Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation re: Meyers Landfill Site: United States of America vs. EI Dorado County and City of South Lake Tahoe and Third Party Defendants, Civil Action No. S-01-1520 LKK GGH, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Ca. REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 2007 PAGE - 5 No reportable Board action. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)/Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Two Cases) No reportable Board action. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957/Public Employee Evaluation: Title - General Manager 5:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT Eric W. Schafer, Board President South Tahoe Public Utility District ATTEST: Kathy Sharp, Clerk of the Board South Tahoe Public Utility District -75- South Tahoe Public Utility District -.-._ no-. ,.... RIclfwd H...... ~ ~Ioett F...-nl8 ..hamlll& It .JolllII& Mal)' Lou Moel>adw ou- M11Lt1ctl Erlc;~ ., :"~ i 1275 Mc1adow"Crest Drive - South Lake Tahoe.CA 9615().1401 f'hon6 530 544-6474- Fax 530 541..Q614- WWW.5tput.tu5 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6a TO: Board of Directors FROM: Rhonda McFarlane, Chief Financial Officer MEETING DATE: June 21,2007 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Sewer Financing REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Authorize staff to engage bond counsel services for the sewer financing. DISCUSSION: The District's Financial Advisor, Bartle Wells Associates received responses from five lenders interested in funding the District's sewer financing. Negotiations are presently underway with the two lenders providing the best terms. Bartle Wells recommends having the District's bond counsel, Jones Hall, draw up the legal documents since they are most familiar with the District's existing debt. Jones Hall has provided the District with excellent service in the past and staff believes retaining them will provide efficiency and ensure the District's interests are protected. Since terms of the financing are still under negotiations, Jones Hall has not finalized their proposal for the work. Staff will bring the details of the proposal to the Board meeting with a recommendation. If for some reason the terms of the Jones Hall proposal are not acceptable, then the Board will be asked to approve services from an alternate provider. SCHEDULE: Debt issuance by June 30,2007, or as soon as possible thereafter. COSTS: To be provided at the meeting ACCOUNT NO: TBD BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $10,000,000 issuance anticipated including issuance costs. The borrowing was not in the 2007 adopted budget but is in the proposed 2008 financial plan. ATTACHMENTS: None CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES It} J NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~ NO CATEGORY: Sewer -77- JONES ~- TJL/~ -7_ CL- , I' 1.,\-01'; JJod) U\;\~ IlALL A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES F, ADAMS ALISON J, BENGE' 'THOMAS A, DOWNEY DAVID T, Jo~MA SCOTTR. FERGUSON ANDREW C. HALL. JR, COUHTNEY L JONES Wll.LIAM J, KADI CHRISTOPHER It, LYNCH Wn.LIAM H. MADISON STEPHEN G, MELIKIAN DAVID A. WALTON JULIE A. WUNDERLICH . A.DMITTED TO NORTH GAROLmA ONLY 650CALIFORNlA STREET EIGH'rEENTII Jo-LOOH SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94108 TELEPHONE (416) 391.15780 FACSIMILE (416) 391-6784 June 18, 2007 KENNETH L JONES. RETmED HOMEPAGE: http://www.joneshallcom e-mail: wmadison@joneshall.com Rhonda McFarlane Chief Financial Officer South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Re: 2007 Installment Sale Financing of Sewer System Improvements Dear Rhonda: At your request, this letter sets forth our proposal to provide bond counsel services to the South Tahoe Public Utility District (the "District") related to the above-referenced Financing, which will take the form of an Installment Sale Agreement secured by a pledge of the revenues of the District's Sewer System (referred to herein as the "Financing"). As bond counsel, we will draft all resolutions and legal documents for the Financing, including an approving resolution of your Board, installment sale agreement, trust agreement and assignment agreement, and all closing documents, consult with you and other District officials and the District's financial advisor, discuss the Financing with representatives of either Union Bank of California or Bank of America (the "Bank"), attend (as requested) meetings of the financing team and the District Board of Directors, and address a final approving opinion to the District and the Bank as to the validity of the Installment Sale Agreement and tax-exempt status of interest on the Financing, We will coordinate the closing and assembly of all closing documents. At the conclusion of the financing, we will prepare a closing transcript binder for all participants. I will be the attorney at this firm providing the bond counsel services. My partner Dave Walton will provide federal tax advice on this transaction. We propose a flat fee of $30,000, plus expenses of not to exceed $2,500, payable only upon closing of the Financing. I hope this proposal is acceptable. Please let me know if you would like me to prepare a formal fee agreement. I look forward to working with you. Very trul Y yours, 41~li~n ~ ......... IOc:t.w H. 60llIrle South Tahoe Public Utility District ~ Kathleen F arrtlII ;.m.,. ~ ..klfIes Marylou ~ DuMt" M1l1.au1 Eric ~ 1275 MtJadowCrest DrIve. South Lake T.id1oe. CA 96150-7401 Phon6 5ao 544-6414- Fax 530 54t..0614ev.ww:5tpud.lf5 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6b TO: Board of Directors FROM: Rhonda McFarlane, Chief Financial Officer MEETING DATE: June 21, 2007 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Sewer Financing REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Authorize Board President and Chief Financial Officer to sign documents and execute transaction for the sewer financing. DISCUSSION: The District's Financial Advisor, Bartle Wells Associates received responses from five lenders interested in funding the District's sewer financing. Negotiations are presently underway with the two lenders providing the best terms. Staff will bring the details of the sewer financing lender to the Board meeting with a recommendation. SCHEDULE: Debt issuance by June 30, 2007 or as soon as possible thereafter. COSTS: TBD ACCOUNT NO: TBD BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $10,000,000 issuance anticipated including issuance costs. The borrowing was not in the 2007 adopted budget but is in the proposed 2008 financial plan. ATTACHMENTS: None CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~ NO -79- CATEGORY: Sewer PAYMENT OF CLAIMS FOR APPROVAL June 21, 2007 Payroll 6/6/07 Total Payroll BNY Western Trust Company FirstTier/Cost Containment-health care pmts LaSalle Bank Hatch & Parent-legal services Total Vendor EFT Accounts Payable Checks-Sewer Fund Accounts Payable Checks-Water Fund Accounts Payable Checks-Self-funded Ins Accounts Payable Checks-Grant Fund Total Accounts Payable Grand Total Pavroll EFTs & Checks EFT EFT EFT CHK EFT EFT CHK EFT CHK CHK EFT CHK AFLAC Medical & Dependent Care CA Employment Taxes & W/H Federal Employment Taxes & W /H CalPERS Contributions John Hancock Pension Loan Pmts Great West Deferred Comp Stationary Engineers Union Dues United Way Contributions CA State Disbursement Unit CA State Franchise Tax Board Employee Direct Deposits Employee Paychecks Adjust for prior period correction Total -81- 6/6/07 946.20 13,773.05 80,767.86 46,318.50 2,780.61 15,506.44 1,915.07 91.00 780.92 42.62 176,613.36 14,882.61 416.45 354,834.69 354,834.69 354,834.69 0.00 93,090.38 0.00 29,827.58 122,917.96 676,515.11 807,535.54 515.00 0.00' 1,484,565.65 1,962,318.30 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vendor Name Department / Proi Name Description Acct# / Proi Code Amount Check Num Tvpe A -1 CHEMICAL INC GEN & ADMIN JANIT /SUPPLY INV 1000 - 0422 161.84 Check Total: 161.84 AP -00066534 MW ACCOUNTEMPS FINANCE CONTRACT SERVICE 1039 - 4405 756.00 ACCOUNTEMPS FINANCE CONTRACT SERVICE 2039 - 4405 756.00 Check Total: 1,512.00 AP -00066535 MW ACE HARDWARE OF SO LAKE TAHOE HEAVY MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES 1004 - 6071 5715.68 Check Total: 575.68 AP -00066536 MW ACWA SERVICES CORP (ASC) GEN & ADMIN VISION INS 1000 - 2530 2,484.64 Check Total: 2,484.64 AP- 00066537 MW ALL ELECTRIC MOTORS INC PUMPS WELLS 2002 - 6050 4,228.27 Check Total: 4 228.27 AP -00066538 MW ALPEN SIERRA COFFEE COMPANY FINANCE OFC SUPPLY ISSUE 1039 - 6081 173.75 Check Total: 173.75 AP -00066539 MW ALPINE METALS HEAVY MAINT PRIMARY EQUIP 1004 - 6021 928.00 Check Total: 928.00 AP -00066540 MW 1 AMICAN HOMELAND SOLUTIONS OPERATIONS TRAVEUMEETINGS 1006 - 6200 593.00 Check Total: 593.00 AP- 00066541 MW AMERIGAS - SO LAKE TAHOE DIAMOND VLY RNCH PROPANE 1028 - 6360 865.88 Check Total: 865.88 AP- 00066542 MW ANNONI, GARY CUSTOMER SERVICE - WTR CNSRV INCNT WTR CONS EXPENSE 2038 - 6660 - WCNCTV 250.00 Check Total: 250.00 AP- 00066543 MW APOLLO PLUMBING & HTN,TERRY'S UNDERGROUND REP PIPE /CVRS /MHLS 1001 - 6052 1,900.00 Check Total: 1,900.00 AP -00066544 MW ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES GEN & ADMIN UNIFORM PAYABLE 1000 - 2518 845.98 Check Total: 845.98 AP -00066545 MW AT &T INFORMATION SYS TELEPHONE 1037 - 6310 13.15 AT &T INFORMATION SYS TELEPHONE 2037 - 6310 13.15 Check Total: 26.30 AP -00066547 MW AT &T/MCI GEN & ADMIN TELEPHONE 1000 - 6310 621.30 AT &T /MCI PUMPS TELEPHONE 1002 - 6310 164.57 AT &T /MCI CUSTOMER SERVICE TELEPHONE 1038 - 6310 7.50 User: THERESA Page: 1 Current Date: 06/14/2007 Report: OH_PMT CLAIMS_V2 Current Time: 10:57:58 Vendor Name CALIF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CALIF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CALIF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CALIF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CALIF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CALIF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CALIF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CALIF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CALIF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CALIF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CALIF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CALIF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CALIF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CALIF DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES CALlt DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES CALIF E P A CALIF E P A CALIFORNIA OVERNIGHT CALIFORNIA OVERNIGHT CaIPERS CaIPERS CAPITOL WEBWORKS LLC CAPITOL WEBWORKS LLC CAPPA, ROBERT CDW - G CORP User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_V2 Department / Pro' Name HEAVY MAINT HEAVY MAINT OPERATIONS OPERATIONS OPERATIONS OPERATIONS LABORATORY LABORATORY CUSTOMER SERVICE ELECTRICAL SHOP LABORATORY LABORATORY CUSTOMER SERVICE ENGINEERING ENGINEERING LABORATORY LABORATORY LABORATORY LABORATORY GEN & ADMIN GEN & ADMIN DIO DIO PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Description PRIMARY EQUIP SHOP SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES SECONDARY EQUIP FURNACE EQUIP GROUNDS & MNTC LAB SUPPLIES SAFETY /EQUIP /PHY SMALL TOOLS WELLS LAB SUPPLIES SAFETY /EQUIP /PHY SMALL TOOLS OPERATING PERMIT OPERATING PERMIT OPERATING PERMIT OPERATING PERMIT POSTAGE EXPENSES POSTAGE EXPENSES CALPERS PPD EMPL CALPERS PPD EMPL CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE CUSTOMER SERVICE - WTR CNSRV INCNT WTR CONS EXPENSE INFORMATION SYS DIST.COMP SPPLIS Page: 3 Acct# / Pro' Code 1004 - 6021 1004 - 6071 1006 - 4760 1006 - 6022 1006 - 6024 1006 - 6042 1007 - 4760 1007 - 6075 1038 - 6073 2003 - 6050 2007 - 4760 2007 - 6075 2038 - 6073 1029-6650 2029-6650 1007 - 6650 2007 - 6650 1007 - 4810 2007 - 4810 1000 - 0303 2000 - 0303 1027 - 4405 2027 - 4405 1037 - 4840 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: 2038 - 6660 - WCNCTV Check Total: Current Date: 06/14/2007 Current Time: 10:57:58 Amount 554.13 13.18 53.02 43.52 7.31 22.35 46.46 2.06 10.15 30.05 46.44 2.06 10.15 1,188.90 AP -00066559 MW 874.00 874.00 Check Num Type 1,748.00 AP -00066560 mw 107.50 107.50 215.00 AP -00066561 MW 69.00 18.00 87.00 AP -00066562 MW 466,155.50 466,155.50 932,311.00 AP -00066563 MW 35.00 35.00 70.00 AP -00066564 MW 75.00 75.00 AP -00066565 MW 1,809.41 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vendor Name Department / Proi Name Description Acct# / Proi Code Amount Check Num Type AT &T/MCI GEN & ADMIN TELEPHONE 2000 - 6310 621.29 AT &T /MCI PUMPS TELEPHONE 2002 - 6310 118.33 AT &T /MCI CUSTOMER SERVICE TELEPHONE 2038 - 6310 7.50 Check Total: 1,540.49 AP- 00066546 MW BANK OF NEW YORK, THE FINANCE - COPS FISCAL AGENT FEE 1039 - 6730 - 04DEBT 1,800.00 Check Total: 1,800.00 AP- 00066548 MW BANK OF SACRAMENTO GEN & ADMIN - UPPER DRESSLER CONST RETAINAGE 1000 - 2605 - DRSSLR 813.60 Check Total: 813.60 AP- 00066549 MW BAUGHMAN, TERRYL CUSTOMER SERVICE - WTR CNSRV INCNT WTR CONS EXPENSE 2038 - 6660 - WCNCTV 100.00 Check Total: 100.00 AP- 00066550 MW BB &H BENEFIT DESIGNS HUMAN RESOURCES CONTRACT SERVICE 1022 - 4405 624.50 BB &H BENEFIT DESIGNS HUMAN RESOURCES CONTRACT SERVICE 2022 - 4405 624.50 Check Total: 1,249.00 AP- 00066551 MW BENTLY AGROWDYNAMICS OPERATIONS SLUDGE DISPOSAL 1006 - 6652 1,944.21 Check Total: 1,944.21 AP- 00066552 MW BINc v1ATERIALS UNDERGROUND REP PIPE /CVRS/MHLS 2001 - 6052 319.32 1 Check Total: 319.32 AP- 00066553 MW BLAKE'S FLORAL DESIGN ADMINISTRATION SUPPLIES 1021 - 6520 25.05 BLAKE'S FLORAL DESIGN ADMINISTRATION SUPPLIES 2021 - 6520 25.05 Check Total: 50.10 AP- 00066554 MW BODINE GROUP, THE ADMINISTRATION CONTRACT SERVICE 1021 - 4405 6,107.23 BODINE GROUP, THE ADMINISTRATION CONTRACT SERVICE 2021 - 4405 6,107.22 Check Total: 12,214.45 AP- 00066555 MW BOYLE ENGINEERING CORP ENGINEERING - SUT WELL REDRILL SUT WELL REDRILL 2029 - 8463 - RWSUTR 32,053.26 Check Total: 32,053.26 AP- 00066556 MW BYE, SCOTT GEN & ADMIN UB SUSPENSE 2000 - 2002 666.00 BYE, SCOTT GEN & ADMIN METER SALE 2000 - 3545 435.00 Check Total: 1,101.00 AP- 00066557 MW CALIF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION UNDERGROUND REP PIPE /CVRS /MHLS 1001 - 6052 34.41 CALIF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION PUMPS PUMP,BCHR SPS 1002 - 7527 139.96 CALIF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ELECTRICAL SHOP PUMP STATIONS 1003 - 6051 169.26 CALIF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION HEAVY MAINT MOBILE EQUIP 1004 - 6012 4.39 User: THERESA Page: 2 Current Date: 06/14/2007 Report: OH_PMT CLAJMS_V2 Current Time: 10:57:58 Vendor Name CDW - G CORP CDW - G CORP CDW - G CORP 13,222.03 AP- 00066566 MW CINGULAR HEAVY MAINT TELEPHONE 1004 - 6310 9.50 CINGULAR LABORATORY TELEPHONE 1007 - 6310 5.33 CINGULAR ENGINEERING TELEPHONE 1029 - 6310 6.56 CINGULAR LABORATORY TELEPHONE 2007 - 6310 5.33 CINGULAR ENGINEERING TELEPHONE 2029 - 6310 6.56 Check Total: 33.28 AP- 00066567 MW CINGULAR UNDERGROUND REP TELEPHONE 1001 - 6310 53.69 CINGULAR PUMPS TELEPHONE 1002 - 6310 17.36 CINGULAR ELECTRICAL SHOP TELEPHONE 1003 - 6310 15.33 CINGULAR HEAVY MAINT TELEPHONE 1004 - 6310 9.21 CINGULAR EQUIPMENT REP TELEPHONE 1005 - 6310 26.36 CINd JLAR LABORATORY TELEPHONE 1007 - 6310 16.53 CIN i 1LAR ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 1021 - 6310 8.19 CINGULAR DIO TELEPHONE 1027 - 6310 16.50 CINGULAR DIAMOND VLY RNCH TELEPHONE 1028 - 6310 10.25 CINGULAR ENGINEERING TELEPHONE 1029 - 6310 46.10 CINGULAR INFORMATION SYS TELEPHONE 1037 - 6310 4.54 CINGULAR CUSTOMER SERVICE TELEPHONE 1038 - 6310 47.72 CINGULAR UNDERGROUND REP TELEPHONE 2001 - 6310 80.25 CINGULAR PUMPS TELEPHONE 2002 - 6310 17.36 CINGULAR ELECTRICAL SHOP TELEPHONE 2003 - 6310 15.32 CINGULAR EQUIPMENT REPAIR TELEPHONE 2005 - 6310 26.36 CINGULAR LABORATORY TELEPHONE 2007 - 6310 16.52 CINGULAR ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 2021 - 6310 8.18 CINGULAR DIO TELEPHONE 2027 - 6310 16.49 CINGULAR ENGINEERING TELEPHONE 2029 - 6310 46.09 CINGULAR INFORMATION SYS TELEPHONE 2037 - 6310 4.54 CINGULAR CUSTOMER SERVICE TELEPHONE 2038 - 6310 68.05 User: THERESA PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Department / Proi Name Description Acct# / Proi Code Amount INFORMATION SYS DIST.COMP SPPLIS 2037 - 4840 1,809.42 INFORMATION SYS CNTRLLR, WRLESS 2037 - 8699 4,707.77 INFORMATION SYS FIB WAN,ELEC /AUT 2037 - 8772 4,895.43 Check Total: Page: 4 Current Date: 06/14/2007 Report: OH_PMT CLAIMS_V2 Current Time: 10:57:58 Check Num ly.0 Vendor Name CONEXIS CONEXIS CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LABS CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LABS CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LABS CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LABS CROSSPOINTE PARTNERS LLC CROSSPOINTE PARTNERS LLC CWEA CWEA CWEA CW4 rn CWEA SIERRA SECTION DARLEY & COMPANY, W.S. DE DIEGO, BRIAN DELL MARKETING L P DELL MARKETING L P DELL MARKETING L P DELL MARKETING L P Dhawan, Prem N. Dhawan, Prem N. DLT SOLUTIONS INC User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_V2 Department / Proi Name HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN RESOURCES LABORATORY LABORATORY - ARHD3 TRTMT EXP LABORATORY - SOYCON LABORATORY - TAHOE TOM CONTAM DIO DIO UNDERGROUND REP DIAMOND VLY RNCH ENGINEERING ENGINEERING OPERATIONS OPERATIONS UNDERGROUND REP FINANCE FINANCE INFORMATION SYS PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Description CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE MONITORING MONITORING MONITORING MONITORING CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE TRAVEL/MEETINGS DUES /MEMB /CERT DUES /MEMB /CERT DUES /MEMB /CERT TRAVEUMEETINGS GROUNDS & MNTC MISC LIAB CLAIMS INFORMATION SYS DIST.COMP SPPLIS INFORMATION SYS DIST.COMP SPPLIS INFORMATION SYS REPL LAPTOP, CS CUSTOMER SERVICE - WTR CONS PROG WTR CONS EXPENSE LOAN PRINCIPAL INTEREST EXPENSE SERVICE CONTRACT Page: 5 Acct# / Proi Code 1022 - 4405 2022 - 4405 1007 - 6110 2007 - 6110 - AH3EXP 2007 - 6110 - SOYCON 2007 - 6110 - TOMCON Check Total: 1027 - 4405 2027 - 4405 1001 - 6200 1028 - 6250 1029 - 6250 2029-6250 1006 - 6200 1006 - 6042 2001 - 4520 2039 - 6709 2039 - 6710 1037-6030 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: 1037 - 4840 2037 - 4840 2037 - 8784 2038 - 6660 - WCPROG Check Total: Check Total: Current Date: 06/14/2007 Current Time: 10:57:58 Amount 570.94 30.80 30.80 Check Num Type AP- 00066568 MW 61.60 AP- 00066569 MW 190.00 227.50 227.50 455.00 1,100.00 AP -00066570 MW 2,750.00 2,750.00 5,500.00 AP- 00066571 MW 160.00 173.00 26.00 25.00 384.00 AP -00066573 MW 40.00 40.00 AP -00066572 MW 490.96 490.96 AP -00066574 MW 95.00 95.00 AP -00066575 MW 2,310.60 6.00 2,317.38 2,317.43 6,951.41 AP- 00066576 MW 3,757.30 201.62 3,958.92 AP -00066577 MW 2,294.90 Vendor Name DLT SOLUTIONS INC DLT SOLUTIONS INC E &M ELECTRIC AND MACHINERY E &M ELECTRIC AND MACHINERY EL DORADO COUNTY EL DORADO COUNTY ENGELHARDT, ANDY EPPENDORF NORTH AMERICA SRV EPPENDORF NORTH AMERICA SRV FER®USON ENTERPRISES INC. FERL;USON ENTERPRISES INC. FERNANDEZ, ERNESTO FERNANDEZ, ERNESTO FISHER SCIENTIFIC FISHER SCIENTIFIC FLOWSERVE PUMP DIV FOSTER FLOW CONTROL FOUNDATION FOR X- CONNECTION FRYE, WILLIAM User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_V2 Department / Proi Name UNDERGROUND REP INFORMATION SYS INFORMATION SYS INFORMATION SYS ENGINEERING - WELL, BAYVIEW WELL, BAYVIEW ENGINEERING - SUT WELL REDRILL SUT WELL REDRILL CUSTOMER SERVICE - WTR CNSRV INCNT WTR CONS EXPENSE LABORATORY LABORATORY HEAVY MAINT UNDERGROUND REP GEN & ADMIN GEN & ADMIN LABORATORY LABORATORY PUMPS OPERATIONS CUSTOMER SERVICE INFORMATION SYS PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page: 6 Description OFFICE SUPPLIES SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT LABORATORY EQUIP LABORATORY EQUIP GROUNDS & MNTC PIPE /CVRS /MHLS UB SUSPENSE UB SUSPENSE LAB SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES WELLS REP BRKPT VLV #1 DUES /MEMB /CERT TRAVEL/MEETINGS Acct# / Prof Code 2001 - 4820 2037 - 6030 1037 - 6030 2037 - 6030 2029 - 8574 - BAYWEL Check Total: 2029 - 8463 - RWSUTR Check Total: 2038 - 6660 - WCNCTV Check Total: 1007 - 6025 2007 - 6025 1004 - 6042 2001 - 6052 1000 - 2002 2000 - 2002 1007 - 4760 2007 - 4760 2002 - 6050 1006 - 8753 2038 - 6250 1037 - 6200 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Current Date: 06/14/2007 Current Time: 10:57:58 Amount 679.68 2,298.93 350.23 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,850.00 1,850.00 550.00 Check Num Type 5,273.51 AP- 00066578 MW 175.12 175.11 AP -00066579 MW AP -00066533 MW AP- 00066580 MW 550.00 AP -00066581 MW 124.72 128.57 253.29 AP -00066582 MW 17.92 1,525.95 1,543.87 AP -00066583 MW 42.03 742.05 784.08 AP- 00066584 MW 33.92 77.67 111.59 AP -00066585 MW 1,204.05 1,204.05 AP -00066586 MW 8,454.07 8,454.07 AP- 00066587 MW 504.00 504.00 AP -00066588 MW 99.00 Vendor Name FRYE, WILLIAM GBC SCIENTIFIC EQUIP INC GBC SCIENTIFIC EQUIP INC GEOTRANS INC Department / Prot Name INFORMATION SYS LABORATORY LABORATORY GLOBAL DATA SPECIALISTS ELECTRICAL SHOP Check Total: 15 003.00 AP- 00066592 MW GRAINGER GEN & ADMIN SAFETY INVENTORY 1000 - 0425 118.63 GRAINGER HEAVY MAINT BIOSOL EQUP /BLDG 1004 - 6653 64.00 GROVE MADSEN INDUSTRIES INC ELECTRICAL SHOP HASLER FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC CUSTOMER SERVICE HASS R FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC CUSTOMER SERVICE co PAYMENT OF CLAIMS INFORMATION SYS - GIS SOFTWARE GIS IMPL Description Acct# / Proi Code Amount Check Num Type TRAVEL/MEETINGS 2037 - 6200 99.00 Check Total: 198.00 AP -00066589 MW LABORATORY EQUIP 1007 - 6025 183.54 LABORATORY EQUIP 2007 - 6025 162.50 Check Total: 346.04 AP -00066590 MW 1037 - 8638 - GISSFT 1,588.13 SCADA EQP RMTS -3 1003 - 8707 Check Total: 1,588.13 AP -00066591 MW 15,003.00 Check Total: 182.63 AP -00066593 MW PUMP STATIONS 1003 - 6051 537.82 Check Total: 537.82 AP -00066594 MW EQUIP RENT /LEASE 1038 - 5020 122.57 EQUIP RENT /LEASE 2038 - 5020 122.57 Check Total: 245.14 AP -00066595 MW HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES LLC ENGINEERING - WELL, BAYVIEW WELL, BAYVIEW 2029 - 8574 - BAYWEL 8,347.39 Check Total: 8,347.39 AP- 00066596 MW HERRERA, DAN GEN & ADMIN UB SUSPENSE 1000 - 2002 1,270.00 Check Total: 1,270.00 AP- 00066597 MW HOLT OF CALIFORNIA EQUIPMENT REPAIR AUTOMOTIVE 2005 - 6011 39.59 Check Total: 39.59 AP -00066598 MW HUGO BONDED LOCKSMITH PUMPS SMALL TOOLS 1002 - 6073 3.09 HUGO BONDED LOCKSMITH PUMPS SMALL TOOLS 2002 - 6073 3.09 Check Total: 6.18 AP -00066599 MW IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES UNDERGROUND REP TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1001 - 6200 913.24 IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES PUMPS OFFICE SUPPLIES 1002 - 4820 9.42 IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES PUMPS SHOP SUPPLIES 1002 - 6071 47.71 IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES PUMPS STANDBY ACCOMODA 1002 - 6083 36.81 IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES PUMPS TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1002 - 6200 630.00 IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES HEAVY MAINT OFFICE SUPPLIES 1004 - 4820 23.69 User: THERESA Page: 7 Current Date: 06/14/2007 Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_V2 Current Time: 10:57:58 Vendor Name IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES o IMPkft GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLALMS_V2 Department / Prol Name HEAVY MAINT EQUIPMENT REP OPERATIONS OPERATIONS OPERATIONS LABORATORY - ICR TMDL LABORATORY LABORATORY LABORATORY LABORATORY LABORATORY BOARD OF DIR ADMINISTRATION HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN RESOURCES DIO DIO DIAMOND VLY RNCH DIAMOND VLY RNCH ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING - DVR EIR INFORMATION SYS INFORMATION SYS CUSTOMER SERVICE CUSTOMER SERVICE CUSTOMER SERVICE FINANCE FINANCE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Description TRAVEL/MEETINGS TRAVEUMEETINGS OFFICE SUPPLIES SHOP SUPPLIES TRAVEUMEETINGS LAB SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES RADIO - RPRS /RPLCM TRAVEUMEETINGS DUES /MEMB /CERT TRAVEUMEETINGS TRAVEUMEETINGS OFFICE SUPPLIES TRAVEUMEETINGS PERSONNEL EXPENS PRINTING TRAVEUMEETINGS TRAVEUMEETINGS FENCE, DVR GASOLINE OFFICE SUPPLIES SAFETY /EQUIP /PHY TRAVEUMEETINGS DIAM VLY MP /EIR DIST.COMP SPPLIS TRAVEUMEETINGS POSTAGE EXPENSES OFFICE SUPPLIES TRAVEL/MEETINGS OFFICE SUPPLIES SUBSCRIPTIONS Acct# / Proi Code 1004 - 6200 1005 - 6200 1006 - 4820 1006 - 6071 1006 - 6200 1007 - 4760 - ICTMDL 1007 - 4760 1007 - 4820 1007 - 6056 1007 - 6200 1007 - 6250 1019 - 6200 1021 - 6200 1022 - 4820 1022 - 6200 1022 - 6670 1027 - 4920 1027 - 6200 1028 - 6200 1028 - 8689 1029 - 4610 1029 - 4820 1029 - 6075 1029 - 6200 1029 - 8725 - DVREIR 1037 - 4840 1037 - 6200 1038 -4810 1038 - 4820 1038 - 6200 1039 - 4820 1039 - 4830 Page: 8 Current Date: 06/14/2007 Current Time: 10:57:58 Amount Check Num Type 756.30 20.04 51.03 64.64 1,413.22 696.87 101.10 93.35 16.12 18.63 110.00 273.95 52.82 100.62 332.66 146.65 8.07 405.90 265.99 1,254.14 52.33 34.38 225.82 1,839.37 99.16 14.98 577.80 144.88 256.44 835.61 253.59 29.61 Vendor Name IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMP GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES IMPAC GOVERNMENT SERVICES User: THERESA Department / Prol Name FINANCE FINANCE PUMPS PUMPS PUMPS PUMPS PUMPS EQUIPMENT REPAIR LABORATORY LABORATORY LABORATORY LABORATORY BOARD OF DIR ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN RESOURCES DIO DIO ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING INFORMATION SYS INFORMATION SYS CUSTOMER SERVICE CUSTOMER SERVICE CUSTOMER SERVICE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Description TRAVEUMEETINGS SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES GROUNDS & MNTC SHOP SUPPLIES STANDBY ACCOMODA TRAVEUMEETINGS TRAVEUMEETINGS LAB SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES RADIO - RPRS /RPLCM TRAVEL/MEETINGS TRAVEL/MEETINGS SHOP SUPPLIES TRAVEUMEETINGS OFFICE SUPPLIES PERSONNEL EXPENS PRINTING TRAVEUMEETINGS GASOLINE OFFICE SUPPLIES SAFETY/EQUIP /PHY TRAVEUMEETINGS DIST.COMP SPPLIS TRAVEUMEETINGS POSTAGE EXPENSES OFFICE SUPPLIES TRAVEUMEETINGS OFFICE SUPPLIES SUBSCRIPTIONS TRAVEUMEETINGS SUPPLIES Acct# / Proi Code 1039 - 6200 1039 - 6520 2002 - 4820 2002 - 6042 2002 - 6071 2002 - 6083 2002 - 6200 2005 - 6200 2007 - 4760 2007 - 4820 2007 - 6056 2007 - 6200 2019 - 6200 2021 - 6071 2021 - 6200 2022 - 4820 2022 - 6670 2027 - 4920 2027 - 6200 2029 - 4610 2029 - 4820 2029 - 6075 2029 - 6200 2037 - 4840 2037 - 6200 2038 - 4810 2038 - 4820 2038 - 6200 2039 - 4820 2039 - 4830 2039 - 6200 2039 - 6520 Page: 9 Current Date: 06/14/2007 Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_V2 Current Time: 10:57:58 Amount Check Num Time 266.37 2.48 9.41 26.09 47.72 36.80 962.66 20.03 101.09 93.35 16.12 18.62 273.94 59.98 52.81 100.61 146.65 8.07 405.89 52.33 34.38 225.82 1,734.04 14.97 577.79 144.87 256.44 835.60 253.58 29.60 266.38 2.47 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vendor Name Department / Proi Name Description Acct# / Proi Code Amount Check Num Tvpe Check Total: 19,283.90 AP- 00066603 MW INFOLINK SCREENING SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES PERSONNEL EXPENS 1022 - 6670 149.05 INFOLINK SCREENING SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES PERSONNEL EXPENS 2022 - 6670 149.05 Check Total: 298.10 AP- 00066604 MW INSTY- PRINTS INC FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES 1039 - 4820 180.57 INSTY- PRINTS INC UNDERGROUND REP SHOP SUPPLIES 2001 - 6071 129.34 INSTY- PRINTS INC CUSTOMER SERVICE - WTR CONS PROG WTR CONS EXPENSE 2038 - 6660 - WCPROG 362.42 INSTY - PRINTS INC FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES 2039 - 4820 180.56 Check Total: 852.89 AP- 00066605 MW INTERSTATE SAFETY & SUPPLY GEN & ADMIN SHOP SUPPLY INV 1000 - 0421 882.17 INTERSTATE SAFETY & SUPPLY GEN & ADMIN SAFETY INVENTORY 1000 - 0425 661.33 INTERSTATE SAFETY & SUPPLY OPERATIONS SAFETY /EQUIP /PHY 1006 - 6075 103.46 Check Total: 1,646.96 AP- 00066606 MW IS INC INFORMATION SYS TRAVEUMEETINGS 1037 - 6200 900.00 IS INC INFORMATION SYS TRAVEL/MEETINGS 2037 - 6200 900.00 r Check Total: 1,800.00 AP- 00066607 MW KAISER PERMANENTE SELF FUNDED INS CLAIMS 3000 - 6745 515.00 Check Total: 515.00 AP- 00066608 MW KLINE OD, STEVEN L EQUIPMENT REP SAFETY /EQUIP /PHY 1005 - 6075 84.50 KLINE OD, STEVEN L EQUIPMENT REPAIR SAFETY /EQUIP /PHY 2005 - 6075 84.50 Check Total: 169.00 AP -00066609 MW KOFF & ASSOCIATES INC ADMINISTRATION CONTRACT SERVICE 1021 - 4405 7,035.00 KOFF & ASSOCIATES INC ADMINISTRATION CONTRACT SERVICE 2021 - 4405 7,035.00 Check Total: 14,070.00 AP- 00066610 MW KOLARI, KIM CUSTOMER SERVICE - WTR CNSRV INCNT WTR CONS EXPENSE 2038 - 6660 - WCNCTV 250.00 Check Total: 250.00 AP -00066611 MW KOSMIDES, STEVE GEN & ADMIN UB SUSPENSE 2000 - 2002 666.00 KOSMIDES, STEVE GEN & ADMIN METER SALE 2000 - 3545 311.00 Check Total: 977.00 AP -00066612 MW LABSCIENCES INC. LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 1007 - 4760 122.90 User: THERESA Page: 10 Current Date: 06/14/2007 Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_V2 Current Time: 10:57:58 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vendor Name Department / Proi Name Description Acct# / Prol Code Amount Check Num Liu LABSCIENCES INC. LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 2007 - 4760 113.48 Check Total: 236.38 AP- 00066614 MW LAKE TAHOE PLUMBING INC UNDERGROUND REP MISC LIAB CLAIMS 2001 - 4520 392.00 Check Total: 392.00 AP- 00066615 MW LAKESIDE NAPA PUMPS OIL & LUBE 1002 - 4630 26.25 LAKESIDE NAPA PUMPS SHOP SUPPLIES 1002 - 6071 7.00 LAKESIDE NAPA PUMPS SMALL TOOLS 1002 - 6073 37.05 LAKESIDE NAPA HEAVY MAINT GROUNDS & MNTC 1004 - 6042 149.70 LAKESIDE NAPA EQUIPMENT REP AUTOMOTIVE 1005 - 6011 481.19 LAKESIDE NAPA EQUIPMENT REP GENERATORS 1005 - 6013 121.03 LAKESIDE NAPA EQUIPMENT REP SHOP SUPPLIES 1005 - 6071 131.57 LAKESIDE NAPA EQUIPMENT REP SMALL TOOLS 1005 - 6073 228.96 LAKESIDE NAPA DIAMOND VLY RNCH GROUNDS & MNTC 1028 - 6042 99.64 LAKESIDE NAPA UNDERGROUND REP SHOP SUPPLIES 2001 - 6071 46.11 LAKESIDE NAPA PUMPS PUMP STATIONS 2002 - 6051 16.37 LAKV NAPA PUMPS SHOP SUPPLIES 2002 - 6071 6.98 LAKIttIDE NAPA PUMPS SMALL TOOLS 2002 - 6073 37.05 LAKESIDE NAPA EQUIPMENT REPAIR AUTOMOTIVE 2005 - 6011 493.21 LAKESIDE NAPA EQUIPMENT REPAIR GENERATORS 2005 - 6013 326.53 LAKESIDE NAPA EQUIPMENT REPAIR SHOP SUPPLIES 2005 - 6071 131.56 LAKESIDE NAPA EQUIPMENT REPAIR SMALL TOOLS 2005 - 6073 228.96 Check Total: 2 569.16 AP- 00066616 MW LASAROW, JERRY CUSTOMER SERVICE - WTR CNSRV INCNT WTR CONS EXPENSE 2038 - 6660 - WCNCTV 100.00 Check Total: 100.00 AP- 00066617 MW LAWTON, BRADLEY CUSTOMER SERVICE - WTR CNSRV INCNT WTR CONS EXPENSE 2038 - 6660 - WCNCTV 250.00 Check Total: 250.00 AP- 00066618 MW LIVE WIRE MEDIA PARTNERS DIO - WTR CONS PROG WTR CONS EXPENSE 2027 - 6660 - WCPROG 336.00 Check Total: 336.00 AP- 00066619 MW LOOMIS FARGO & CO. FINANCE CONTRACT SERVICE 1039 - 4405 256.10 LOOMIS FARGO & CO. FINANCE CONTRACT SERVICE 2039 - 4405 256.10 Check Total: 512.20 AP- 00066620 MW MANNA CONSULTING INFORMATION SYS CONTRACT SERVICE 1037 - 4405 737.50 User: THERESA Page: 11 Current Date: 06/14/2007 Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_V2 Current Time: 10:57:58 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vendor Name Department / Proi Name Description Acct# / Proi Code Amount Check Num Type MANNA CONSULTING INFORMATION SYS CONTRACT SERVICE 2037 - 4405 737.50 Check Total: 1,475.00 AP- 00066621 MW MARTIN, DONALD L & MARJORIE FINANCE LOAN PRINCIPAL 2039 - 6709 7,514.60 MARTIN, DONALD L & MARJORIE FINANCE INTEREST EXPENSE 2039 - 6710 403.24 Check Total: _ 791 AP -00066622 MW MARTIN, JAMES H. FINANCE LOAN PRINCIPAL 2039 - 6709 3,757.30 MARTIN, JAMES H. FINANCE INTEREST EXPENSE 2039 - 6710 201.62 Check Total: 3,958.92 AP -00066623 MW MARTIN - KOBELLAS, LOUISE FINANCE LOAN PRINCIPAL 2039 - 6709 3,488.78 MARTIN - KOBELLAS, LOUISE FINANCE INTEREST EXPENSE 2039 - 6710 187.21 Check Total: 3,675.99 AP- 00066624 MW MC MASTER CARR SUPPLY CO PUMPS PUMP STATIONS 1002 - 6051 71.81 MC MASTER CARR SUPPLY CO PUMPS SMALL TOOLS 1002 - 6073 71.11 MC MASTER CARR SUPPLY CO PUMPS WELLS 2002 - 6050 184.81 MC MASTER CARR SUPPLY CO PUMPS PUMP STATIONS 2002 - 6051 53.53 C 1/4 Check Total: 381.26 AP -00066625 MW MCINTYRE, BOB GEN & ADMIN UB SUSPENSE 2000 - 2002 133.00 MCINTYRE, BOB GEN & ADMIN - Time & Materials MISC INCOME 2000 - 3540 - TMCB 1,000.00 MCINTYRE, BOB GEN & ADMIN METER SALE 2000 - 3545 65.00 Check Total: 1,198.00 AP- 00066626 MW McQUEARY EXCAVATING INC, MARV GEN & ADMIN - WTRLN, GLEN RD CONST RETAINAGE 2000 - 2605 - GLENWL - 11,395.50 McQUEARY EXCAVATING INC, MARV ENGINEERING - WTRLN, GLEN RD WTLN, GLEN RD 2029 - 8714 - GLENWL 113,955.00 Check Total: 102,559.50 AP -00066627 MW MEEKS BUILDING CENTER UNDERGROUND REP SUPPLIES 1001 - 6520 45.24 MEEKS BUILDING CENTER PUMPS BUILDINGS 1002 - 6041 108.70 MEEKS BUILDING CENTER PUMPS GROUNDS & MNTC 1002 - 6042 23.44 MEEKS BUILDING CENTER PUMPS PUMP STATIONS 1002 - 6051 52.64 MEEKS BUILDING CENTER PUMPS SHOP SUPPLIES 1002 - 6071 27.65 MEEKS BUILDING CENTER PUMPS SMALL TOOLS 1002 - 6073 108.51 MEEKS BUILDING CENTER HEAVY MAINT GROUNDS & MNTC 1004 - 6042 229.69 MEEKS BUILDING CENTER HEAVY MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES 1004 - 6071 58.85 MEEKS BUILDING CENTER DIAMOND VLY RNCH GROUNDS & MNTC 1028 - 6042 540.04 User: THERESA Page: 12 Current Date: 06/14/2007 Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_V2 Current Time: 10:57:58 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vendor Name Department I Proi Name Description Acct# ! Proi Code Amount Check Num Type MEEKS BUILDING CENTER CUSTOMER SERVICE SMALL TOOLS 1038 - 6073 9.80 MEEKS BUILDING CENTER UNDERGROUND REP PIPE /CVRS /MHLS 2001 - 6052 25.74 MEEKS BUILDING CENTER UNDERGROUND REP SMALL TOOLS 2001 - 6073 19.33 MEEKS BUILDING CENTER PUMPS WELLS 2002 - 6050 123.05 MEEKS BUILDING CENTER PUMPS SHOP SUPPLIES 2002 - 6071 27.64 MEEKS BUILDING CENTER PUMPS SMALL TOOLS 2002 - 6073 108.51 MEEKS BUILDING CENTER ENGINEERING - WTRLN,AL TAHOE WTLN, AL TAHOE 2029 - 8811 - ATWL08 51.13 MEEKS BUILDING CENTER CUSTOMER SERVICE SMALL TOOLS 2038 - 6073 9.80 Check Total: 1,569.76 AP- 00066628 MW METROCALL EQUIPMENT REP TELEPHONE 1005 - 6310 19.96 METROCALL EQUIPMENT REPAIR TELEPHONE 2005 - 6310 19.96 Check Total: 39.92 AP- 00066629 MW MICROCHECK INC LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 1007 - 4760 463.61 MICROCHECK INC LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 2007 - 4760 376.59 Check Total: 840.20 AP- 00066630 MW MID ,YOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS UNDERGROUND REP OFC EQUIP /REPAIR 2001 - 6027 103.00 I Check Total: 103.00 AP- 00066631 MW MOUNTAIN PLUMBING UNDERGROUND REP MISC LIAB CLAIMS 2001 - 4520 324.85 Check Total: 324.85 AP- 00066632 MW MY OFFICE PRODUCTS OPERATIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES 1006 - 4820 272.63 MY OFFICE PRODUCTS ENGINEERING OFFICE SUPPLIES 1029 - 4820 21.09 MY OFFICE PRODUCTS INFORMATION SYS OFFICE SUPPLIES 1037 - 4820 102.48 MY OFFICE PRODUCTS CUSTOMER SERVICE OFFICE SUPPLIES 1038 - 4820 9.15 MY OFFICE PRODUCTS ENGINEERING OFFICE SUPPLIES 2029 - 4820 21.09 MY OFFICE PRODUCTS INFORMATION SYS OFFICE SUPPLIES 2037 - 4820 102.48 MY OFFICE PRODUCTS CUSTOMER SERVICE OFFICE SUPPLIES 2038 - 4820 9.15 MY OFFICE PRODUCTS CUSTOMER SERVICE - WTR CONS PROG OFFICE SUPPLIES 2038 - 4820 - WCPROG 426.24 Check Total: 964.31 AP- 00066633 MW NEKO INDUSTRIES INC INFORMATION SYS DIST.COMP SPPLIS 1037 - 4840 258.60 NEKO INDUSTRIES INC INFORMATION SYS SERVICE CONTRACT 1037 - 6030 1,220.53 NEKO INDUSTRIES INC INFORMATION SYS DIST.COMP SPPLIS 2037 - 4840 258.60 NEKO INDUSTRIES INC INFORMATION SYS SERVICE CONTRACT 2037 - 6030 1,220.53 User: THERESA Page: 13 Current Date: 06/14/2007 Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_V2 Current Time: 10:57:58 Vendor Name NEKO INDUSTRIES INC NELS TAHOE HARDWARE NELS TAHOE HARDWARE NELS TAHOE HARDWARE NELS TAHOE HARDWARE NELS TAHOE HARDWARE NELS TAHOE HARDWARE NELS TAHOE HARDWARE NIMBUS ENGINEERS INC NIMBUS ENGINEERS INC NUROCK, DOUG NUROCK, DOUG O I ANALYTICAL O I ANALYTICAL OFFICE MAX OFFICE MAX OFFICE MAX OFFICE MAX OFFICE MAX PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT CLAIMS_V2 Department / Proi Name INFORMATION SYS PUMPS PUMPS PUMPS HEAVY MAINT PUMPS PUMPS PUMPS ENGINEERING - WELL, BAYVIEW ENGINEERING - SUT WELL REDRILL OPERATIONS OPERATIONS LABORATORY LABORATORY UNDERGROUND REP ENGINEERING FINANCE ENGINEERING FINANCE LABORATORY ADMINISTRATION HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION SYS FINANCE FINANCE LABORATORY PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Description SRVR, LSRFICHE Acct# / Proi Code 2037 - 8670 PUMP STATIONS 1002 - 6051 SHOP SUPPLIES 1002 - 6071 SMALL TOOLS 1002 - 6073 GROUNDS & MNTC 1004 - 6042 PUMP STATIONS 2002 - 6051 SHOP SUPPLIES 2002 - 6071 SMALL TOOLS 2002 - 6073 WELL, BAYVIEW CORR PILOT SUTWL TRAVEUMEETINGS 1006 - 6200 DUES /MEMB /CERT 1006 - 6250 LAB SUPPLIES 1007 - 4760 LAB SUPPLIES 2007 - 4760 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1001-4820 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1029 - 4820 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1039 - 4820 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2029 - 4820 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2039 - 4820 LAB SUPPLIES 1007 - 4760 INCNTV & RCGNTN 1021 - 6621 PERSONNEL EXPENS 1022 - 6670 CONTRACT SERVICE 1037 - 4405 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1039 - 4820 TRAVEUMEETINGS 1039 - 6200 LAB SUPPLIES 2007 - 4760 Page: 14 Check Total: Check Total: 2029 - 8574 - BAYWEL 2029 - 8717 - RWSUTR Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Current Date: 06/14/2007 Current Time: 10:57:58 Amount Check Num 2,996.25 5,954.51 AP -00066634 MW 10.75 2.69 3.77 150.00 6.85 2.69 3.76 180.51 AP -00066635 MW 4,150.98 1,330.00 5,480.98 AP- 00066636 MW 87.30 107.00 Tvpe 194.30 AP -00066637 MW 79.82 93.66 173.48 AP- 00066638 MW 85.56 23.38 17.24 23.38 21.19 170.75 AP -00066639 MW 3.24 25.00 6.50 5.00 23.01 6.07 3.23 Vendor Name PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PINE CONE ACRE MOTEL PINE CONE ACRE MOTEL PIONEER AMERICAS LLC POLYDYNE INC PRAXAIR 174 PUMBWORKS LLC. 0 R2 ENGINEERING INC RADIO SHACK RADIO SHACK RADIO SHACK RASMUSSEN, SUSAN RASMUSSEN, SUSAN RICH'S SMALL ENGINE SERVICE RISE CONSTRUCTION INC, DALE SANI -HUT CO INC Department / Proi Name ADMINISTRATION HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION SYS FINANCE FINANCE PUMPS PUMPS OPERATIONS OPERATIONS UNDERGROUND REP PUMPS HEAVY MAINT PUMPS ELECTRICAL SHOP PUMPS FINANCE FINANCE UNDERGROUND REP UNDERGROUND REP ENGINEERING - WTRLN, JACK BELL PAYMENT OF CLAIMS User: THERESA Page: 15 Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_V2 Description INCNTV & RCGNTN PERSONNEL EXPENS CONTRACT SERVICE OFFICE SUPPLIES TRAVEUMEETINGS STANDBY ACCOMODA STANDBY ACCOMODA HYPOCHLORITE POLYMER SAFETY/EQUIP/PHY PMP REP,DVD LN PRIMARY EQUIP SMALL TOOLS SHOP SUPPLIES SMALL TOOLS TRAVEUMEETINGS TRAVEUMEETINGS MOBILE EQUIP WTRL,IN HSE UPSZ WTRLN, JACK BELL Acct# ! Proi Code 2021 - 6621 2022 - 6670 2037 - 4405 2039 - 4820 2039 - 6200 1002 - 6083 2002 - 6083 1006 - 4755 1006 - 4720 2001 - 6075 2002 - 8606 1004 - 6021 1002 - 6073 1003 - 6071 2002 - 6073 1039 - 6200 2039 - 6200 2001 - 6012 2001-8584 2029 - 8766 - JACBEL Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Current Date: 06/14/2007 Current Time: 10:57:58 Amount Check Num Type 25.00 6.50 5.00 22.99 6.07 137.61 AP -00066640 MW 54.25 54.25 108.50 AP -00066641 MW 3,891.36 3,891.36 AP- 00066642 MW 8,921.70 8,921.70 AP -00066643 MW 41.94 41.94 AP -00066644 MW 30,482.82 30,482.82 AP -00066645 MW 1,259.73 1,259.73 AP- 00066646 MW 4.85 9.69 4.84 Check Total: 19.38 AP- 00066647 MW 35.41 35.40 70.81 AP -00066648 MW 103.94 103.94 AP- 00066649 MW 2,812.50 2,812.50 AP -00066650 MW 117.40 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vendor Name Department / Proi Name Description Acct# / Proi Code Amount Check Num Tvpe Check Total: 117.40 AP -00066651 MW SCHLANGE, PAUL DIAMOND VLY RNCH TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1028 - 6200 60.14 Check Total: 60.14 AP -00066652 MW SCHWAB TIRES, LES EQUIPMENT REPAIR AUTOMOTIVE 2005 - 6011 2,608.29 Check Total: 2,608.29 AP- 00066653 MW SCOTTYS HARDWARE PUMPS SHOP SUPPLIES 1002 - 6071 12.11 SCOTTYS HARDWARE HEAVY MAINT GROUNDS & MNTC 1004 - 6042 10.23 SCOTTYS HARDWARE UNDERGROUND REP SMALL TOOLS 2001 - 6073 4.37 SCOTTYS HARDWARE PUMPS SHOP SUPPLIES 2002 - 6071 12.10 Check Total: 38.81 AP -00066654 MW SCP SCIENCE LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 1007 - 4760 216.00 SCP SCIENCE LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 2007 - 4760 170.00 Check Total: 386.00 AP -00066655 MW SENTRY GROUP FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES 1039 - 4820 3.00 SENTRY GROUP FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES 2039 - 4820 3.00 1 Check Total: 6.00 AP- 00066656 MW SHEiWIN- WILLIAMS HEAVY MAINT PRIMARY EQUIP 1004 - 6021 30.94 Check Total: 30.94 AP- 00066657 MW SHIELDS HARPER & CO INC ELECTRICAL SHOP PUMP STATIONS 1003 - 6051 543.42 Check Total: 543.42 AP- 00066658 MW SIERRA NEVADA CLASSIFIEDS HUMAN RESOURCES ADS /LGL NOTICES 1022 - 4930 670.58 SIERRA NEVADA CLASSIFIEDS HUMAN RESOURCES ADS /LGL NOTICES 2022 - 4930 670.57 SIERRA NEVADA CLASSIFIEDS CUSTOMER SERVICE ADS /LGL NOTICES 2038 - 4930 610.62 Check Total: 1,951.77 AP -00066659 MW SIERRA PACIFIC POWER GEN & ADMIN ELECTRICITY 1000 - 6330 63,150.10 SIERRA PACIFIC POWER GEN & ADMIN ST LIGHTING EXP 1000 - 6740 1,491.70 SIERRA PACIFIC POWER GEN & ADMIN ELECTRICITY 2000 - 6330 22,397.08 Check Total: 87,038.88 AP -00066660 MW SIERRA SPRINGS GEN & ADMIN SAFETY INVENTORY 1000 - 0425 155.04 SIERRA SPRINGS UNDERGROUND REP SUPPLIES 1001 - 6520 40.56 SIERRA SPRINGS PUMPS SUPPLIES 1002 - 6520 2.71 SIERRA SPRINGS ELECTRICAL SHOP SUPPLIES 1003 - 6520 13.52 User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_V2 Page: 16 Current Date: 06/14/2007 Current Time: 10:57:58 Vendor Name SIERRA SPRINGS SIERRA SPRINGS SIERRA SPRINGS SIERRA SPRINGS SIERRA SPRINGS SIERRA SPRINGS SIERRA SPRINGS SIERRA SPRINGS SIERRA SPRINGS SIERRA SPRINGS SOUTH TAHOE PUB UTILITY DIST SOUTH TAHOE PUB UTILITY DIST SOLI -i TAHOE PUB UTILITY DIST co SOUTH TAHOE TOWING SOUTHWEST GAS SOUTHWEST GAS SPRINGBROOK SOFTWARE INC SPRINGBROOK SOFTWARE INC SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_V2 Department / Proi Name HEAVY MAINT EQUIPMENT REP OPERATIONS DIAMOND VLY RNCH CUSTOMER SERVICE UNDERGROUND REP PUMPS ELECTRICAL SHOP EQUIPMENT REPAIR CUSTOMER SERVICE HEAVY MAINT GEN & ADMIN - Time & Materials GEN & ADMIN - Time & Materials EQUIPMENT REP GEN & ADMIN GEN & ADMIN INFORMATION SYS INFORMATION SYS INFORMATION SYS CUSTOMER SERVICE UNDERGROUND REP INFORMATION SYS CUSTOMER SERVICE CUSTOMER SERVICE - WTR CONS PROG PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Description SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SHOP SUPPLIES MISC INCOME MISC INCOME AUTOMOTIVE NATURAL GAS NATURAL GAS SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE Page: 17 Acct# / Proi Code 1004 - 6520 1005 - 6520 1006 - 6520 1028 - 6520 1038 - 6520 2001 - 6520 2002 - 6520 2003 - 6520 2005 - 6520 2038 - 6520 1004-6071 1005-6011 1000 - 6350 2000 - 6350 1037 - 6030 2037 - 6030 1037 - 4405 1038 - 4405 2001 - 4405 2037 - 4405 2038 - 4405 2038 - 4405 Check Total: Check Total: 2000 - 3540 - TMCB Check Total: 2000 - 3540 - TMCB Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: 13,107.35 AP- 00066667 MW 45.70 45.70 3,478.95 45.70 45.70 WCPROG 1,462.40 Check Total: 5,124.15 AP -00066668 MW Current Date: 06/14/2007 Current Time: 10:57:58 Amount 40.56 13.52 40.56 13.52 13.52 40.56 10.81 13.52 13.52 13.48 Check Num TVge 425.40 AP -00066661 MW 286.94 286.94 AP- 00066662 MW 1,500.00 1,500.00 AP -00066663 MW 1,500.00 1,500.00 AP -00066664 MW 725.00 725.00 AP -00066665 MW 4,354.01 • 213.39 4,567.40 AP -00066666 MW 6,553.67 6,553.68 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vendor Name Department / Proi Name Description Acct# / Proi Code Amount Check Num Time SUK, TOM CUSTOMER SERVICE - WTR CNSRV INCNT WTR CONS EXPENSE 2038 - 6660 - WCNCTV 325.00 Check Total: 325.00 AP -00066669 MW SUNGARD BI -TECH INC. INFORMATION SYS SFTW,IFAS IMAG 2037 - 8580 2,400.00 Check Total: 2,400.00 AP -00066670 MW T &S CONSTRUCTION CO INC GEN & ADMIN - UPPER DRESSLER CONST RETAINAGE 1000 - 2605 - DRSSLR - 813.60 T &S CONSTRUCTION CO INC ENGINEERING - UPPER DRESSLER DRSSLR DTCH,UPR 1029 - 7062 - DRSSLR 8,136.00 Check Total: 7,322.40 AP -00066671 MW TAHOE BLUEPRINT ENGINEERING SUPPLIES 2029 - 6520 45.13 TAHOE BLUEPRINT ENGINEERING - WTRLN, GLEN RD WTLN, GLEN RD 2029 - 8714 - GLENWL 32.16 Check Total: 77.29 AP -00066672 MW TAHOE FENCE CO INC PUMPS LUTHER PASS 1002 - 6048 880.00 Check Total: 880.00 AP- 00066673 MW TRUCK PARTS & EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT REP AUTOMOTIVE 1005 - 6011 212.46 TRUCK PARTS & EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT REPAIR AUTOMOTIVE 2005 - 6011 57.86 Check Total: 270.32 AP -00066674 MW US POSTMASTER CUSTOMER SERVICE POSTAGE EXPENSES 1038 - 4810 5,000.00 US PbSTMASTER CUSTOMER SERVICE POSTAGE EXPENSES 2038 - 4810 5,000.00 Check Total: 10,000.00 AP- 00066675 MW USA BLUE BOOK ELECTRICAL SHOP PUMP STATIONS 1003 - 6051 446.71 USA BLUE BOOK OPERATIONS LAB SUPPLIES 1006 - 4760 684.10 USA BLUE BOOK OPERATIONS SECONDARY EQUIP 1006 - 6022 561.48 USA BLUE BOOK OPERATIONS FILTER EQ/BLDG 1006 - 6023 615.10 USA BLUE BOOK OPERATIONS FURNACE EQUIP 1006 - 6024 94.38 USA BLUE BOOK OPERATIONS GROUNDS & MNTC 1006 - 6042 330.60 USA BLUE BOOK CUSTOMER SERVICE SMALL TOOLS 1038 - 6073 130.96 USA BLUE BOOK CUSTOMER SERVICE SMALL TOOLS 2038 - 6073 130.96 Check Total: 2,994.29 AP- 00066676 MW VERHAGEN, ED CUSTOMER SERVICE - WTR CNSRV INCNT WTR CONS EXPENSE 2038 - 6660 - WCNCTV 600.00 Check Total: 600.00 AP -00066677 MW VWR CORPORATION LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 1007 - 4760 73.41 VWR CORPORATION LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 2007 - 4760 57.88 Check Total: 131.29 AP -00066678 MW User: THERESA Page: 18 Current Date: 06/14/2007 Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_V2 Current Time: 10:57:58 Vendor Name WEDCO INC WEDCO INC WESTERN ENERGETIX INC WESTERN ENERGETIX INC WESTERN ENERGETIX INC WESTERN ENERGETIX INC WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL WESTERN NEVADA SUPPLY WESTERN NEVADA SUPPLY WESTERN NEVADA SUPPLY N 0 ZELI�iIER, DAVE User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_V2 Department / Proi Name ELECTRICAL SHOP ELECTRICAL SHOP GEN & ADMIN EQUIPMENT REP PUMPS EQUIPMENT REPAIR LABORATORY - IND CRK RES MONT LABORATORY ENGINEERING - UPPER DRESSLER UNDERGROUND REP PUMPS CUSTOMER SERVICE DIAMOND VLY RNCH PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Description PUMP STATIONS PUMP STATIONS GASOLINE INV OIL & LUBE OIL & LUBE OIL & LUBE MONITORING MONITORING DRSSLR DTCH,UPR PIPE/CVRS /MHLS SMALL TOOLS WATER METERS GROUNDS & MNTC Page: 19 Acct# / Prol Code 1003 - 6051 2003 - 6051 1000 - 0415 1005 - 4630 2002 - 4630 2005 - 4630 Check Total: 1007 - 6110 - INDIAN 1007 - 6110 1029 - 7062 - DRSSLR Check Total: 2001 - 6052 2002 - 6073 2038 - 6045 1028 - 6042 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Grand Total: 1,484,565.65 Current Date: 06/14/2007 Current Time: 10:57:58 Amount Check Num Tyne 142.57 147.40 289.97 AP -00066679 MW 1,864.81 71.59 287.48 71.59 2,295.47 AP- 00066680 MW 90.00 840.00 600.00 1,530.00 AP -00066681 MW 1,156.59 20.20 12,826.56 14,003.35 AP- 00066682 MW 4,960.00 4,960.00 AP- 00066683 MW ~H."'" South Tahoe Public Utility District DinJctflre KathIHn F.m ~ JtJonoe Msry Lou Mo6Hcl1CIl' Du_~ Eric &hater 1215 ~owCmst Drive -South laks Tahoe-CA 96150-7401 Phort6 530544-6474. Fax 5M 541..0614.MIW.stpud.u5 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6d TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ivo Bergsohn, Hydro-Geologist MEETING DATE: June 21, 2007 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility Project 2:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: (1) Hold a Public Hearing to take public comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and (2) Certify the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. DISCUSSION: At 2:30 p.m. open the meeting to receive public input on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the South Tahoe Public Utility District South Upper Truckee Well Controls Building and Treatment Facility Project. After the close of the meeting and response to comments by staff, the Board may certify the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project. SCHEDULE: COSTS: NIA ACCOUNT NO: 2029-8463/RWSUTR BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: <$82,855> 2006/07; $2,205,0002007/08 ATTACHMENTS: Administrative Draft Initial StudylNegative Declaration (dated May 18, 2007), Certification of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Notice of Determination have been provided to Board members. Due to its length, additional copies can be requested from the Board Clerk. CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~ NO CATEGORY: Water -101- South Tahoe Public Utility District PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT Notice of Availability of a Draft Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration (NO) for the South Upper Truckee Well Controls Building and Treatment Facility South Tahoe Public Utility District (District) is proposing to construct the South Upper Truckee Well Controls Building and Treatment Facility, near Meyers, CA. The objective of the Project is to comply with the water quality standards of the federal Arsenic Rule (effective January 23, 2006) and the water system sufficiency requirements of the California Department of Health Services, and to operate as the lead well in the District's water system to meet the drinking water needs of the Christmas Valley and MeyerslTahoe Paradise areas. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 2100 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 Code of Regulations Section 1500 et seq.), a Draft Initial Study for the above-named project was prepared. The document identifies and evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The District proposes to prepare a Negative Declaration for the project. Draft Initial Study/ND and Public Comments The Draft Initial Study/ND is available for review by interested individuals and agencies and may be obtained in hard copy or electronic format from the District. To request a copy of the document, please contact Ivo Bergsohn, Hydro- Geologist at (530) 543-6204 (a reproduction fee may be charged for copies of the document). The Draft Initial StudylND is also available for review at the following locations: · South Tahoe Public Utility District Offices (1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA); · South Lake Tahoe Library (1000 Rufus Allen Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA); · California State Clearinghouse (1400 Tenth St., Sacramento, CA) The District will accept and consider all written comments regarding the content of the Draft Initial StudylND received by June 19, 2007. Comment submittal information is included within the Draft Initial Study/ND. After public review of the Negative Declaration, the South Tahoe Public Utility District Board Members will consider the project. Should someone wish to challenge the environmental document in court, challenges may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in written correspondence delivered to the South Tahoe Public Utility District. May 17, 2007 State of California Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: South Upper Truckee Well Controls Building and Treatment Facility (APN #036- 581-01) Project Location: South Tahoe Public Utility District (District) is proposing to construct a Well Controls Building and Treatment Facility in Meyers, California. The facility will be used to house mechanical and electrical controls, corrosion control treatment (CCT) and disinfectant equipment required for the operation of a proposed 1,400 gallon per minute (gpm) municipal drinking water supply well. The project is located at 3140 Egret Way, South Lake Tahoe, California (APN #036-581-01). In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 2100 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 Code of Regulations Section 1500 et seq.), a Draft Initial Study for the above-named project was prepared (please see enclosure). The document identifies and evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The District proposes to prepare a Negative Declaration for the project. Project DescriDtion: Project Design The project will involve: the demolition and removal of an exiting 350 square foot (SF) concrete block well house; conversion of the South Upper Truckee Well No.1 to a monitoring well; removal of approximately 2,100 SF of existing access driveway pavement; and the construction of an approximately 2,557 SF replacement well controls building and 2,030 SF access driveway (south of the building). The well controls building will be used to house mechanical piping, electrical controls, corrosion control treatment equipment (water aeration tanks, regenerative blowers and alkalinity adjustment chemical feed system), and chemical disinfectant storage and pumping equipment required for operation of the South Upper Truckee Well No.3. The new well facility is being constructed to replace the South Upper Truckee Well No. 1 and South Upper Truckee Well No.2, which have lost production capacity over time. Project Objectives The District has developed a water system master plan to comply with the water quality standards of the federal Arsenic Rule and the water system sufficiency requirements of the California Department of Health Services (CaDHS). The federal Arsenic Rule (effective January 23, 2006) changed the arsenic (As) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) from 50 micrograms per liter (~gjL) tol0 I-IgjL. The CaDHS requirements are to ensure that a water system can provide drinking water to adequately meet maximum day and peak hourly demands. As part of the As compliance water system master plan, the District's objectives were to increase the use of groundwater from the South Upper Truckee site and to reduce the demand on other District wells requiring As treatment. Therefore, the District constructed the South Upper Truckee (SUT) Well No. 3 in 2004. The SUT Well No. 3 is intended to replace the SUT Well No. 1 and SUT Well No.2. The SUT Well No. 1 will be converted to an observation well. The SUT Well No. 2 was destroyed in 2006. Environmental Review and Comment Based on the analysis presented in the Draft Initial Study, South Tahoe Public Utility District proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration for the proposed project. Copies of the Draft Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are available during normal operating hours at the South Tahoe Public Utility District, 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA, 96150. We appreciate your prompt acknowledgement and review of this Draft Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration. Due to the time limits mandated by state law, the document's 30-day review period will extend from May 18, 2007 through June 19, 2007. Comments must be received before 5:00 p.m. on June 19, 2007 and may be sent to: Ivo Bergsohn, Hydro-Geologist South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 After public review of the Negative Declaration, the South Tahoe Public Utility District will consider the project. Should anyone wish to challenge the environmental document in court, they may be limited to raising only those issues raised in written correspondence delivered to the District. Per CEQA Guidelines section 15072 (f) (5), the project site is not on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 as a hazardous waste facilities, land designated as a hazardous waste property, or a hazardous waste disposal site. If you have any questions about the project, please contact Ivo Bergsohn, Hydro-Geologist, South Tahoe Public Utility District, 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150, at (530) 543-6204. Sincerely, Ivo Bergsohn Hydo-Geologist, South Tahoe Public Utility District Enclosures: 15 copies and 1 electronic copy of the Draft Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration 1 Notice of Completion and Environmental Document Transmittal Form c: Notice of Intent, Notice of Completion and Environmental Document Transmittal Form, and Draft Initial Study sent to addresses on attached list Tom Dougherty, Project Planner EI Dorado County Planning Services 2850 Fairlane Court Placerville, CA 95667 Gretchen Gibson Tahoe Regional Planning Agency P.O. Box 5310 Stateline, NV 89449-5310 Bridgit Binning California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Program, Environmental Review Unit 1616 Capitol Avenue Sacramento, CA 95899 NEGA liVE OECLARA liON PROJECT: South Upper Truckee Well Controls Building and Treatment Facility LEAD AGENCY: South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS: The Initial Study for this Negative Declaration is available for review at the South Tahoe Public Utility District, 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA. The document is also available for review at the El Dorado County's South Lake Tahoe Branch Library at 1000 Rufus Allen Boulevard., South Lake Tahoe, CA. The library's hours of operation are from 10:00 am _ 8:00 pm, Tuesday and Wednesday; 10:00 am - 5:00 pm on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. The library is closed on Sunday and Monday. In addition to the South Lake Tahoe locations, the document is also available at the California State Clearinghouse located at 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Project is located within the Lake Tahoe Basin in eastern El Dorado County. The site is located on a 25,254 square-foot parcel (APN 056-581-01) at 3140 Egret Way, within the Riverpark Estate #2 subdivision, and is designated by EI Dorado County as a TR-l one-family residential zone. The elevation of the site is roughly 6,400 feet. The Project area is an existing public utility development bounded by EI Dorado County property immediately to the east, across Egret Way and borders the Upper Truckee River approximately 600 feet east of the site. United States Forest Service Lands are located immediately west of the site, across South Upper Truckee Road. Single-Family residences are located south of the site, across Egret Way and adjoin the north property line. The site lies within an area of minimal flooding (Flood Zone C). The Project purpose is to implement a water system master plan to comply with the water quality standards of the federal Arsenic Rule and the water system sufficiency requirements of the California Department of Health Services (CaDHS). The federal Arsenic Rule (effective January 23, 2006) changed the arsenic (As) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) from 50 micrograms per liter (Ilg/L) to 10 Ilg/L. The CaDHS requirements are to ensure that a water system can provide drinking water to adequately meet maximum day and peak hourly demands. Therefore, the District is proposing to construct a Well Controls Building and Treatment Facility at 3140 Egret Way, Meyers, California. The facility will be used to house mechanical and electrical controls, corrosion control treatment (CCT) and disinfectant equipment required for the operation of a proposed 1,400 gallon per minute (gpm) municipal drinking water supply well. This will replace two existing municipal water supply wells operated at the site. The SUT Well No.3 will operate as a lead well in the South Tahoe Public Utility District's (District) water system to meet the drinking water needs of the Christmas Valley and Meyers/Tahoe Paradise areas. Well operation will be controlled by the water level in the Christmas Valley tank and customer demand. Customer drinking water demand is seasonal. The SUT Well No.3 may be operated for less than one hour or continuously for 24 hours during a day. Based on historical data, it is estimated that the SUT Well No.3 will likely be operated, on average, from about 10 hours to 14 hours per 24-hour day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks per year. District crews, to monitor the well and treatment systems operations and maintenance, will inspect the facility on a daily basis. FINDINGS: An Initial Study has been prepared to assess the Project's potential effects on the environment and the significance of those effects. Based on the Initial Study, the District will adopt a Negative Declaration. This is supported by the following results: . The proposed project would have no adverse impact in the areas of aesthetics, agriculture resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, land use/planning, mineral South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 resources, population/housing, public services, recreation, and utilities/service systems. · The proposed project would less than significant impacts to the areas of hydrology/water quality, noise, and transportation/traffic. Discussion for these findings is provided below in more detail. Air Ouality: The project would not have any long-term impacts to air quality in the project area. Construction equipment may emit odors and fumes for the short term during construction. This short-term activity would not result in a cumulative increase of criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment nor would it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Hazards & Hazardous Materials: The project would not have any long-term impacts from hazards or hazardous materials in the project area. During construction there is a risk of accidental spills of fuel from construction equipment. The construction contractor would be required to prepare a Spill Contingency Plan and have spill prevention kits available to contain any accidental spills. HvdrologylWater Ouality: Three (3) private wells are known to be located within 2,000 feet of the replacement well. Results of the THEIS equation utilized to estimate drawdown caused by the pumping of the replacement well at distances corresponding to the locations of the neighboring private wells indicated that operation of the replacement well has the potential to affect neighboring private wells. The District will offer compensation to the affected well owners in accordance with the provisions of the Declining Groundwater Code as a mitigation measure. The proposed Project will not effect or interfere with groundwater recharge. Also, the dewatering plan for the Project indicates that if groundwater is encountered during project construction, the contractor shall collect and dispose of the water per the District's contract specifications, which includes the following: 1) Water will be pumped from the bottom of the excavation or from well points to a holding tank or filtration system prior to disposal to the sanitary sewer; 2) The Contractor may also utilize vacuum trucks to collect the water, or haul the holding away in trucks; 3) Water will not be released on the construction site; and 4) Drain rock will be used as backfill in excavations with standing groundwater. Geologv/Soils: Temporary BMPs will be constructed to mitigate potential environmental impacts to water quality during the construction of the trenches. The site plan will also identify the location of a materials staging area(s). Additionally, the specific conditions require submittal of a construction schedule demonstrating that the project will be phased in order to minimize the amount of trenching that will occur at anyone time. Therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial loss in topsoil. Noise: Project construction will result in temporary increase in ambient noise levels due to equipment noise and construction activities. Operation shall be restricted to the hours of 8:00 am to 6:30 PM, with no operations allowed on weekends or holidays. All power equipment and vehicles used for Project construction will have proper muffler devices. The District will advise potentially affected residents of the proposed construction activities including duration, schedule of activities, and contacts for filing noise complaints. The District staff and/or contractor will attempt to respond to all noise complains received within one working day and resolve the issue as soon as possible. Transportation/Traffic: There will be short-term construction impacts on traffic from truck and daily work trips to the project area. The District will advise local residents regarding schedules for construction traffic detours through press releases and distribution of flyers in area neighborhoods well in advance of construction initiation. Traffic controls will be implemented during work hours and only when it is necessary to perform work. At no time would access for local residents, emergency vehicles or school buses be prohibited. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 2 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 Copies of all permits required by Federal, state, bi-state, and local agencies will be submitted to permitting agencies as they are completed. A copy of the Initial Study is attached. Questions or comments regarding this Negative Declaration and Initial Study may be addressed to: Ivo Bergsohn South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 (530) 543-6204 South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 3 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SOUTH UPPER TRUCKEE WELL CONTROLS BUILDING AND TREATMENT FACILITY PROJECT SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT EL DORADO COUNTY STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #XXXXX May 2007 TABLE OF CONTENT Page 1.0 Introdu ctio n ....... ................ .... .......... ............... ................................. ........... .... ........1 2.0 Environmental Setting And Site Characteristics ................................................1 3. 0 Public Input ............. .... .... ............... ...... .... .......... .......... .............. ........ ........... .........5 4.0 Proposed Project ....................................................................................................5 4.1 Proj ect Need ........ ..................................................................................... ..5 4.2 Project Descriptio n ... .......... ...... .... .................... ...... .... ...............................6 4.3 Proposed Use and Operation ....................................................................8 5.0 Right-of-Way Requirements .... ........... .............. ....................................................8 6.0 Coverage and Permit Ap plicatio ns..... ............................. ....... ............ .... ..............8 7.0 References . ............................................ .... ............................... ........................... ..1 0 List of Appendices Appendix A CEQA Checklist Appendix B Figures Appendix C Private Well identification and interference evaluation Appendix D Heritage Resource Inventory Report Appendix E Air Quality Model South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 1.0 INTRODUCTION South Tahoe Public Utility District (District) prepared this Administrative Draft Initial Study (IS), based on conceptual design, to comply with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the EI Dorado County Planning Department for the South Upper Truckee Well Controls Building and Treatment Facility (Project or SUT). The District intends to seek a Negative Declaration (ND) for the Project. A CEQA environmental checklist (Appendix A) has been completed based on conceptual Project design. However, should significant impacts or new mitigation measures result from the review process, the District will recirculate the document to address new issues. The initial study public review period shall begin on May 18, 2007 and end on June 20, 2007. Comments received after 5:00 P.M. on June 20, 2007 will not be considered. The Project purpose is to implement a water system master plan to comply with the water quality standards of the federal Arsenic Rule and the water system sufficiency requirements of the California Department of Health Services (CaDHS). The federal Arsenic Rule (effective January 23, 2006) changed the arsenic (As) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) from 50 micrograms per liter (~g/L) to 10 ~g/L. The CaDHS requirements are to ensure that a water system can provide drinking water to adequately meet maximum day and peak hourly demands. Therefore, the District is proposing to construct a Well Controls Building and Treatment Facility at 3140 Egret Way, Meyers, California. The facility will be used to house mechanical and electrical controls, corrosion control treatment (CCT) and disinfectant equipment required for the operation of a proposed 1,400 gallon per minute (gpm) municipal drinking water supply well. This well will replace the two existing municipal water supply wells operated at the site. The SUT Well No.3 will operate as a lead well in the District's water system to meet the drinking water needs of the Christmas Valley and Meyers/Tahoe Paradise areas. Well operation will be controlled by the water level in the Christmas Valley tank and customer demand. Customer drinking water demand is seasonal. The SUT Well No. 3 may be operated for less than one hour or continuously for 24 hours during a day. Based on historical data, it is estimated that the SUT Well No.3 will likely be operated, on average, from about 10 hours to 14 hours per 24-hour day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks per year. District crews, to monitor the well and treatment systems operations and maintenance, will inspect the facility on a daily basis. 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS The Project is located within the Lake Tahoe Basin in eastern EI Dorado County. The site is located on a 25,254 square-foot parcel (APN 056-581-01) at 3140 Egret Way, within the Riverpark Estate #2 subdivision, and is designated by EI Dorado County as a TR-l one-family residential zone. The elevation of the site is roughly 6,400 feet. The Project area is an existing public utility development bounded by EI Dorado County property immediately to the east, across Egret Way and borders the Upper Truckee River approximately 600 feet east of the site. United States Forest Service Lands are located immediately west of the site, across South Upper Truckee Road. Single-family residences are located south of the site, across Egret Way and adjoin the north property line. The site lies within an area of minimal flooding (Flood Zone C) (Figure 1, Appendix B). South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 Slopes: Land capability verification was done by the Tahoe Regional Planning agency in 1993, and most recently in 2007. As of March 5, 2007, the observed slope in the Class 5 is 2 to 5 percent, and in the Class 3 observed slope is 8 to 11 percent. Hvdrolo2v: The major watercourse of the Upper Truckee River is located in the Project area. The District completed an initial well interference evaluation in order to estimate the drawdown caused by the pumping of the South Upper Truckee Well No.3 (Appendix C). Results of this evaluation suggest that the drawdown caused by the pumping of this well is on the order of 15 feet at the J. Bradford well and on the order of 13 feet at the H. Sites and L. Bernard wells; after one year of operation at an average daily pumping rate of 800 gpm. Since the well operation has the potential to affect neighboring private wells, the District will compensate the affected well owners in accordance with the District's declining groundwater code. Private well owners' information and distance from the Project area are delineated in Appendix C. Groundwater: Groundwater conditions at the South Upper Truckee site are inferred based on semi-annual static water level measurements (December 2001 through December 2006), collected on-site from the District's South Upper Truckee Well No. 1. Hand water-level measurements are typically collected in April through May and in November through December from District wells in order to monitor water levels during seasonally high and seasonally low periods of groundwater recharge. A hydro graph showing groundwater levels in the South Upper Truckee Well No. I is included as Figure 2, Appendix B. Review of this hydrograph shows that potentiometric elevations in this well have ranged from between about 6,375 to 6,388 feet above mean sea level, corresponding to depths ranging from 23 to 10 ft below ground surface (bgs). These head levels are believed to be generally representative of water table conditions underlying the site. A Soils Hydrologic Scoping Report Application was filed with the TRPA on March 8, 2007. After review of the Report, TPRA staff approved the proposed Project excavation depth of 6 feet bgs. Soils/Geolo2V: Soil conditions at the site are inferred based on: published geologic mapping of the Lake Tahoe Basin (NBMG 2005); published findings of the Soil Survey-Tahoe Basin Area (USDA-SCS, March 1974) and the direct examination and logging of soil cuttings performed during the drilling of an on-site exploratory boring for the SUT Well No.3 in August 2004. The site location is mapped as lying upon an un-weathered surface composed of Pleistocene Age (Tioga stage) glacial till deposits (NBMG 2005). These till deposits are generally characterized as unconsolidated bouldery polymict till, preserved as sharp-crested moraines with outwash deposits consisting of unconsolidated, boulder and cobble gravel, sand and silt. Soils developed upon these till and outwash deposits have been ascribed to the Meeks series and are mapped as part of the Meeks gravelly loamy coarse sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (MKb) and Meeks stony loamy coarse sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (Mmb) soil complexes. These soils are predominantly composed of sand and gravels (90 to 100 percent), with minor amounts of silt (0 to 10 percent) and are texturally classified as poorly graded gravelly loamy coarse sand and very gravelly loamy coarse sand (GP-GM). These soils are moderately well-drained with moderate infiltration permeability ranging from 6.3 to 20 inches per hour (in/hr); moderately acidic (pH = South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 2 Draft Initial StudylNegative Declaration May 2007 5.6 - 6.5 s.u.) with a low shrink-swell potential. Available water capacity of these soils is reported at 0.03 to 0.05 inches per inch of soil (in/soil in). Interpreted soil resource categories are as follows: SOIL RESOURCE INTERPRETATION NOTES Land Capability Vis Moderately deep, steep, very stony and coarse textured. Vegetative Group B Choice of plants is limited by droughtiness and low fertility. Hydrologic Group B Moderate infiltration rate, moderately low runoff potential. Erosion Hazard Slight Frost-Heave Potential Moderate Fine silt content (3 to 10%) Road Location Limitation Moderate Excavation Limitation Severe Cobblestones are more than 15% by volume. Dwellings Limitation Severe Cobblestones are more than 15% by volume. In August 2004, the District drilled a nominal 17-inch diameter pilot hole to a depth of approximately 358 feet bgs to evaluate the hydro-geologic properties and water quality of water- bearing zones underlying the site. During the drilling of this boring, grab samples of cuttings were collected at major changes in lithology and at 5-foot intervals for lithogic description and soil classification. The geologic log (Figure 3, Appendix B) shows that the shallow horizons (to a depth of about 95 feet) are composed of well-graded sandy gravels (GW) to a depth of about 10 feet. Well-graded sandy silt (ML) is found below this surface horizon, extending to a depth of about 15 feet. These silts overlie well-graded coarse sand (SW), penetrated from between 15 to 45 feet. An aquitard composed of moderately graded silty fine sand (SW) is found below the silt from between 45 to 55 feet. Well-graded gravelly coarse sand (SW) is predominant below 55 feet to a depth of 95 feet. During drilling, first water was penetrated at a depth of about 20 feet bgs. Land Use: The Project area is located in an unincorporated area of El Dorado County within the Tahoe Basin. Land use policies for the Project area are discussed in the EI Dorado County General Plan, TRPA Plan Area Statement (PAS) 137-Christmas Valley. Plan Area 137 has a land use classification of "Residential" (Single Family Dwelling). Plan Area 137 is approximately 50 percent built-out (TRPA 2002). Pursuant to Chapter 18 (PERMISSABLE South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 3 Draft Initial StudylNegative Declaration May 2007 USES) of the TRP A Code of Ordinances, local public health and safety facilities are conforming under the provisions for a public service special use. Cultural Resources: Current environmental review policies, in compliance with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's mandates under Section 29 and EI Dorado County's procedures under CEQA, require that cultural resources be considered as part of the environmental assessment process. In accordance with these regulations a heritage resource inventory was conducted by Susan Lindstrom, Ph.D., Consulting Archaeologist to ENTRIX, Inc (Appendix D). Prefield research entailed a general literature review of prehistoric and historic sources concerning the project area and the required records search at the North Central Information Center at California State University, Sacramento (Appendix D). In addition, representatives of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California were contacted in order to identify any potential Native American issues; no immediate concerns were identified. The entire parcel was completely inspected by walking parallel transects at no greater than 10-foot (three-meter) intervals. This heritage resource inventory disclosed no prehistoric or historic sites, features or artifacts. The 2007 field report states: "... the project sponsor should not be constrained regarding heritage resources. Although the project area has been subject to systematic surface archaeological investigations, it is possible that buried or concealed heritage resources could be present and detected during project construction activities. In the unlikely event heritage subsurface resources are discovered, project activities should cease in the area of the find and the project sponsor should consult a qualified archaeologist for recommended procedures. " Bioloe:ical Resources: Vegetation communities found in the Project area are typical of those found in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The primary vegetation communities on the site include: 1) Quaking Aspen; 2) Jeffrey Pine; and 3) Developed Ground. These vegetation communities are typical in the Lake Tahoe Basin (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988) and are suitable for wildlife habitat. Typically present in these habitats are many common small mammals including several species of squirrels, chipmunks, and a variety of smaller rodents. Air Qualitv: A Screening Exposure Assessment for the Project (Appendix E) has been prepared to assess potential environmental exposure to radon gas released by the aeration process. Aeration is a mass transfer mechanism used to remove carbon dioxide (C02) and radon (Rn) from well water in order to meet drinking standards. Radon is a radionuclide as identified in California Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, California Health and Safety Code Sections 25249.5 et seq. (regulations codified in Title 22, California Code of Regulations, Sections 12000-14000). South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 4 Draft Initial StudylNegative Declaration May 2007 The radon emission rate for the facility was determined using the emission estimation technique (EET) of mass balance. Since all physical parameters are know, i.e. concentrations and flowrates, calculation of radon emissions to the ambient air is straightforward since mass is conserved. Modeling results indicate that the incremental (additional) annual average ambient concentration of radon gas in the zone of maximum impact (62 feet from the exhaust point, or 36 feet from the fenceline) would be 0.0064 pCi/L, which is less than 1.6% of the EPA's average nationwide outdoor radon level of 0.4 pCi/L. Impacts in all other areas near the facility (greater than 62 feet from the exhaust point and greater than 36 feet from the fenceline) would be less than the EPA predicted hourly maximum of 68 pCi/m3 (0.068 pCi/L). Therefore, screening analysis demonstrates that since annual average outdoor concentrations of radon gas would increase by less than 1.6% in any location, there would be no significant risk to public health due to operation of the proposed facility on a lifetime exposure basis. 3.0 PUBLIC INPUT While not required, the Project public involvement process included a Neighborhood Meeting held on April 13, 2007. At the neighborhood meeting, the District provided the public with information on the draft architectural renditions of the proposed facility and invited the neighborhood residents to express their Project related environmental concerns with District staff and consultants. The public was also invited to identify problems on the Project site. Public notices for the Neighborhood Meeting were mailed to all property owners within the Project vicinity. Those unable to attend were asked to contact the District Information Officer with any questions or comments. 4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 4.1 PROJECT NEED The District has developed a water system master plan to comply with the water quality standards of the federal Arsenic Rule and the water system sufficiency requirements of the CaDHS. The federal Arsenic Rule (effective January 23, 2006) changed the arsenic (As) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) from 50 micrograms per liter (l1g/L) to 10 I1g/L. The CaDHS requirements are to ensure that a water system can provide drinking water to adequately meet maximum day and peak hourly demands. As part of the As compliance water system master plan, the District intends to increase the use of groundwater from the South Upper Truckee site, to reduce the demand on the other District wells requiring As treatment. To that end, the District constructed the South Upper Truckee (SUT) Well No.3 in 2004. The SUT Well No.3 is intended to replace the SUT Well NO.1 and SUT Well No.2. The SUT Well NO.1 will be converted to an observation well. The SUT Well NO.2 was destroyed in 2006. Groundwater produced from the South Upper Truckee site contains relatively high concentrations of carbon dioxide (C02) and radon. The high levels of CO2 suppress the water's pH and contribute to its high corrosivity. In order to address this water quality issue, the District South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 5 Draft Initial StudylNegative Declaration May 2007 completed a Corrosion Control Study (CCS) in 2006. The CCS involved an existing data review, screening of water quality treatment alternatives, field pilot testing and recommendations for a preferred CCT alternative. The preferred alternative involves using low profile aeration for the removal of C02 and radon from water and providing the means for use of chemical additives (sodium silicate or sodium hydroxide) to supplement chemical aeration, if necessary, based on lead and copper samples collected from the water system. 4.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will involve: the demolition and removal of an existing 350 square foot (SF) concrete block well house; conversion of the SUT Well No.1 to a monitoring well; removal of approximately 2,100 SF of existing access driveway pavement; and the construction of an approximately 2,557 SF replacement well controls building and 2,030 SF access driveway (south of the building). The well controls building will be used to house mechanical piping, electrical controls, corrosion control treatment equipment (two low-profile aeration units, regenerative blowers and alkalinity adjustment chemical feed system), and chemical disinfectant storage and pumping equipment required for operation of the SUT Well No.3. The new well facility is being constructed to replace the South Upper Truckee Well No.1 and South Upper Truckee Well No.2, which have lost production capacity over time. A site plan showing these facilities is included as Figure 4, Appendix B. During construction, excavation will be required: for the underground piping, utility trenches and for the installation of the structural footings for the new well facility. Underground piping for the Treatment and Well Controls facility will include approximately: . 55 lineal feet (LF) ofnominallO-inch water main pipe; . 60 LF of nominal 6-inch PVC CL 200 water pipe; and . 90 LF of nominal4-inch PVC CL 200 drain-pipe. Excavation for pipelines and utilities shall be open-cut trenches. Trench widths will be kept as narrow as possible, with a minimum width at the bottom of the trench of 24 inches for pipe 12 inches or less in diameter. The bottom of the trench shall be excavated uniformly to the grade of the bottom of the pipe. The maximum depth of excavation for the pipeline and utility trenches is estimated at 6 feet at the pipe trenches passing under the building footings. The maximum amount of spoil material generated during excavation for the pipeline and utility trenches is estimated at 73 cubic yards (CY). The maximum depth of excavation for installation of the structural footings will be 4 feet. The total amount of spoil material generated during excavation for the footings is estimated at 180 CY. Temporary erosion control measures including filter fabric fence and coir logs, prudent stockpiling of construction material and the use of plastic sheeting during inclement weather to cover spoils piles will be employed at the site. Spoils regarded as suitable materials may be reused on-site in fills and backfilling excavations. Spoils deemed to be unsuitable material would be removed from the site. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 6 Draft Initial StudylNegative Declaration May 2007 Water will be pumped out of the SUT Well No.3 and into the aeration system using a constant speed submersible pump. The aeration system will consist of two Lowry Deep Bubble DB86 aerators operated in parallel. A variable frequency drive (VFD)-driven horizontal split-case booster pump will pump the aerated water from the discharge side of the aerators into the water distribution system. The deep bubble aerators are multistage with baffles separating the body of the unit into eight bays. Fine air bubbles rise from diffusers located at the bottom of each bay, exiting at the top of the vessel. Well water will enter at the top of one side of the vessel and exit at the bottom opposite side. The aerated water will be depleted in dissolved gasses (C02 and radon) which will be exhausted through an air outlet "chimney" located in the northeast corner of the well building. Ambient air will be used for aeration and will be drawn through an air intake "chimney" located in the southwest corner of the building. Each deep bubble aerator will be equipped with a centrifugal blower. The blowers will be powered by 25-horsepower, 3,600 rpm, constant speed electric motors. The blower and motor will be mounted on a common base and equipped with a universal inlet silencer and sound attenuation wrap for noise mitigation. The TRPA community noise equivalent level (CNEL) for Plan Area 137-christmas Valley is 50 dBA. The estimated sound pressure level of the blowers is reported at 86 dBA at 5 feet in a free field environment. Much of the noise leaving the building will be through the air inlet. This inlet will be directed toward the west away from neighboring residences and will be equipped with a silencer to reduce the noise below the 50- dBA CNEL at the property boundary. Radon is readily removed from water by aeration. Assuming that all of the radon dissolved in the well water is removed by aeration, the concentration of radon in the exhausted air is estimated to be approximately 30 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). The aerator outlet will be at least 13 feet above surrounding ground level and about 100 feet away from the north and south property lines. Modeling results and screening analysis show that there would be no significant risk to public health due to operation of the proposed facility on a lifetime exposure basis. A sodium hypochlorite feed system will utilize 12.5 percent nominal strength sodium hypochlorite as a disinfectant. A 400-gallon double contained polyethelene tank will store a one- month supply of sodium hypochlorite, in the chemical room within the Well Controls Building. The sodium hypocWorite will be injected into the discharge line, upstream of the booster pump. The Well Controls Building will be constructed to accept use of chemical additives to supplement aeration, if deemed necessary. A housekeeping pad for a lO-foot diameter tank will be constructed in the chemical storage room. Conduit runs from the chemical storage room to the discharge line will be installed for possible chemical addition of either 25-percent sodium hydroxide or 2 I-percent sodium silicate, upstream of the booster pump. The Well Controls Building will house an emergency back-up generator. The emergency generator will be powered by a diesel engine, with an integral 200-gallon fuel storage tank. The emergency generator will be used to operate the well during electrical power outages. The generator will meet the permitted operating and emissions requirement of the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (AQMD). South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 7 Draft Initial StudylNegative Declaration May 2007 All mechanical and electrical equipment, including the SUT Well No.3, CCT equipment, chemical feed systems and emergency power generator will be housed within the Well Controls Building. The building will be constructed using concrete block with color-impregnated stucco coating and wood trim. Split-face concrete block will be used on the lower tiers along the south and west elevations of the building. The building will be equipped with hollow metal doors with kick plates and metal overhead coiling doors for equipment access to the mechanical room, chemical storage room and emergency power generator room. The roof will be a wood structure with dimensional fiberglass shingles. Full-size windows with wood trim will be placed along the north, west, and east elevations. 4.3 PROPOSED USE AND OPERATION The SUT Well No.3 will operate, as a lead well in the District's water system to meet the drinking water needs of the Christmas Valley and Meyers/Tahoe Paradise areas. Well operation will be controlled by the water level in the Christmas Valley tank and customer demand. Customer drinking water demand is seasonal. The SUT Well No. 3 may be operated for less than one hour or continuously for 24 hours during a day. Based on historical data, it is estimated that the SUT Well No.3 will likely be operated, on average, from about 10 hours to 14 hours per 24-hour day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks per year. Monitorine: The maintenance and monitoring of the Project will continue for the life of Well No.3. District crews, to monitor the well and treatment systems operations and maintenance, will inspect the facility on a daily basis. Hazardous Materials The proposed new building will involve the storage of reportable quantities of hazardous materials for water disinfection, corrosion control, and backup power generation. In accordance with the El Dorado County Environmental Management Division (EDC-EMD) regulations, a hazardous materials business plan for the site will be submitted to the EDC-EMD prior to construction of the Project. 5.0 RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS The Project will be contained within the boundaries of the parcel, within the coverage limitations set by the TRP A. No private parcel acquisition is proposed for the Project. 6.0 COVERAGE AND PERMIT APPLICATIONS Pursuant to Chapter 18 of the TRP A Code of Ordinances, the Project is permissible under Local Public Health and Safety Facilities. On March 5, 2007, a Special Use Permit Application for TR-l designation was filed with the El Dorado County Planning Agency. On March 5, 2007, a Land Capability Verification Application was filed with the TRPA. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 8 Draft Initial StudylNegative Declaration May 2007 On March 8, 2007, a Project Review Application for a Public Service Facility was filed with the TRP A. Simultaneously, a SoilslHydrologic Report Application was also filed. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 9 Draft Initial StudylNegative Declaration May 2007 7.0 REFERENCES California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2006. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-06b). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. El Dorado County. 2004. El Dorado County General Plan: Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element. July 2004: pp.255-280. Mayer, K. E., Laudenslayer Jr., W. F. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2002. TRPA Plan Area Statements (PAS). Amended May 22, 2002. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 10 Draft Initial StudylNegative Declaration May 2007 South Tahoe Public Utility District Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project title: South Upper Truckee Well Controls Building and Treatment Facility 2. Lead agency name and address: South Tahoe Public Utilitv District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe. CA 96150 3. Contact person and phone number: )vo Bergsohn: 530-543-6204 4. Project location: 3140 Egret Wav. South Lake Tahoe. CA 96150. El Dorado County 5. Project sponsors name and address: South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe. CA 96150 6. General plan designation:_NA 7. Zoning: TR-l 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. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) See attached declaration for detailed Proiect description. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the Project surroundings: See attached negative declaration for description of Proiect surroundings. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. El Dorado County Planning Department. California Department of Health Services South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALL Y AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. D Aesthetics D Biological Resources D Hazards & Hazardous Materials D Mineral Resources D Public Services D Utilities / Service Systems D Agriculture Resources D Cultural Resources D HydrologylWater Quality D Air Quality D Geology/Soils D Land Use/ Planning D Noise D Population/Housing D Recreation D Transportation/Traffic D Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: t8J I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D I find that the proposed project MA Y have a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature/Date Printed name South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 2 Draft Initial StudylNegative Declaration May 2007 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I) 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) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation. or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more Potentially Significant Impact entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 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 I5063{cX3XD). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify 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 in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated, 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. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 3 Draft Initial StudyINegative Declaration May 2007 Less Than I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 ~ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not 0 0 0 ~ limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 0 0 0 ~ quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which 0 0 0 ~ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? la) No Impact. The Project area is located in a scenic corridor designated by the TRP A (Roadway Unit 37; Echo Summit). While the entry point view's scenic quality is rated "high", there will be no adverse effect on the scenic vista as the structure's appearance will conform to TRP A's Design Review Guidelines. b) No Impact. No designated scenic resources or state scenic highway is located within the Project area. c) No Impact. The construction of proposed erosion control improvements such as sediment basins or inlet/outlet structures would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project area and surroundings. d) No Impact. The building's design (including lighting) will conform to the TRPA's Design Review Guidelines and Exterior Lighting Standards. None of the proposed improvements would create new sources of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect views in the area. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 4 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining Whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) Less Than prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional Significant model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorooration Imoact Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or D D D [gJ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a D D D [gJ Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to D D D [gJ their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? II. (a) No Impact. Land within the Project area is located in TRPA Plan Area Statement (PAS) 137 and has a land use classification of Residential under the TRPA Regional Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin. The following permissible uses identified in this PAS are as follows: residential, public service, recreation, and resource management. No land within the Project area is currently used for agriculture nor is it listed as a permissible use within this PAS. b) No Impact. No land in the Project area is currently under a Williamson Act contract. c) No Impact. Land within the Project area is located in TRPA Plan Area Statement (PAS) 137 and has a land use classification of Residential under the TRP A Regional Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin. The following permissible uses identified in this PAS are as follows: residential, public service, recreation, and resource management. No land within the Project area is currently used for agriculture nor is it listed as a permissible use within this PAS. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 5 Draft Initial StudyINegative Declaration May 2007 III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria Less Than established by the applicable air quality management or air Significant pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following Potentially With Less Than determinations. Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 0 0 0 ~ quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribuw 0 0 0 ~ te substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 0 0 0 ~ criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emiSSIOns, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose . . receptors to substantial pollutant sensitive 0 0 0 ~ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 0 0 0 ~ people? III a, b, c, d, and e) No Impact. The Project would not have any long term impacts to air quality in the Project area. Construction equipment may emit odors and fumes for the short term during construction. This short-term activity would not violate any air quality standards or result in a cumulative increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment or would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 6 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 Less Than IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Significant Potential1y With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imoact Incomoration Imoact Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through D D D ~ habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other D D D ~ sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected D D D ~ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident D D D ~ or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting D D D ~ biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation D D D ~ Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? IV. a, b, c, d, and e) No Impact. The project facilities will be constructed on a disturbed parcel. No native habitat occurs on this site. Project will be replacing an existing building; adjacent land uses are residential. The TRPA Code of Ordinances (Chapter 71.2A) prohibits cutting ofany live, dead or dying tree greater than or equal to 30 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) in westside forest types on lands classified by TRP A as conservation, recreation, or Stream Environment Zone. Stream Environment Zone lands apply to the Project area; in these areas, removal of trees equal or greater than 30 inches dbh would be avoided. t) No Impact. No adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan covers the Project area. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 7 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 Less Than Significant V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a D 0 D ~ historical resource as defined in ~15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an D 0 D ~ archaeological resource pursuant to ~ 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource D 0 D ~ or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of D 0 D ~ formal cemeteries? Va) and b) No Impact. For this Project, an archaeological records search was conducted in February 2007 and an archaeological survey of the site was conducted in April 2007. Neither previously identified cultural resources nor are newly identified cultural resources located in the Project boundary. A Cultural/Heritage Resource Inventory Report has been prepared. Based on the information gathered as part the CEQA Initial Study, it is determined that the proposed Project would have no impact on archaeological resources. Should any archaeological materials is uncovered during construction activities, STPUD contracting documents has standard language that requires contractors to inform the STPUD lead engineer in writing. Also, all work shall stop in the immediate area of the cultural or archaeological resource and the District will contact a qualified archaeologist, at the District's expense, to inspect the findings and determine appropriate measures to take. c) No Impact. The site does not have any unique paleontological resource, site, or unique geologic feature. d) No Impact. No known human remains are located in the Project area. Should any human remains be uncovered during construction activities, the District's contracting documents has standard language that requires contractors to inform the District lead engineer in writing. Also, all work shall stop in the immediate area of the remains and the District will contact the coroner, at the District's expense, to inspect the findings and determine appropriate measures to take. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 8 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 Less Than Significant VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: Potentially With Less Than S i gni fi cant Mitigation Significant No Imoact Incomoration Imoact Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 0 0 0 rg] effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 rg] iii) Seismic-related ground failure. including liquefaction? 0 0 0 rg] iv) Landslides? 0 0 0 rg] b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 0 rg] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 0 0 0 rg] would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 0 0 0 rg] Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 0 0 0 rg] tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Va) i) - iv) No Impact. The Project areas are not located within a seismic hazard zone or in an area subject to landslides. b) No Impact. Temporary BMPs will be constructed to mitigate potential environmental impacts to water quality during the construction of the trenches. The site plan will also identify the location of a materials staging area(s). Additionally, the specific conditions require submittal of a construction schedule demonstrating that the project will be phased in order to minimize the amount of trenching that will occur at anyone time. Therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial loss in topsoil. c) No Impact. The Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable. The nature of the Project would not potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. d) No Impact. The Project would not be located on expansive soils and would not create substantial risk to life or property. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 9 Draft Initial StudyINegative Declaration May 2007 e) No Impact. The Project will provide public infrastructure for water service. There are no proposed septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in the Project. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 10 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 Less Than VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would S i gni fi cant the project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lmoact Incorporation ImDact Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 0 0 0 I2?J through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 0 0 0 I2?J through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 0 0 0 I2?J hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 0 0 0 I2?J materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where 0 0 0 I2?J such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the 0 0 0 I2?J project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or interfere with an adopted 0 0 0 I2?J emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury 0 0 0 I2?J or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VII a) and b) No Impact. During Project construction, there exists a risk of accidental fuel spills from construction equipment. The proposed new building will involve the storage of reportable quantities of hazardous materials for water disinfection, corrosion control, and backup power generation. In accordance with the EI Dorado County Environmental Management Division regulations, a hazardous materials business plan for the site will be submitted to the Department prior to construction of the project. In addition, should cleaning of vehicles or construction equipment occur on site, all activities will be conducted in approved wash out areas where appropriate BMPs are installed. However, none of these activities will be permitted in close proximity to SEZs, surface waters, or storm drains. c) No Impact. The Project area is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d) No Impact. The Project area is not located on a site that is on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 e) and t) No Impact. The Project area is located within two miles of a public airport. However, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 11 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 g) No Impact. Construction of the proposed Project would not prohibit access of resident or emergency vehicles through the Project area even where traffic controls are implemented. h) No Impact. The Project area is located in a residential area near forest lands; however, the proposed Project is an expansion of existing use and would not affect the risk to wildland fires. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 12 Draft Initial StudyINegative Declaration May 2007 Less Than VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the Significant Project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incomoration Impact Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 0 0 0 ~ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 0 0 ~ 0 substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit In aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 0 0 0 ~ area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 0 0 0 ~ area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 0 0 0 ~ capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 0 ~ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 0 0 0 ~ a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which 0 0 0 ~ would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, 0 0 0 ~ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 0 ~ VIII a) No Impact. No waste discharge is proposed or anticipated for the Project. b) No Impact. Three (3) private wells are known to be located within 2,000 feet of the replacement well. Results of the THEIS equation utilized to estimate drawdown caused by the pumping of the replacement well at distances corresponding to the locations of the neighboring private wells indicated that operation of the replacement well has the potential to affect neighboring private wells. The District will offer compensation to the affected well owners in accordance with the provisions South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 13 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 of the Declining Groundwater Code as a mitigation measure. The proposed Project will not effect or interfere with groundwater recharge. Also, the dewatering plan for the Project indicates that if groundwater is encountered during project construction, the contractor shall collect and dispose of the water per the District's contract specifications, which includes the following: 1) Water will be pumped from the bottom of the excavation or from well points to a holding tank or filtration system prior to disposal to the sanitary sewer; 2) The Contractor may also utilize vacuum trucks to collect the water, or haul the holding away in trucks; 3) Water will not be released on the construction site; and 4) Drain rock will be used as backfill in excavations with standing groundwater. c) and d) No Impact. No stream or river course would be altered in the Project area. e) No Impact. The Project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. t) No Impact. The Project will not substantially degrade water quality. g), h), i) andj) No Impact. The Project does not propose any housing or structures. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 14 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 Less Than Significant IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incomoration Imoact Impact a) Physically divide an established community? D D D ~ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation D D D ~ of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural D D D ~ community conservation plan? IX a) No Impact. The proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. b) No Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with current plans, policies, or regulations ofEI Dorado County, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the State of Cali fomi a, or the U.S. Forest Service - Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. c) No Impact. There is no applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan for the Project area. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 15 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 Less Than Significant X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Imoact lmoact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 0 0 0 ~ that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral 0 0 0 ~ resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X a) and b) No Impact. There is no known mineral resource of value locally, to the region, or residents of the state in the Project area. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 16 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 Less Than Significant XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incornoration Imoact Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 0 0 ~ 0 standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome 0 0 ~ 0 vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the 0 0 ~ 0 project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 0 0 ~ 0 levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where 0 0 0 ~ such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the 0 0 0 ~ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XI a) and b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction related activities would generate a short- term increase in ambient noise levels. The Noise section of the TRP A Code of Regulations regulates construction-related noises. Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) for this Plan Area is 50 decibels (dB). However, according to Chapter 23.8, construction noise is exempt from the quantitative limits contained in the Noise ordinance if construction takes place between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Per TRP A Code and permit conditions, the construction contractor would be limited to maximum work day hours between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Use of cracking agents will be specified in the construction contract. c) and d) Less than Significant Impact. Two (2) Lowry deep bubble aerators will be installed in the proposed Project facility as part of the aeration system and each will be equipped with a centrifugal blower. The blowers will be powered by 25-horsepower, 3600 rpm, constant speed electric motors. The blower and motor will be mounted on a common base and equipped with a universal inlet silencer and sound attenuation wrap for noise mitigation. The TRP A community noise equivalent level (CNEL) for Plan Area 137-Christmas Valley is 50 dB. The estimated sound pressure level of the blowers is reported at 86 dB at 5 feet in a free field environment. Much of the noise leaving the building will be through the air inlet. This inlet will be directed toward the west away from neighboring residences and will be equipped with a silencer to reduce the noise below the 50-dB CNEL at the property boundary. e) and t) No Impact. The Project would not result in the permanent increase in ambient noise levels. The Project would not subject residents in the Project area to excessive noise. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 17 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 Less Than Significant XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imoact Incorporation Imoact Imoact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 0 0 0 ~ (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating 0 0 0 ~ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 0 0 0 ~ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XII a), b), and c) No Impact. The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly induce or displace existing or future housing. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 18 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 Less Than Significant XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result in: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imoact Incorooration Imoact Impact a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 0 0 0 fZI Police protection? 0 0 0 fZI Schools? 0 0 0 fZI Parks? 0 0 0 fZI Other public facilities? 0 0 0 fZI XIII a) No Impact. Construction and operation of the Project will not place a demand on fire and police services except in an emergency. The proposed Project would have no long term adverse impact on fire protection, police protection, schools, or parks. The Project includes construction of a 6-inch waterline with a fire hydrant. Addition of the fire hydrant will enhance fire protection in the immediate vicinity of the site. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 19 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 Less Than Significant XIV. RECREA nON Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and D D D ~ regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the D 0 D ~ construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XIV a) and b) The proposed Project would not increase the use of existing parks or other recreational facilities nor require the expansion of such facilities. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 20 Draft Initial StudyINegative Declaration May 2007 Less Than Significant XV. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC - Would the project: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imoact Incomoration Imoact Impact a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to 0 0 ~ 0 the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service 0 0 0 ~ standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an 0 0 0 ~ increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., 0 0 0 ~ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 ~ 0 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 ~ 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 0 0 0 ~ alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XV a), e) and t) Construction related activities would generate a short-term increase in traffic. Construction lane closures would be required on a short-term basis for connection of the treatment facility discharge line to the water main lying west of the site in South Upper Truckee Road. Following construction, the Project would be routinely accessed by District personnel who operate and maintain the well facilities. The District estimates an average of two trips per day would be generated by the Project. EI Dorado County estimates that a single-family residence generates an average of ten trips per day. At no time would access for local residents, school buses, or emergency vehicles be prohibited. Traffic controls would be implemented during work hours and only when it is necessary to perform work. Parking in driveways may be restricted for a 24-hour period after proposed curbs and gutters are installed. During construction, street parking around the Project area would be limited. b) The Project would not cause a long term increase in vehicle trips or volume to capacity ratios that would exceed the current level of service. c) The proposed Project would not affect air traffic patterns. d) The proposed Project would not change road geometry. g) The proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 21 Draft Initial StudyINegative Declaration May 2007 Less Than Significant XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS- Potentially With Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable D D D ~ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater D D D ~ treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water D D D ~ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project D D D ~ from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, D D D ~ which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand III addition to the provider's existing commitments? t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to D D D ~ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations D D D ~ related to solid waste? XVI a), b), c), d), e), and f) The Project will improve municipal water supplies and will not create demand for new utility infrastructure or services. The proposed Project would not have short or long impacts on waste water treatment facilities, water supplies, or landfill disposal capacities. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 22 Draft Initial StudyINegative Declaration May 2007 Less Than Significant XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lmoact Incomoration Impact Imoact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the D D D IZI 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 impacts that are individually limited, but D D D IZI 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause D D D IZI substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII a) No Impact. The Project has the potential to deplete groundwater in the vicinity of the well in order to meet the drinking water needs of the community. Mitigation included in the Project for the depletion of groundwater is per the provisions of the District's Declining Groundwater Code; A) Connection fee exemption and reimbursement of connections costs and B) Private water loss compensation. Overall, the Project intends to meet the drinking water needs of the Christmas Valley and Meyers/Tahoe Paradise areas, and to comply with the water quality standards of the federal Arsenic Rule and the water system sufficiency requirements of the California Deparment of Health Services (CaDHS). Therefore, the Project is considered to have a beneficial effect on the community, with no adverse affect on the environment, under its present land use designation. b) No Impact. The Project does not have impacts that are cumulatively considerable. c) No Impact. The Project does not have substantial adverse environmental effects on humans either directly or indirectly. South Upper Truckee Well Control Building and Treatment Facility 23 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration May 2007 EXPLANATION * Site I.ocalIon Municipel Wells e I'dive @ Standby @ Inactive I!l De8Iroved .. ~-- Figure 1. . .~ .1 ,g, I ft"; . l ,g 1 j~ .f \\l {.. ,';Xl . '~ ...........- Ifll r . . I I . . . t . ~,. N W+E .- . . . . SOUTH UPPER TRUCKEE WELL FACilITY 3140 EGret Way (APN 036-581"()1) s <I: . . . . . . . . . :r: lQ ::r ~ '< CD <0 \ .. ' . i- .}. ... haaJ) ~31.\fM 01. H1.d30 o N ~ CD CO 0 N ~ CO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N LO/vO/l ~ ~ . o Z ..J ..J W.c: ~a. Q) WCl W L... ~'* 03: :::) ~ 1-(1) ~~ W-' D...Q5 D...ro :::)$ ::I: t I- :::) o UJ 90/vOIG ~ 90/tOIG ~ PO/vOIG ~ ~0/90/l ~ lO/90IG ~ ~0/90IG ~ o CO CD ~ N 0 CO 0') CO CO CO CO CO f'. C") C") C") C") C") C") C") CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (ISW U) NOI1\f^313 , 00/90/l ~ CD ~ f'. f'. C") C") CD CD N a O 01 W M 2i, S S a Penotrodon RIO AMParkee 3a» Tam Salons W I'- ox maroon _"" Fine Send % V !an W a$ I2IIL IImI _ 711M)o1 _1lI11J1/04 180 80 311 iii. lie! 17 iii. 10 ~ 20 36 SW tIN ir. 4S III 36 tIN 1 71 III 15. tIN 2 3D 111 48 !5W 5 15 tIN 1; )j 1.110 2 30 1111 2- 15 ,'1 .- S 0,<<1 2- 25 15 3 0.03 20 36 20 IS 40 30 20 26 5 " 36 III 11 7' 45 40 10 12 ~tl 22 ~2 ~ Nimbus engineeRS \lP Reno. Nevada ~tov:SP~- ~ . DMc:tIlIl_...(IncbIng--..--.rig 1Illd......_ _ .....__In drIIInQ _ ond ............1nc*ldIng elm. ....,. on bit. poi. -- i2$-i~ ~~""""R,!!!<>ooI"'''''''''':-2<<1''''''. -,20% wtg ..,w!. 1........... J:llCId.!IIlC fg """'" ~....-.'k .. ....~.:+..I!'!ld..,w! ..""",.QIlMII.. . . ......1!:!"""""",'~~J:llCId._. .. .. .....""""""QIlMII.,,~.vo!c?....... .ox..... LOG __South Upperr__13 SoulIl r_ PllD P8ge 3 d 3 3140 EgnII Woy 0riI0r. Zlm _ DIIIL Ii!II 38"<W2O.237l1O" Rig: _H35Romb1or _ 7111W4 120"01' 11l..34O:Z2" lib: 17.fI2" Flnlolt 811_ :358ft El: 83G6.78ft FUd:_w GraIn Size 2 20 35 2& 8W 35 50 10 .fIN( " .?<1 ," :~B SW 20 35 40 SIN "13 V 7J llW 15 30 (tN. 21 ff,7 fNI 2() fXl SW 15 30 40 fIN( 20 30 50 fIN( ,1 D 4li :W SW 10 20 85 SW 20 25 50 fIN( 20 20 50 SW 30 .jO 30 fNI 35 >45 20 SW 25 40 35 25 280 0.18 0.43 300 2 0-35 2 2 2 320 0..7 I " . k lIaIa: DeoatJec:ullingoo.-._"""'_.1ig 8IId __. Aloonote__lndrillnG_ 8IId ""...- -.ting cfm, WigIlIllIl bil,poI,_. .. w.I!......._...-I8IId'" JIlIv!II. .~~lDlIOIbnilI.l~......../!1Od.. __ ....... __ oublnd QrIM!II d aranIlic. .... rock, -ox...... . - .......~-.r..--,,-0f!II1IIlC 15'_.........__"'....llf1MIl..~_. .l!'IbllIlIIo1lOlbnill.1-2'Jlo.............!>ll>l../!1OdIll!_. nneJllllwlll (__10... pIIlbl6) d aranIlic rock, ltWllC.lllItlN_ . 315'Noloy___ 315-33r _......._ wit 1M ....,.. ..... GM. 1_ _."'--. moy be wx aranIlic_ _'*" d ....... ... ...bodn!C;Il..llIIddk_.""'_ . SI,""ID__~dblallloll1nbld . '~..c...\!lJd.~.-"",~W-'I!II1d. F'*!Y ....., I1!l ~d1llQnlllc8nlfx), I ; ,"';~ :t'~,\: I ' ~ IS ~ :c 0:: I ~ en ., !~ is .~ Q; ~ ! i tS ffi i 'Ut; ~~. ~! ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ n. ~d I ~ ~~ . 1-"'5 ",'" ~i ~ o I ~~ ~ ~5 .:"'!, I I ~ i~~ ~ ~~ ~j 1 . . D.. .~ .. . . ~ . . ., . . . w . . (!) . . . . w . . ..J . . o . \; , . . , ~ \ ..~ """ 't (I.. ,/ ~l: ' " ~. WO 1:)38 ~LI'II08-0 lnS-d~-J 's.l311X 6n LOOZ '61 qOJ :31'(0<' ',1 n,,6~poJp ;~3S0 6Mp' IH-S\L3SNVld\OO\IOOO\OO'Zt99I \OOd3Otf'f!HlOOS\^ ;OIAO ',,; . + ;--J I ." ,- ; i . .-.----........--.r-....-...."" : .-------------~-.~~------i~- i So\JT\o\ ~ I>>E..'<. ~~ W't:.Lt.... N,c. ~ I lto.tl"\~'- w~\,.'- \t--l\"'c:A..~U:::... ~~'-'U)~"'t'\~~ ~ ~ i I i T\\~ ~~ ~~c... ~~u<- ~'-\~ b\~~,t,.\", M-~ ,0 ~~\ ro~~tLA-~\t..)~ Pr- ~'-~U:..~~ W~, \\+'c.. s.o~ ~~~1dL \'lwu.'r~'\tJ.'c..U- ~o. !.(~~~ \..cu.."'t"c.b A-'T ~ \\.40 E.~\ W~"I For.&.... M",...uc...l~~L ~~\...a Wt..)'" i W","~ s.~~p,-"t. T\+~ (.~) PQ.."'~ ~~ ~ '\<..""ow~ 'TO ~~ ; Lot..Jlc.~C) v.J\~\N ;L,COn ~~ ov=.l\\~ ~~-c" w.~S \~~l.... ,.~\V~~ w~ ~CU:..... (. .,'~'. ..' .... ,,\ ...1.. ~Q.A~~o~ tA,)~L /' 30bO E.~ l-Aw'c.. A.~~~~. \,e'Oo ~~"t"" NNE.. oP 'S~*3 (;./ \\}I, ........1 '1) "'. ~ ,~> W'c-\..\.- ).'BS\.\ ~\..\"\'"'2-te.~ ~,,~ ~~=- o~ .~"'" ~3 ~~~. \\.\\() ~~"'C" ~ L. ~~ A,O-b v.L~L'- 2~S"L.... ~u~u..~ ~A.b ~{:I~ ~~. \ sot:> ~'r N.li~ GlF S\.Tl" ~.3 , TH~ 'R~\..AU::..M.~T w~ '\~ ~L~~M'c.t:. 't\;:) ~a:.. ~t.."~~ Ats.. ~ ~ 'bQ..'''-'\c..\..:l\a. WII\.~ ?a.oa..,(..-c"\~t,) Wt:,.\,l... IoU \"t'\.\. At. ~r.A..\NPc-'- Scu~ t.A~~.\\'1 . oF- \. '-'(00 c.~\.U)~s. t'~ M.'N",)~ Ca9~. ,...... "'~'t..I~ ~\!.,. ~ \0 ~ UJ ''-'- ~h_ \Jls.~ "'t"\') t..s. i" ~~11:- "'i~'t- ~~I^,H::lQ~~ c..A,,~t:.C ~ ~~"''M.~'~__ o~ \1.-\~ \l.t:..:~U\-U:..~~,,=" Wu.L.. A-'\ "b\S. ~~ ~.s. C,I) tl. ~ ~o I-JI~ \~... \b ,..~'=- \..0 '-A- "'ilC ~ C f=.. "n\-t:.. ~'t..\~"~~~-- ~""'''n-- vJ~. T~ ~u~"o)..!, .. ~::. \\ I.{ . 10 · (s-j. \N (4t-.) T ~....... \..'6+ ,2. $ J Ti:. i , " ~ =- UT\........~"tIr-() '1:)~w~~1 \N ~l:i...'T'" (-4~) C;) =- ?~V"\.()\"",c... v.,)'c..\..\... "bs.c."~~J l~ a ~N\ . . "-T =.. TQ..A-N~M-\S.S.\\hTY \N ~~\..\.,Q~ ~~12-I;)~'l ~tJL... ~eo, (~r;J./t:rd r::. ~N::I,Q,.,- ~\S. "'N\~tJ:.. ~"" ~~\k.Q... D~ ~~ w~\.C...... \b 7~v4~ lA.J 'c..J-'- I \ N ~. ~:. ~ES::i:\c...."Cc...~-r tf=. ~'\t)~, b\.v-...~\.o~~ t: ~ t:'Wv\.l.. '\.~'c.. ~.~ s.~~'t'tJ) I IN. ~A-'l.S () wiPJ :. \N eL.L fU""-"""",, ..~ J.lA. JJ) . !'!i ~" ~ ~ , 1~/3 I . ..'0"' '~"'-"-'-"O---.-_h"'''~-'--'-''l'''''''-'''. .- j i I I I j' ! ! ; ! ! i i ! i j I I i J i I I '1.-- I :. Boo g~ L ,I __, __ '; L Ar- ! I i . '" I I :......................----.-...-.....[..--........ ................. ... ...... . -...--..............-.....-' I I . : l\bS~W\C)"O ~ i I I I I I I I IT.::. I S ~ D. D \\ ~":\- lDc."t1:)~'c.%- 'UlO't 1=>Qc€)Uc..'T\~ '\bf..T} i i -\.:: 3 hS" ~A'<S I 1 I . 1_ 'DRAw bf.)v..) ~ (S \ {).. -r , I D ~t) ~\_ I i I 1 j i I I I i I I CCl)t).~~~~,~~ \/A.,u)t.- c9\=- W (~) (FQ.Or'v\. T~Q.\.k. oS: \JA.u9~ ...A~~ . I ! Q. :: c: \ ) i i j I i ! I I I Sc.rr ~ 3 SocuIU.\::... ~A-t..\"t'''f =, '-tQC ~M ~ 0T' "'3 W\\.L o~"n::... -3 bS" "b-"'i~ 1'1Q.. \'0 M'r:..'z:...'\ AN j\..N~~~L. ~a.a~"'t'\c;)~ N'I:.\:..O 0': ~ 2..0 M\c.wON WA.I.J..S)~ I'f.~ f\.Jrc.~'^..~\\....'i eM ~;r:' ~ "'\2.0 M.g1'l~ = I. '5'"0,.. 'N\~Q ~~c.."'\:'\ON a .3 b~ oPt-'1~/Vr1- ~'U4.~ ~~l,..'{ I ~ _ \ .. PUMp l....... 04-0:.... \.~ Pt\4\j - \.. \ So+- M'! 0. .. b'\ l.\.4 L\ ~{)^" M~d 3 S, ~bC ~ ~d I~ LOl:A.\\J~ ~~ Oc:.."t'O~ 1oO\{ ~Oo~c:no~"'t1:.t.-9 _ (L ~:-r}.(\.ofOO)t.....(()..O\\~+-).. _ 1A - - (3S:, ~bO) .. (3b~ l~S~\.-:}b t t"\ !-3 :.. ..., I ')l \Q \~~bqqt>O i )) i i j W(~J: ~.bqOb S :. :(1\.4.6). (~OO). (s. bqD~}..~.: Sl \ ':1-,<-\. .:. \~. % ~~~. 3> 6~ 2.bt) .-p """- J' ~ S rXb b '.. _ i '" . j$i J [%- __ ,__,__,,, "__ __ _ _ __, '" _____ I, _________.__., "" "_, __ _______________J____. ..__""._ ____ _ _..___,,____ __, ,___ _________ .____, j__...._".."" I .,... '.,!. 'I' I :-"... -------.---i------ - , I !:)~~f~~~ (~) f:\.~ '.';'~ \=.~~ i I I j I I i i I I i::-: ,.., ~~::)) , , .i 2- 4 =. (\..~-=t-). (\'-t\o) .. (o.t)\\"2..':l-) _ L..\\~Ciq (3S1 ~ bD) · (~bS) '~I%bq,~D() C-o~~~M~\~. \it\\.J.)k,. o~ W (LA.} ~ \N lJw\) =- s. \3 ~g S :: (j\l.\, b) 'leOOJ .CS.\?>GC() _ L\i-\,llb Z S', .J. bb - 3s: 'j, b 0 ! j i I i 'bo.AWb~WN (~\ ~--r \ \ ShO j ! i ~i:..te...T -31 ::. ~. ~ S ~ \0 I I I I ! :; I 3.11 I F~\ I I '" . ..t,;. ! I I I I I )J. = l\, ~":f ),( \ \scc~ 1... (c.O\\~-Y _ 41-4 \ ~ (35", 2bC) · (3b~ \~, ~b<i,l:\OO Co ~ ~ E.S- ~o \J. b\ ~ 'eo "~L C~ W (.u... ).. - ... . I I i i ! i I I i ..-:. 3.b~ '" \0-3 I ! , I i I i I I J I J I I ! i I j ::.. \ 3, \ ~1:J:..T-1 ... r"",""'" ..,... I I i ; ! NoTl.: T~ ZA."fl>.T\()~ ~s.\,)~ ~ ! e 'bA~'l'i ~ ~pu~ (~O~ ~\A. ~\JI.~ j I ~ A-qt.j\ \=-~IZ.. I.!.. U~\f:OD..'N\. ~~ \o\olMJ:)-'k.")~" ..) , (!) A........ ~~-~~' v..)~\"'tI.L t.~ ~tl.C__ ~\J\~ ~'tbU.f.t...(Nc ~~,.l .:J.) I C!) 1=>cJ ~l""'- Wt..U- NU-Y ~u.tt:.'nLA~ ~lJIF~O" j ! 1 . 1:) \~~ ~\fi.I..H:.~ ~ Q~ kJ.a."t'cJ:L l="_'^"- 'w~ j e ~I.)lt=~~ '\<.It'-~,~ s.~Q.A.~ ' OlJ'tS.lb~ Co~L of:. b~US~toN. ./':'"~'.'. " W(M.) ~ s.o_~sq s~ (\\~. b J .l~OO) ~ ls.o~) ~ ~ bO=f':J.S 8.s', QbO 3~;tb{)' J-BI 1 ... u... .... _.~___...__.._.__~..._..__...__.___..__._..l...____.._.... ~Q.~c.oLL J l'\ ~b) " 16.... ':I ! ~ E = 'C ,.l:l := 1 c Z .l!l <Ii ~ ~.s 0\ II ~'S ~ ! ~-; ~~ if :g 8- IIJ Q) ~ u ;a- ~ .... o IIJ Q) .; i> :. ;( (---"-'; , \ . " \ ! ! ~ ) '.t. ~. APPENDICES 921 . _~_oO_~O~_~~~N~~~~~~~~~~~~$~~~;~~~~M ~ ~~;:t~M~~~~M~~_~;:t~~-~~O~-~~~_~~M~~~~~O~~~N-O N~~~=~~8~g!~a~g~g~5~~~~8gg888888888888g88g o .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . ~_' ~~~~~~N~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~-~~~~~~~~8~~~~~~~~~ N~~~M~~~O~~~~~~g_~~~o~~~-~~~~-O~~~MM-~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~:~~=::~~5~~~~~~~~~ .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~- ~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ M~~~O~~_~o~g~-~~~~N~~N~~~~~~~O~~~_~~~M~~~; ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~M~~~;~M~~~~~N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N~~N ~_' ~~~~~~N~mO ~~~~~~2~~~m~g~~~~~~2~~~~~~ ~~v~~N~ ~ .~~-~~O~~ ~- N .N~~~~O~~~N~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ .~ ~~~:~~~~~~~.~ ~ .q ~::~~:::~~~~~ t M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N~_~~~~~~~~~N~~M~~~O~~OO~N~ - S~~~~E~~g~~~~~~~~!~~~~~5~~~~~~~a~~~~~~~~S8 = ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~X~~~M~_~~~~~~~~N~-O-~~~oo~~~~~~~--~~N-~M~ S ~~~~~~~a~~~~~aQ~~~~~~~~~~~~~8~~Ng~~~g=~~~~ x ~~~~~~~~~MN___OO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t ~o~~~~~~~~_~~~~O~~~~~~-~~~~8~~~~N~~NM~~-~- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~E~2S~~i~~~~~~~~~~~$~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~d~~~==========~~===== ~ ~~~~~~~~_~~~~O~~~~~MM~~O--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~Esa~~~~E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2~~ao~~~~~ = ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t ~M__OO~~~~~~O~ONOM~~~-~~~~~-~~M~~~~VV~~N~M - i~:g;~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~.~ ~~!~~~~~S; eS!~~~~~~~rJ ~ i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ O~~~~~~.~M~_~_~~~~~~.~~-~~-~O-~-O~~oo~~~~~ ~ ~~~:g.~~~x~~~~~~~~_;~_~~~~~~=~~~=~~N~~~~~~ x _O~~~~~~~~.~~~NN---O!O~~~~~W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ~~~~NN~O~~~~N~NM_~~~~N~~~~~~~~M~~~O~~-8~N~ ~ i~~~=~~~~~~~~~~~~;;~~~~~~~~~=~~8B~~i~~=~~~ = ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~8~~B~g~~~~~~~~~~ x ~~~~;~~N~~~8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~V~~~NO~~~~~~~~~N-M~~~8 ~~~~~~~NN~~MM~~~ 1_ ~~__~~~~~_o_~o~~~o~~~~~~ _N~WN~N~~N~~~~.~. a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~8S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ v__~~~.~~~N~~~~-8-~~~ON~~~~-~~_~M~OO~~~~MO- b ~-v ~o~~~~~.~~o~ M~_~~MNN~~g-~O~-~~NO~~~~~ ~ ~~~ _~~N~-~-~~~ ~M~~M~~~O~ N~~~M~~~~O~~VN X ~N- o~~~~~~~~~v ~M~NMN----O O~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O~~~~~O~M_~O~_~~~~~~~~~-MNO~OO~O~8~~~~~~~~ ~_ ~M~~N~~~-~~~O~~N~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~N~~ ~~M-~~~~ X ~~~~~~~~8o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.M~~~~~~N~~~=O~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ggg~~g~gg~~~g~~~~gg ~NNN__~~~~~~_~_~~M~~~N~~_~~N~~~~~~8~~O~~-~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~ x ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ M~M~~~~~~~~MMMM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M~M~~~~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O_NMV~~~~~O_NM~~~~~~O-N~V~~~~~O-N~~~~~~~O- ~~~~~~~~~~MMNNNNNNMN~~~~~~~~~M~~~~~~~~~~~~ I t i l: 1: I ~: i. 1, 1 ~ r '!; I :l' '~'):.:!"~". ! ~: .:, ~ '.. . ~1 + ~ I,H ~; l' l' f, r: f l- I' ~~. ., IU ~1'J 600 GOO Feet N A WELL SURVEY SOUTH UPPER TRUCKEE WELL FACILITY 3140 Egret Way (APN036-581-01 ) ap p ro Xlm ate sea Ie EXPLANATION '* Site Location . Private Well Location (approx ) Municipal Wells . Active o Standby o Inactive II Destroyed . SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT WELL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT HERITAGE RESOURCE INVENTORY MEYERS, CALIFORNIA EL DORADO COUNTY BY SUSAN LINDSTRoM, PH.D. CONSULTING ARCHAEOLOGIST P.O. BOX 3324 TRUCKEE, CALIFORNIA 96160 PREPARED FOR ENTRIX, INC. 1048 SKI RUN BLVD. SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CALIFORNIA 96150 MAY 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARy........ ........................ .................................... ..................................... 1 PROJECT LOCATION, SCOPE AND METHODS ........................................ 1 BACKGROUND ............................... ........ ..:...... ................... .............................. 2 METHODS ........... ...... ......... ......... .............................................. .......... ............... 6 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 7 REFERENCES ................................. ......... ......... ................... ......... ......... ............ 7 FIGURES 1. Project Vicinity Map 2. Project Location Map and Archaeological Coverage 3. Project Site Plan CORRESPONDENCE Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California SUMMARY Current environmental review policies, in compliance with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's (TRP A) mandates under Section 29 and El Dorado County's procedures under CEQA, require that cultural resources be considered as part of the environmental assessment process. In accordance with these regulations a heritage resource inventory was conducted by Susan Lindstrom, Ph.D., Consulting Archaeologist to ENTRIX, Inc. Prefield research entailed a general literature review of prehistoric and historic sources concerning the project area and the required records search at the North Central Information Center at California State University, Sacramento. In addition, representatives of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California were contacted in order to identify any potential Native American issues; no immediate concerns were identified. The entire parcel was completely inspected by walking parallel transects at no greater than lO-foot (three-meter) intervals. This heritage resource inventory disclosed no prehistoric or historic sites, features or artifacts. Consequently, the project sponsor should not be constrained regarding heritage resources. Although the project area has been subject to systematic surface archaeological investigations, it is possible that buried or concealed heritage resources could be present and detected during project construction activities. In the unlikely event heritage subsurface resources are discovered, project activities should cease in the area of the fmd and the project sponsor should consult a qualified archaeologist for recommended procedures. PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION AND SCOPE The South Tahoe Public Utility District (District) is proposing to construct a well controls building and treatment facility on a 35,000 square-foot (SF) parcel in Upper Lake Valley (figures I and 2). The lot is located within the Christmas Valley subdivision at 3140 Egret Way, Meyers, California (EI Dorado County). The project will involve: the demolition and removal of an existing 350 SF concrete block well house; conversion of an existing well; removal of approximately 2,100 SF of existing access driveway pavement; and the construction of an approximately 2,557 SF well controls building and 2,030 SF of access driveway (Figure 3). Current environmental review policies, in compliance with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's (TRPA) mandates under Section 29 and El Dorado County's procedures under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Section 5024, Public Resources Code), require that cultural resources be considered as part of the environmental assessment process. In accordance with these regulations a heritage resource inventory was conducted by Susan Lindstrom, Ph.D., Consulting Archaeologist to ENTRIX, Inc. Such heritage resource studies are customarily performed in a series of phases, each one building upon information gained from the prior study. Each of these phases is generally performed under separately negotiated contracts. INVENTORY: First, an archaeological reconnaissance is performed to inventory existing heritage resources and constraints. If properties are discovered and if they may be subject to project-related impacts, their significance must next be evaluated. 1 EV ALUA TION: Next, and pending the outcome of the initial inventory, heritage resources subject to project-related impacts may need to be evaluated to determine their significance. Potential impacts to these significant resources can then be specifically assessed and detailed recommendations to mitigate impacts can be proposed. If project redesign to avoid impacts is unfeasible, then mitigation measures must be developed and implemented in order to recover the significant information contained within these heritage properties prior to project ground disturbance activities. IMPACT MITIGATION AND DATA RECOVERY: A third and fmal phase may involve the implementation of mitigation measures recommended during the prior evaluation phase. Mitigation, or data recovery, typically involves additional field study, excavation, archival research, photo documentation, mapping, etc. Objectives of the current heritage resource study are designed to satisfy antiquities requirements pertaining only to the initial inventory of heritage resources by: I. conducting prefield research to determine the presence of known heritage properties and expected level of archaeological sensitivity of the project area; 2. performing an archaeological field surface survey of the project area; and 3. reporting field fmdings, to include a general assessment of development- related impacts to inventoried heritage properties and mitigating measures to minimize the adverse impacts. BACKGROUND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT The project topography is flat. Elevations range around 6,400 feet. Burnette (1968) has described the Quaternary geology of the general project area. Soils have been mapped and are discussed in the TRPA soils report (1971b). No flowing water exists within the study area, although the Upper Truckee River is only about 500 feet (152 meters) away. Vegetation falls within the Canadian Life Zone (Storer and Usinger 1971; TRPA 197Ic), in which the overstory is characterized by pine and fir forests, with shrub species and assorted grasses and forbs comprising the understory. Typical fauna associated with these plant communities are described in the TRP A series (l971d). Many of these plants and animals were of economic importance to the prehistoric and historic residents of the area. However, it is doubtful that modern plant and animal communities closely resemble their pristine composition due to historic and modern disturbance involving historic logging, transportation, and recreation activities, and more recent commercial/residential developments. During prehistoric times the area is thought to 2 have supported a luxuriant growth of native bunch grasses that allowed an abundant large game population and provided a nutritious source of seeds for use by early peoples. Tributaries to Lake Tahoe, such as the Upper Truckee River, were once considered prime fisheries and were used by the prehistoric Washoe and historic Euro-American residents. PREHISTORY A large view divides the prehistory of the Sierra Nevada and adjoining regions into intervals marked by changes in adaptive strategies that represent major stages of cultural evolution (Elston 1982, 1986). In broadest terms, the archaeological signature of the Truckee Basin marks a trend from hunting-based societies in earlier times to populations that were increasingly reliant upon diverse resources by the time of historic contact. The shift in lifeways may be attributed partially to factors involving paleoclimate, a shifting subsistence base, and demographic change. The archaeology of the region was fIrst outlined by Heizer and Elsasser (1953) in their study of sites located in the Truckee Basin Martis Valley area. They identified two distinct prehistoric lifeways which are believed to have once characterized the area's early occupants. Subsequent studies have further refined the culture history of the region (Elston 1971; Elston et aI1977). Some of the oldest archaeological remains reported for the Tahoe Region have been found in the Truckee River Canyon near Squaw Valley. These Pre- Archaic remains suggest occupation by about 9,000 years ago (Tahoe Reach Phase). Other Pre-Archaic to Early Archaic occupation dating from about 7,000 years ago was documented at Spooner Lake (Spooner Phase) near Spooner Summit overlooking Lake Tahoe. The most intensive period of occupation in the region may have occurred at varying intervals between 4,000 and 500 years ago (Martis Phases during the Early and Middle Archaic, and Early Kings Beach Phase during the Late Archaic). The protohistoric ancestors of the Washoe (Late Kings Beach Phase), also of Late Archaic times, may date rougWy from 500 years ago to historic contact. NATIVE AMERICAN PERIOD The study area lies entirely within the nuclear territory of the Washoe Indians (Downs 1966) or Wa she shu (Nevers 1976). The Southern Washoe, or Hung a lei ti of Woodfords and Markleeville, distinguished themselves from the Eastern (Valley) Washoe, or Paw wa lu of Carson Valley, and the Northern Washoe, or Wel mel ti of the Truckee Basin, Washoe, Eagle, and Sierra valleys and Honey Lake (Downs 1966:49; Nevers 1976; d'Azevedo 1986). The Southern Washoe and Eastern Washoe most likely utilized the project vicinity. They once embodied a blend of Great Basin and California in their geographical position and cultural attributes. They were a relatively informal and flexible political collectivity. The Washoe language is part of the Hokan linguistic stock. The ethnographic record suggests that during the mild seasons, small groups traveled through high mountain valleys, collecting edible and medicinal roots, seeds and marsh plants. Willows, grasses and roots were prized as materials for basket making. Berries were gathered on the mountainsides. In the higher elevations, men hunted large game (mountain 3 sheep, deer) and trapped smaller mammals. Fish were caught in tributaries to Lake Tahoe. Areas containing lithic resources (such as basalt, quartz and gneiss) suitable for the fashioning of stone tools were also visited to quarry the stone. The Washoe have a tradition of making long treks across the Sierran passes for the purpose of hunting, trading and for the gathering of acorns. Small camps along these trekking routes have been inventoried in this portion of the Sierra. These aboriginal trek routes, patterned after game trails, are often the precursors of our modern transportation systems. Lake Tahoe was both the spiritual and physical center of the Washoe world. The Washoe lived along its shores, referring to it as Da ow a ga, which means "edge of lake." The Washoe word, Da ow, mispronounced by whites as "Tahoe," gave rise to the lake's modern name. Freed (1966:78) has reported the locations of several Washoe encampments in the Tahoe Basin and has identified two important Washoe fishing camp sites in the project vicinity nearer to Tahoe's lakeshore. ImgiwO'tha (Imgi = cutthroat trout; wO'tha = river) was a fishing camp along the Upper Truckee River. MathOcahuwo'tha (mathOcauwa' = white fish; wO'tha = river) was a fall camp to collect late ripening berries and catch and prepare whitefish for transport on their treks to the Pine Nut Mountains to the east or the acorn groves to the west. According to Freed, Trout Creek was different from other streams in that people could live near their fish blinds. It was unnecessary to camp together since there were no dangerous wild animals in the area at this time of year. The next stopping place after the Trout Creek fish camp, on their journey west to procure acorns, was near Meyers Station on the Upper Truckee River. Minnows and suckers were caught here. This site was considered dangerous because of bears and the Washoe camped close together. The Eastern Washoe used this route. The Southern Washoe got their acorns at Big Trees and the Northern Washoe journeyed to the vicinity of Colfax. If there were no other acorns, the Washoe collected "white oak" acorns (huckleberry oak acorns) referred to as malnatsi (malun - acorn; atsi - small) and described as resembling acorns which grow on bushes five or six feet high. d'Azevedo (1956:85) also notes use of the Meyers area by the Washoe and describes another site one mile north of Meyers along the Upper Truckee River. According to his Washoe consultants, the Upper Truckee was called imgi wa'ta. Evidence of these ancient subsistence activities are found along the mountain flanks as temporary small hunting camps containing chips of stone and broken tools. In the high valleys, more permanent base camps are represented by stone chips, tools, grinding implements, and house depressions. Along the lakeshore, more permanent base camps are represented by stone chips, tools, grinding implements, bedrock mortars, and possibly house depressions. Quarries, located at outcroppings of knappable stone, are littered with chips of stone, tool blanks and complex tool preforms, and manufacturing failures. Fishing sites can be marked by the presence of broken tools and bedrock milling features. By the 1850s Euroamericans had permanently occupied the Washoe territory and changed traditionallifeways. Mining, lumbering, grazing, commercial fishing, tourism, and the growth of settlements disrupted traditional Indian relationships to the land. As hunting and gathering wild foods were no longer possible, the Washoe were forced into dependency upon the Euroamerican settlers. Beginning in 1917, however, the Washoe Tribe began acquiring back a small part of their traditional lands (Nevers 1976:90-91). The Washoe 4 remain as a recognized tribe by the u.s. government and have maintained an established land base. Its 1200 tribal members are governed by a tribal council which consists of members of the Carson, Dresslerville, Woodfords, and Reno-Sparks Indian colonies, as well as members from non-reservation areas. The contemporary Washoe have developed a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Washoe Tribal Council 1994) that includes goals of reestablishing a presence within the Truckee-Tahoe Sierra and re-vitalizing Washoe heritage and cultural knowledge, including the harvest and care of traditional plant resources and the protection of traditional properties within the cultural landscape (Rucks 1996:3). EUROAMERICAN PERIOD Transportation and Communication: Commercial Overland and Automobile Aside from a few trappers and probably some adventuresome miners moving east from the foothills, the Tahoe Basin was essentially unsettled following the visit by John C. Fremont in 1844 until the later 1850s. The demand for trans-Sierran routes was generated by the need to transport people and supplies to the mines of the Comstock and the Mother Lode. The opening of the Comstock mining boom in Nevada, beginning in mid-1859, prompted a sudden surge of heavy wagon and freight traffic through the Tahoe Basin and quicker routes were sought across the Tahoe Sierra. The project area is located in proximity to two major historic routes over the Sierra, Luther Pass and Johnson Pass. The project area falls between both routes. From the gold fields of California through Placerville, the "Bonanza Road", or old Placerville Road (U.S. 50), traversed Johnson Cut-off (Echo Summit), down to Lake Valley, and then to Mormon Station (Genoa) on the way to the Washoe. Laid out in 1852, it was passable for wagons before 1854. Luther Pass (State Highway 89), which was used as early as 1850, branches off the Johnson Pass Route (State Highway 50) near Meyers. The road up Luther Pass follows south in the vicinity of the Upper Truckee River, to join the Carson Pass Route (State Highway 88) at historic Pickett's Junction in Hope Valley. In the spring of 1851 Martin Smith, who bore the distinction as Lake Valley's and the Tahoe region's fIrst white settler, preempted land surrounding a broad and fertile meadow that was later to become Upper Lake Valley, and established his trading post in this back country wilderness. Smith's trading post was later developed by Ephraim "Yank" Clement into one of the most famous hostelries and stage stops on the Bonanza Road to Washoe known as Yank's Station. Yank's Station was the site of the most eastern remount station of the Central Overland Pony Express in California. Yank stayed as owner- proprietor of the station until 1873, when he sold the famous way station, along with several quarter sections of adjoining land, to George Henry Dudley Meyers. In 1882 Meyers homesteaded 160 acres in Sections 29 and 32, Township 12 North, Range 18 East. He ran a dairy and cattle ranch, and sold timber rights. After 30 years at old Yank's Station, Meyers sold to the Celio family, who had settled in Lake Valley during the 1860s. Charles G. Celio patented 160 acres in Sections 5 and 8 of Township 11 North, Range 18 East in 1883. The project area was included in this 5 patent. Celio's two sons each homesteaded 160 acres in Sections 21, 27, and 28 of that township in 1900. The Celio family bought out Meyers in 1903, named for the homesteader who had settled on the land before 1860. A post office was established in 1904. In 1938 the settlement of Meyers was swept by fIre, which destroyed the old hotel and store that had catered to travelers for more than 70 years. A plaque commemorating the Pony Express marks the site of the original hostelry on the east side of u.s. 50. Commerce and Industry: Lumbering The urgent demand for fuel wood and the more pressing needs of the mines (with their square-set timbering system) and those of the growing settlements created an insatiable demand for lumber. Areas east of the crest of the Carson Range were soon depleted of their timber and harvesting was directed to the Lake Tahoe Basin. Much of the logging was done on a contract basis with local loggers who supplied stipulated amounts of timber for large firms. Four major lumber companies operated within the Tahoe Basin. Each developed an impressive network of sawmills, railroads, tramways, flumes, and rafting operations that were designed to cut and move the lumber over the crest of the Carson Range and down to the mines of Washoe. The Carson & Tahoe Lumber & Fluming Company (CTL&FC), formed in 1873, cut on lands in proximity to Upper Lake Valley during the late 1880s until 1898. With headquarters at Glenbrook, it emerged as the chief operator, with holdings in the east central, south and southwestern portion of the Tahoe Basin and in the project vicinity. Celio's Incorporated Lumber Company was formed in 1905 and five years later the corporation built a steam-powered sawmill on property owned by the Celios some five miles to the south of Meyers. The project area was likely included in timber tracks harvested by the Celiios. C. G. Celio & Sons supplied local lumber needs from their mill at Meyers Station from 1911. They cut about 500,000 feet annually from 1915 to 1917. In 1923 their mill and logging camp ran at full capacity. By the end of the 1927 season they had cut out their timber in the upper end of Lake Valley and had to move their mill to a new site. The second mill was a new and larger plant that they built in September 1928 on the county road between Meyers and Fallen Leaf Lake (Knowles 1942:43). For 47 years the Celios continued in the lumber business. METHODS Prefield and field research was conducted by Susan Lindstrom, Ph.D. Lindstrom has over 30 years of professional experience in regional prehistory and history, holds a doctoral degree in anthropology/archaeology and has maintained certification by the Register of Professional Archaeologists since 1982. PRE FIELD RESEARCH Pre field research entailed a general literature review of prehistoric and historic sources concerning the project area. Other local histories and secondary sources consulted are also listed in the referenced cited section of this report. The standard records search at 6 the Archaeological Inventory, North Central Information Center at California State University Sacramento (NCIC-CSUS File No.: Eld-07-26) was also completed. in order to identify any properties that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and other listings, including the files of the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). No previously archaeological studies have been conducted within the project area and no heritage sites are known to be located within or adjacent to the project. FIELD SURVEY The entire project area was examined by walking parallel transects at no greater 10- foot (three-meter) intervals. In addition, the Washoe Consultant also toured the project area and prepared a briefletter report of her findings. Project unit boundaries were delineated by physical features and landmarks of the built and natural environment, which were elicited from a project map. Distances were established by pacing. Cardinal directions were maintained by compass readings. As noted in the project description section, most of the surface area has been graded and/or built upon by the District's water management activities. However, a strip along the eastern quarter of the parcel retained tree and shrub cover. Here, ground visibility was partly obscured by duff. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This heritage resource inventory disclosed no prehistoric or historic sites, features or artifacts. Modern refuse and a few metal fragments associated with District activities were noted but not formally recorded. The project sponsor should not be constrained regarding heritage resources. Although the project area has been subject to systematic surface archaeological investigations, it is possible that buried or concealed heritage resources could be present and detected during project construction activities. In the event that subsurface heritage resources are discovered, project activities should cease in the area of the fmd and the project sponsor should consult a qualified archaeologist for recommended procedures. The results of this study have been conveyed to the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, who concurs with these findings. The Tribe has asked to be notified of the date that project ground disturbance activities will begin in order to make an informal visit to the project site (see attached correspondence). REFERENCES Burnette, J. L. 1968 Geology of the Lake Tahoe Basin, In Studies in the Lake Tahoe Area. Annual Field Trip Guidebook of the Geological Society of California. d'Azevedo, Warren 1956 Washo Place Names. Ms on file, Anthropology Department, University of Nevada, Reno. 7 1986 Downs, 1. 1966 Elston, R. G. 1971 1982 1986 Washoe In Handbook of North American Indians Volume 11 (W. d'Azevedo, ed.). Washington: Smithsonian Institution. pp. 466-498. The Two Worlds of the Washo. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. A Contribution to Washoe Archaeology. Nevada Archaeological Survey Research Paper No.2 University of Nevada, Reno. Good Times, Hard Times: Prehistoric Culture Change in the Western Great Basin. In Man and the Environment in the Great Basin, edited by D. B. Madison and J. F. O'Connell, pp. 186-206. SAA Papers No.2. Society for American Archaeology, Washington D.C. Prehistory of the Western Area. In Great Basin, edited by W. L. d'Azevedo, pp. 135-148. Handbook of North American Indians, vol 11, W. G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Elston, R. G., J. O. Davis, A. Leventhal and C. Covington 1977 The Archeology of the Tahoe Reach ofthe Trucke River. Report to Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency, Truckee. Manuscript on file, Special Collections, Getchell Library, UNR. Freed, S. A. 1966 Washo Habitation Sites in the Lake Tahoe Area. University of California Archaeological Survey Report 66:73-83. Berkeley. Heizer, R. F. and A. B. Elsasser 1953 Some Archaeological Sites and Cultures of the Central Sierra Nevada. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports, No. 21, Berkeley. Nevers, 1. 1976 Rucks, M. 1996 Wa She Shu: A Tribal History. University of Utah Printing Service. Salt Lake City. Ethnographic Report for North Shore Ecosystems Heritage Resource Report (HRR#05-19-297). Ms. on file, USFS - Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, South Lake Tahoe. Storer, T. and R. Usinger 1971 Sierra Nevada Natural History. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRP A) 8 1971a Fisheries of the Lake Tahoe Basin. South Lake Tahoe. 1971b Soils of the Lake Tahoe Basin. South Lake Tahoe. 1971c Vegetation of the Lake Tahoe Basin. South Lake Tahoe. 1971d Wildlife of the Lake Tahoe Basin. South Lake Tahoe. 1971e Cultural Significance ofthe Lake Tahoe Basin. South Lake Tahoe. Washoe Tribal Council 1994 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Manuscript on file, Tribal Government Headquarters, Gardnerville. 9 SOUTH TAHOE PUBUC tmLlTY DISTRICT WEU. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT HERITAGE RESOURCE STUDY + o I 0.25 0.5 ML. FIGURE I. Project vicinity map .. ~, ~ ( J'",' .~.ii(\..); 1 , t/i 'iij -'.~' - ~~', :0-.'" ',1' ./.-:.V ~-."" \ \'~'~ ./--, J ,'!~"Jl*,~,\,~J ,'~",,:.,.J ,~\.;;)Lc-"\ ./~,,/ ~l'fl')\. ~ F%....... ' ECHO LAKE. CALlF'ORNIA N;lM~.-WI~'~.J;;.~ 523-4C REVISEO 1985 CONTOliR INTERVAL 40 rEET l,j,t, n.;:'N...." f,;~OPli!~. "itf.lfl~.l. ,()",tUM OF ! 929 FIGURE 1. Projeet loealion map and arc:haeologiea' eoverage ,---- ,: )i :~ :1 '! I II ti ! I: I II: 9 '1 ( II 'f-~tl 'il! :,1! ';:1:0)1; "1' ',:l!' ;; ll,; "fi" JL!: J{:"h~ f I I ~ j ~,l>l ~~ll'i f' l' ,A~ , ~ ~ .^ I, ~1 I , I i ~ ~ III af, " ;,/ t"~ " l~ !/ , -- ....,.....,~'~,. .,.,.-' I '("r... 'c I i \ , A~ ,#' \ , i~-i r'''''"'' : j ~~ ,.,1.,...,.... .~ ~ ,If i:: , ~ r: ~~~ t ii2 tt~ ...~~ Q-';;;l E:iln ~ "'"oJ -E-U ~Zllll ....~l;l u::;!o ::S~(I) =>~ ~i~ ~Q"Cl o!~ =~~ <~Illi l-~tl =St i:: o :.r; i I ~ it i' ;I' i'~ ~::, jl pi c:l " Q. .i ... v v 'e ~ ..; ... ~ c t: Susan Lindstrom, Ph.D. Consulting Archaeologist P.O. Box 3324 Truckee CA 96160 530-587-7072 voice 530-587-7083 fax slindstrom@jps.net DATE: December 10, 2000 TO: William Dancing Feather Native American Coordinator Washoe Archival and Cultural Center 861 Crescent Drive Carson City NY 89701 775-888-0936 RE: South Tahoe Public Utility District Well, South Lake Tahoe I have been retained by ENTRIX, Inc. to conduct an archaeological surface survey of a 35,000-square-foot parcel in Meyers, California, El Dorado County (see enclosed map). I have completed an intensive survey and discovered no Native American sites, features or artifacts. Washoe Consultant, Lynda Shoshone, also visited the project site and has prepared a letter report of findings. No immediate concerns were identified. Although the project area has been subject to systematic surface archaeological investigations, it is possible that buried or concealed heritage resources could be present and detected during project construction activities. In the event of fortuitous discoveries of additional heritage resources, project activities should cease in the area of the fmd and the project sponsor should consult a qualified archaeologist for recommended procedures. I wish to bring this project to your attention and invite your opinions, knowledge and sentiments regarding any potential concerns for traditional Native American lands within this project area. I look forward to hearing :from you if you have any additional information regarding this area. Sincerely, Susan Lindstrom Consulting Archaeologist Enclosure Cc: Lynda Shoshone, Coordinator Washoe Language School L)1lda SboIbclDa "84" W.Sho-SIlu Way 0vdnctvi1Ie. NewdI ~ April2B.2007 S_ LiDdIlrom. Ph.D. ~ P. O. Box 3324 TnlllQe. CA 96160 1m: nPUD QrlataIU VaUty ProJ- HWJ& IlIi bdI: Per our QOIl'VOl1lllion llIId the map t.bIt you fIu4 to In)' oft\ee. I did take tbe time to 10 ....s look It tbe pcojeot .... just to ...the JudICtP" Evca thouP the ~ pump JaoQte Is 011 fin, I wouk1 lit'" COClCIlftII with _ now projoI:C blIlIOd OIl iUl tocMia ( would rec>>JlllMId tb81 U. Wahoo \Ie notified of_ date WIt tbe pIOja wiD IIlan, I would like to tit ebIo to IJMIb . Wit 4IIriIII pouIId 4iIUtlIDDc. espedaIlJ Ifdlly die Into _'" tOil. At yoglalow the Upper TNckee River WIll . very imtlorUJd rnowee ., the Wuh!w poopk IIIld theM weft _ 41IJllIlI ~ dU...... If you ..'" lIlY questioN Of ..dldclidoo&llatonnatiOCl ,... do ~ to ooatICt my office :;:;~L LI'.u .... Ne.ti... ~ CoftsulCllftl E N T R I X ENTRIX. Inc. 1 [).\8 S~i P:u" B<.J;,,;i(!',:ard SC:it!; La..e T,lt'J5 CA qf;':)D '5:.-10: !I-'~2-020: '53Ci S.~2 .~/;J' ,:'::1\ :),1) e '9BJ ,f:n- 'r]{:i7>~.'!!F ExtAi'f!:e February 7, 2007 North Central Information Center CSU-Sacramento, Adams Building 6000 J Street, SUite #208 Sacramento, CA 95819 To Whom It May Concern: I would like to request informatiOn on parcel 036-58Hlll located in South Lake Tahoe, CA. authorize the North Central InformatiOn Center to bill me for this record search at a rate of $150.00 per hour for (X) hours plus necessary Xerox costs. The project consists of a tearing down the existing well building (350 SF) and building a new building (about 2,550 SF), In order to house mechanical and electrical equipment for a larger capeclty well, a larger stand-by power generator and corrosion control treatment equipment that was not part of the existing facility. Ground disturbance will ba conducted mainly in land capability class 5 and 3, avoiding the 1 b (SEZ) area on the parcel. The physical address of the existing well building is 3140 Egret Way, South Leke Tahoe, CA 96150. Please see attached USGS map with project coordinates. South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) is the owner of the parcel, and the agency requesting the record search be done. Their address is: 1275 Meadow Crest Drive. South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Ivo Bergsohn is the STPUD project manager; his number is 530-543-6204. As their representative. please contact me with any questions. Thank you in advance for your help. cey Carter Entrix, Inc. 1048 Ski Run Blvd. South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 530-542-0201 LLLL LLLL LLLL LLLL NORTH CENTRAL INFORMATION CENTER 916-278-6217 ncicecsus.cdu FAX 916-278-5162 aU-SACRAMENTO - 6000 :1 sTREET ADAMS 8l.D6. SUITE #208 - SACRAMENTO CA 95819-6100 Amadcr, EI Dorado. Nevada, Placer, Socramento, ond Yuba Counties February 8, 2007 NCIC File No.: ELD-07-26 Nancey Carter ENTRIX, Inc. 1048 Ski Run Blvd, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Re: Record Search Results for STPUD Well Improvements, APN 036-581-011 3140 Egret Way, South Lake Tahoe: T IIN/R 18E Section 5, USGS Echo Lake 7.5' Quad Dear Ms. Carter; Per your request received by our office on February 7, 2007, a complete records search for the above-referenced project was conducted by reviewing the State of California Office of Historic Preservation records, base maps. historic maps, and literature for EI Dorado County on file at this office. Review of this information indicates that the proposed project area contains no recorded prehistoric archaeological sites or historic-period resources listed with the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). This office has one record of an archaeological study conducted immediately adjacent to the subject parcel. State and Federal inventories list no historic propenies (buildings, structures, or objects) within the proposed project area. Prior to Euroamerican contact, the Washoe and their ancestors inhabited the Lake Tahoe Basin and surrounding lands. The Washoe followed a seasonal cycle of resource procurement, moving from lower elevations for acorn and seed processing to higher elevations for large game hunting, with fish from local streams and lakes also providing a dietary staple (D' Azevedo 1986:466-470). The current project area is located approximately 6,400 it above sea level, on a gentle east-facing slope leading to the Upper Truckee River a few hundred feet away. Given the environmental setting, there is a moderate oolen/ial for prehistoric or ethnohistoric.period Native American sites in the project area. The 1875 GLO plat of T 11 N/R 18E shows a trail labeled "Emigrant Road" along the same alignment as the road which borders the west side of the subject parcel. This same route is labeled as Highway 89 on the 1955 edition of the Echo Lake 7.5' Quad. Other portions of "Old Highway 89" have been recorded with the CHRIS; however, the portion of roadway adjacent to the current project area has not been formally documented as an historic resource. No historic properties or features are identified in any of the other inventories or references consulted. Given the known patterns of local historic land use. there is a moderate oo/ential for identifying historic-period cultural resources within the subject parcel. Page 2 NCJC File No.: ELD-07-26 LITERATURE REFERENCED DURING SEARCH: In addition to the official records and maps for archaeological sites and studies in EI Dorado County, the following inventories and references were also reviewed: the National RerUster of Historic Places - Listed Properties (2006) and Detenninations of Eligibility (2006); the California Register of Historic Resources - Listed Properties (2006) and Determinations of Eligibility (2006); the Califomia Inventorv of Historic Resources (1976); California State Historical Landmarks (1996 and updates); Califomia Points of Historical Interest (1992 and updates); the Office of Historic Preservation's Historic ProDertv ~ (2006); Caltrans State and Local Bridl!e Survevs (1987, 2000, and 2004); QQ!4 Districts of California (Clark 1970); California Gold Camus (Gudde 1975); Califomia Place Names (Gudde 1969); Historic Soots in California (Hoover et aI. 1966 and 1990); Trail of the First WallOns Over the Sierra Nevada (Graydon 1986); Historical Souvenir ofEl Dorado Countv (Sioli 1883); Historic Mining Ditches ofEI Dorado Countv and the Formation of the El Dorado Irrigation District (Starns 1998); El Dorado Countv Historical Cemeteries (Starns 2(02); the Smithsonian Institution's Handbook of North American Indians. Volume II. Great Basin (D' Azevedo 1986:466-470); and California ArchaeololtV (Moratto 1984). NCIC LIBRARY REPORTS CONSULTED: The following reports detai I results of cultural resource investigations immediately adjacent to the current project area: Report #7216 (no cultural resources were identified as a result of this survey) RECOMMENDATIONS: I) There is a moderate possibility of identifying both prehistoric archaeological sites and historic-period cultural resources in the project area. Further archival and/or field study by a cultural resource professional is recommended. 2) Review for possible historic structures has included only those sources listed in the attached bibliography and should not he considered comprehensive. The Office of Historic Preservation has deternlined that buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value. If the area of potential effect contains such properties not noted in our research, they should be assessed by an architectural historian before commencement of project activities. 3) If cultural resources are encountered durin!! tbe Droiect, avoid altering the materials and their context until a cultural resource consultant has evaluated the situation. Proiect oersonnel should not collect cultural resources. Prehistoric resourees include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, and other flaked-stone artifacts; mortars, grinding slicks. pestles, and other groundstone tools; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; mine shafts, tailings, or ditches; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies. Page 3 NCIC File No.: ELD-07-26 4) Identified cultural resources should be recorded on DPR 523 (A-J) historic resource recordation fOnDs. available at www.ohp.parks.ca.gov. Thank you for using our services. Please contact our office at (916) 278-6217 if you have any questions about this record search. A billing statement is enclosed. Sincerely. Jennifer Bowden Researcher ~ /\ '", .: ~ \ o ,: ua!'l/i~ 7~ . , .... l.~ke A'~""JJi.<J'" A f:',in~, l~;fl:,'rni, J . ' '. Ne!w~n',ru Hf'nlJ}(!(,d' .H.-"td(Ylv 1 dif. H{l.n~'!l . ~'hf{ i'~_.,v , .... "~~~" :".542 " " ~ " "'. ~: .^lplJ)c Calnf!f,T01.lri.j j':" . ',' ~ ;; .- -i. ~<i> ,.. '.':::: 7')'W;f! 8p/''' Pi " Gk.c'~O :< :: .~ 0; 1 ~ lJ (J...o t...1cc- \"s>' " ~, .. '. C I.;: ~. 11-> South Tahoe Public Utility District South Upper Truckee Well Controls Building and Treatment Facility AERATION PROCESS SCREENING EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT RADON GAS EMISSIONS Prepared for: South Tahoe Public Utility District South lake Tahoe, CA Prepared by: ENTRIX, Inc. Ventura, CA May 17, 2007 South Tahoe Public Utility District Screening Exposure Assessment 1.0 OVERVIEW This Screening Exposure Assessment for the South Upper Truckee Well Controls Building and Treatment Facility (Facility) proposed by the South Tahoe Public Utility District (District) has been prepared to assess potential environmental exposure to radon gas released by the aeration process. Aeration is a mass transfer mechanism used to remove carbon dioxide (C02) and radon (Rn) from well water in order to meet drinking water standards. Radon is a radionuclide as identified in California Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, California Health and Safety Code Sections 25249.5 et seq. (regulations codified in Title 22, California Code of Regulations, Sections 12000-14000). The proposed facility would be located at 3140 Egret Way, South Lake Tahoe, California. This document is divided into four sections. Section 1 is the Overview with an epidemiological summary. Section 2 details the calculation methodology used to determine the emission rate and release parameters for the facility. Section 3 presents the dispersion modeling. Section 4 details the exposure assessment results. Section 5 contains a radon map of California. 1.1 Epidemiology Radon-222 (atomic number 86) is a noble gas 1 produced by radioactive decay of Radium-226 (atomic number 88), which is widely distributed in soils and rocks. Radon-222 decays into a series of short-lived radioisotopes. These decay products are often referred to as radon progeny or daughters. Because it is chemically inert, most inhaled radon is rapidly exhaled, but the inhaled decay products readily deposit in the lung, where they irradiate sensitive cells in the airways, thereby increasing the risk of lung cancer, particularly in smokers.2 Radon emanates naturally from the ground, particularly in regions with granitic soils. Depending on how houses are built and ventilated, radon may accumulate in basements and inside dwellings. Radon has been classified as a known human carcinogen and has been recognized as a significant health problem by groups such as the Centers for Disease Control, the American Lung Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Public Health Association. As such, risks from in-home radon exposure have been a major concern for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 1992, EPA published its Technical Support Document for the 1992 publication "A Citizen's Guide to Radon", which included a description of its methodology for estimating lung cancer risks in the United States associated with exposure to radon in homes. That methodology was primarily based on reports published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). In one of those reports, known as "Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) IV" published by NAS in 1988, a model was derived for estimating the risks from inhaled radon progeny, based on an analysis of epidemiologic results on four (4) cohorts of occupationally exposed underground miners. In 1994, the EPA sponsored another study, "BEIR V", to incorporate additional information that had become available from miner cohort and residential studies. In early 1999, the NAS published its "BEIR VI" report, which presented new risk models based on information from eleven (11) miner cohorts. A major conclusion of the BEIR VI report was that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking,3 1 The six noble (inert) gases are helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon. Air contains 0.93% argon 0.0018% neon, and 0.00052% helium, along with traces of the others (Jennings), 2 EPA Assessment Of Risks From Radon In Homes (EPA-402-R-03-003), Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460, June 2003. 3 ibid 2 South Tahoe Public Utility District Screening Exposure Assessment Based on its analysis, EPA estimated that out of a total of 146,400 lung cancer deaths nationally in 1995, about 21,100 (14.4%) were radon related (with an uncertainty range of 8,000 to 45,000). Although it is not feasible to totally eliminate radon from the air, it is estimated that about one-third of the radon-related lung cancers could be averted by reducing radon concentrations in homes that exceed EPA's recommended 4 picocurie per liter (pCi/L) action level (NAS 1999).4 Table 1 lists EPA's updated estimate of the lifetime risk of death from lung cancer resulting from radon exposure in homes for nonsmokers, smokers, and the general population, which includes former smokers.5 Table 1. Lifetime Risk of Lung Cancer Death from Radon Exposure in Homes6 Radon Level Never Current General oCi/L 7 Smoked Smokers Population 0.4 0.073% 0.64% 0.23% 1.3 0.23% 2.0% 0.73% 2 0.37% 3.2% 1.2% 4 0.73% 6.2% 2.3% 8 1.5% 12% 4.5% 10 1.8% 15% 5.6% 20 3.6% 26% 11% EPA estimates that the average nationwide outdoor radon level is about 0.4 pCi/L and that the average nationwide indoor radon level is about 1.3 pCi/L. The EPA's recommended action level for in-home radon mitigation is 4 pCi/L, while a lower mitigation threshold of 2 pCi/L is encouraged by the agency.a 4 ibid 5 Assumes constant lifetime (70 year) exposure in homes at these levels; estimates are subject to uncertainties discussed in Chapter 8 of the risk assessment; BEIR VI did not specify excess relative risks for current smokers. 6 http://www.epa.aov/radon/risklriskassessment.html 7 One picocurie is 10E-12 curie, or one disintegration every 27 seconds which is equivalent to 3E-6 grams of natural or depleted uranium or 9E-6 grams of natural thorium. One curie is the radioactivity corresponding to a disintegration rate of 3. 7E1 0 disintegrations per second, equivalent to 6,615 pounds of natural or depleted uranium or 19,850 rounds of natural thorium (Title 17 CCR 30258, General Definitions). A Citizen's Guide to Radon (EPA-402-K02-006), Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460, Revised September 2005. 3 South Tahoe Public Utility District Screening Exposure Assessment 2.0 EMISSION RATE DETERMINATION 2.1 Emission Estimation Technique The radon emission rate for the facility was determined using the emission estimation technique (EET) of mass balance. Since all physical parameters are known, Le., concentrations and flowrates, calculation of radon emissions to the ambient air is straightforward since mass is conserved. The Well Controls Building and Treatment Facility would use the following equipment to aerate groundwater and remove CO2 and radon: . Two Lowry DB86 Deep Bubble Aerators (1,400 gpm combined water flowrate) . Two 25 horsepower regenerative blowers (3,000 cfm combined airflowrate) The concentration of radon in the groundwater is 500 pCi/L. Table 2 shows that the resultant maximum concentration of radon in the aeration exhaust is calculated to be 31.2 pCi/L and the emission rate would be 0.0442 microcuries per second (uCi/sec) equivalent to 44,200 pCi/sec, assuming conservative 100% transfer of radon from water to air. Table 2. Radon Emission Rate Determination Parameter Units Value acf/min 3000 Air Flowrate acm/sec 1.416 I/sec 1416 Water Flowrate Qal/min 1400 I/sec 88 Aaueous Concentration pCi/L 500 Air/Water Ratio dimensionless 16.0 Gaseous Concentration pCi/L 31.2 Emission Rate uCi/sec 0.0442 2.2 Release Parameters The proposed aeration exhaust is 14-inch diameter (35.6 cm) anticorrosive (PVC) ducting9 through the roof of the building inside a "chimney" structure: . Release height is 20 feet 8 inches (6.30 meters, vertical direction) . Roof height is 20 feet 3 inches (6.17 meters) . Building width is 56 feet (17.07 meters) . Building length is 66 feet (20.12 meters) 9 SCREEN3 assumes vertical flow of gas from stack (default) 4 South Tahoe Public Utility District Screening Exposure Assessment The above building dimensions are used for downwash (eddy) calculations by the dispersion model. An average annual temperature of 51 of (284 OK) 10 is used for both the exhaust air and ambient conditions for no thermal plume buoyancy for (Le., conservative) with a calculated release velocity of 2,800 ft/min (14.3 m/sec). Table 3 shows release parameters for the facility. Table 3. Facility Release Parameters Parameter Units Value Release Height feet 20.67 meters 6.30 Release Diameter feet 1.17 meters 0.356 Release Velocity meters/see 14.3 Release Temoerature deorees K 284 Ambient Temoerature deorees K 284 Building Height (roofline) feet 20.25 meters 6.17 Building Width (min) feet 56.00 meters 17.07 Building Length (max) feet 66.00 meters 20.12 10 National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOM) published data for Reno, NV (nearest official station) 5 South Tahoe Public Utility District Screening Exposure Assessment 3.0 DISPERSION ANALYSIS Dispersion of radon contained in aeration exhaust was modeled as a point source using EPA's general Gaussian-plume atmospheric dispersion model SCREEN3, version 96043. Under public domain, SCREEN3 is a conservative model which is typically used to determine "worst- case" impacts on ambient air quality in the vicinity of an emitting facility. If SCREEN3 yields no significant impact, no further analysis is required since more refined models would yield lower results. 3.1 Modeling Inputs and Outputs The estimated emission rate of 0.0442 uCi/sec (Table 2) was used with the facility release parameters (Table 3) to obtain a result in units of picocuries per cubic meter (pCi/m3).11 In turn, this result was divided by 1,000 liters per cubic meter (Um3) to yield standard units of pCi/L for comparison with EPA's risk guidelines (Table 1). The distance range is 8 meters (26 feet, proposed facility fenceline) extending out 800 meters (0.5 mile). The standard receptor height of 1.5 meters (59 inches) represents the breathing height of an average person. For short distances, simple (flat terrain) is assumed along with the more conservative urban dispersion coefficient for populated areas. The model runs through all atmospheric stability classes, from A (most unstable) to F (most stable). Input conditions and maximum results are shown in Table 4. Table 5 shows the concentration versus distance relationship for worst-case stability classes in units of pCi/m3 and pCi/L. Table 4. Dispersion Modeling Conditions and Maximum Results Ambient Concentration Value 1.5 8-800 All Sim Ie Urban 19 4.5 E 80.2 0.0802 0.0064 11 One cubic meter equals 35.31467 cubic feet, or 1,000 liters. 12 Wind speed and stability class results are computed by SCREEN3 for the maximum condition 6 South Tahoe Public Utility District Screening Exposure Assessment Table 5. Worst-Case Concentrations vs. Distances Distance Wind Soeed Stabilitv Hourlv Concentration Annual meters m/sec Class DCi/m3 DCi/L oCi/L 8 nfa nfa 0 0.0000 0.0000 19 4.5 E 80.2 0.0802 0.0064 25 2.0 C 78.0 0.0780 0.0062 50 2.0 D 56.4 0.0564 0.0045 75 2.5 F 46.3 0.0463 0.0037 100 2.5 F 39.2 0.0392 0.0031 200 1.0 F 20.9 0.0209 0.0017 300 1.0 F 15.0 0.0150 0.0012 400 1.0 F 10.6 0.0106 0.0008 500 1.0 F 7.8 0.0078 0.0006 600 1.0 F 6.0 0.0060 0.0005 700 1.0 F 4.8 0.0048 0.0004 800 1.0 F 3.9 0.0039 0.0003 3.2 Modeling Results As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the maximum impact distance predicted by the model is 19 meters (62 feet) from the exhaust point, or 11 meters (36 feet) from the fenceline. Maximum additional ambient concentration at this distance is 80.2 pCifm3 (0.0802 pCifL) for Stability Class E (strongly stable) at a wind speed of 4.5 meters per second (10 mph) for a 1-hour averaging time. Due to building downwash (eddy) effects, the model predicts no impacts closer than 19 meters (62 feet) from the exhaust point. Since the model predicts maximum 1-hour impacts, other averaging time concentrations are obtained by multiplying 1-hour concentrations by correction factors per EPA guidance 13: . Three (3) hours: 0.9 . Eight (8) hours: 0.7 . Daily (24 hours): 0.4 . Annual (8760 hours): 0.08 Since EPA's epidemiological criteria for radon are based on lifetime exposure (Table 1), the annual averaging time correction of 0.08 applies, yielding an annual average impact of 0.0064 pCifL at 19 meters (62 feet) from the exhaust point, or 11 meters (36 feet) from the fenceline.14 13 Screenina Procedures for Estimatina the Air Qualitv Imoact of Stationary Sources (EPA-454-R-92-019)' Office of Air and Radiation, Air Quality Planning and Standards Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Revised October 1992. 14 Annual correction: 0.0802 pC ilL x 0.08 = 0.0064 pCi/L 7 South Tahoe Public Utility District Screening Exposure Assessment 4.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 4.1 Maximum Impact The incremental (additional) annual average ambient concentration of radon gas in the zone of maximum impact would be 0.0064 pCi/L, which is 1.6% of EPA's average nationwide outdoor radon level of 0.4 pCi/L. As shown in Figure 1, impacts in all other areas near the facility would be less than the predicted hourly maximum of 80.2 pCi/m3 (0.0802 pCi/L). Figure 1. Hourly Radon Dispersion for Worst-Case Stability Classes Radon Dispersion 90 C') 80 E rs 70 Q. 60 g 50 :1:1 40 ~ 30 B 20 c o 10 o 0 o 200 400 600 800 1000 Distance, meters 4.2 Conclusion The screening analysis demonstrates that since annual average outdoor concentrations of radon gas would increase by 1.6% or less in any location, there would be no significant risk to public health due to operation of the proposed facility on a lifetime exposure basis.15 15 A 1.6% increase above ambient background is well within the noncontinuous media accuracy range for ambient air contaminants, where the largest source of measurement error is sampling f1owrate, typically plus or minus 5%. 8 South Tahoe Public Utility District Screening Exposure Assessment 5.0 EPA RADON MAP FOR CALIFORNIA The purpose of the EPA radon map 16 is to assist national, state, and local organizations to target their resources and to implement radon-resistant building codes. The map is not intended to be used to determine if a home in a given zone should be tested for radon. Homes with elevated levels of radon have been found in all three zones. All homes should be tested regardless of geographic location. Important points to note: . All homes should test for radon. regardless of aeograohic location or zone desianation. . There are many thousands of individual homes with elevated radon levels in Zone 2 and 3. Elevated levels can be found in Zone 2 and Zone 3 counties. . All users of the map should carefully review the map documentation for information on within-county variations in radon potential and supplement the map with locally available information before making any decisions. . The map is not to be used in lieu of testing during real estate transactions. The radon map was developed using five factors to determine radon potential: indoor radon measurements; geology; aerial radioactivity; soil permeability; and, foundation type. Radon potential assessment is based on geologic provinces. Radon Index Matrix is the quantitative assessment of radon potential. Confidence Index Matrix shows the quantity and quality of the data used to assess radon potential. Geologic Provinces were adapted to county boundaries for the Map of Radon Zones. Sections 307 and 309 of the Indoor Radon Abatement Act of 1988 (IRAA) directed EPA to list and identify areas of the U.S. with the potential for elevated indoor radon levels. EPA's Map of Radon Zones assigns each of the 3,141 counties in the U.S. to one of three zones based on radon potential: . Zone 1 counties have a higher predicted average indoor radon screening level greater than 4 pCi/L (red zones); . Zone 2 counties have a moderate predicted average indoor radon screening level between 2 and 4 pCi/L (orange zones); and . Zone 3 counties have a lower predicted average indoor radon screening level less than 2 pCi/L (yellow zones). Consult the EPA Map of Radon Zones document (EPA-402-R-93-071) before using the map. This document contains information on radon potential variations within counties. EPA also recommends that this map be supplemented with any available local data in order to further understand and predict the radon potential of a specific area. If you have questions about radon in water, see www.epa.gov/radon/rnwater.htmlor contact your State Radon Coordinator. 16 http://Vt1W'W.epa.gov/radon/zonemap/california.htm 9 South Tahoe Public Utility District Screening Exposure Assessment Il\l"'Q~ SAn Wit oeuf'O 10 SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT SOUTH UPPER TRUCKEE WEll CONTROLS BUilDING AND TREATMENT FACiliTY PROJECT State Clearinghouse Number: 2007052110 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE June 21, 2007 SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT SOUTH UPPER TRUCKEE WELL PROJECT CERTIFICATION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTiliTY DISTRICT SOUTH UPPER TRUCKEE WEll CONTROLS BUilDING AND TREATMENT FACiliTY PROJECT Whereas a Negative Declaration was prepared dated May 17, 2007 on the project which includes: A brief description of the Project; the location of the project; findings that the project, will not have a significant effect on the environment; an Initial Study documenting the potential impacts, incorporated mitigation measures and information supporting the finding of no significant impact; Whereas the Negative Declaration was circulated through the California Office of Planning and Research, to responsible agencies and the interested public from May 18, 2007 through June 19, 2007 and no comment letters were received; Whereas the Mitigated Negative Declaration was noticed to adjacent property owners on May 18, 2007; Now therefore, at the June 21,2007 hearing, the South Tahoe Public Utility District Board finds "that upon review of the initial study and comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have an adverse affect on the environment." PAGE 1 SOUTH UPPER TRUCKEE WELL CONTROLS BUILDING AND TREATMENT FACILITY PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 requires the adoption of a program by a public agency for monitoring or reporting on the project revisions or measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant impacts of a project. Although the initial study revealed that the following effects of the project are less than significant, the mitigation efforts described below further both reduce their impacts and are a natural result of the project. The plan implementation and impact mitigation measures that are incorporated into the Proposed Project are also contained in the Bayview Well Initial Study. Detailed descriptions of each measure are included below. The following mitigation measures will be instituted during the construction and operation of the South Upper Truckee Well operated by the South Tahoe Public Utility District. Each of the mitigation measures includes a description of the measure that is required to be completed, lists the impacts that are mitigated, the lead, implementing, and the monitoring agency. Included is the timing associated with the implementation of the mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure 1: Loss of Groundwater Supply to Residential Well Customers Description Impacts Mitigated Mitigation Level Lead Agency Implementing Agency Monitoring Agency Timing Groundwater Supply Mitigation Connection to the STPUD water system. The South Tahoe Public Utility District through connection fee exemption and reimbursement of connection costs shall compensate users that obtain drinking water from private wells that are negatively impacted from construction and operation of the South Upper Truckee Well. Loss of residential groundwater availability for private wells. Connection to the STPUD water system and compensation for loss of groundwater for private wells through reimbursement of connection costs and fee exemption. South Tahoe Public Utility District South Tahoe Public Utility District South Tahoe Public Utility District Start: Ongoing, Upon operation of South Upper Truckee Well. Complete: Ongoing Mitigation Measure 2: Offset Impacts of New Land Coverage Description Land Coverage Mitigation The South Tahoe Public Utility District shall offset impacts of new land coverage associated with the well and control facilities. The South Tahoe Public Utility District shall offset this impact through the Impacts Mitigated Mitigation Level Lead Agency Implementing Agency Monitoring Agency Timing acquisition of potential land coverage rights and permanently retire said rights in the amount of 1403 square feet. New land coverage over allowable within the project area as determined by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Full retirement of 1403 sq. ft. South Tahoe Public Utility District South Tahoe Public Utility District Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Start: Ongoing, To be obtained prior to start of construction of South Upper Truckee Well facility. Ongoing Complete: Notice of Determination Form C To: ~ Office of Planning and Research PO Box 3044, 1400 Tenth Street, Room 212 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 From: (Public Agency) South Tahoe Publ ic Utility District (STPUD), 1275 Meadow Crest Dr., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 (Address) ~ County Clerk County of El Dorado 360 Fair Lane Placerville, CA 95667 Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code, South Upper Truckee Well Controls Building & Treatment Facility Project Project Title 2007052110 State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted to Clearinghouse) lvo Bergsohn Lead Agency Contact Person 530.543.6204 Area Code/Telephone/Extension 3140 Egret Way, South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, CA 96150 (APN: 036-581-01) Project Location (include county) Project Description: A Well Controls Building and Treatment Facility will be constructed that will house mechanical and electrical controls, corrosion control treatment, and disinfectant equipment required for the operation of a proposed 1,400 gallon per minute municipal drinking water supply well. This will replace 2 existing municipal water supply wells operated at the site. This is to advise that the South Tahoe Public Utility District 12I Lead Agency 0 Responsible Agency and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: has approved the above described project on June 21, 2007 (Date) 1. The project [DwiIl IlIwill not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. 0 An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA. III A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA. 3. Mitigation measures [[]were l;ZIwere not] made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [Owas llIwas not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings [llIwere Owere not] made pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA. This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: Not Applicable Signature (Public Agency) Date Title Date received for filing at OPR: January 2004 26 Governor's Office of Planning and Research Page I of I Kathy Sharp .1 '.;;~ V c,~ .J' r.,-.', ('" C d if:?~.....J t::: I , ~. f'! ,J (IX:. From: Ivo Bergsohn Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 4:54 PM To: Kathy Sharp Cc: Richard Solbrig; Jimmie Hoggatt; Brad Herrema (bherrema@hatchparent.com); Paul Sciuto Subject: Public Comments - Please Distribute to Board Attachments: Marty-cmmnts_61407.pdf; Marty_cmmnts_61307.pdf; Phillips_cmmnts_61507.pdf; TMoulia_drftcmmnts_061407.pdf Hi Kathy: Could you please distribute the attached public comments regarding the proposed South Upper Truckee Well Controls Building & Corrosion Control Treatment Project to the Board. These represent all public comments received through June 18,2007. The TMoulia comments are in draft form. Mr. Moulia indicated that he would be sending his final comments tomorrow. The public comment period ends tomorrow, June 19,2007. Thanks Ivo Bergsohn, P.G., C.Hg. Hydro-Geologist South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 530.543.6204 530.541.4319 (fax) 6/18/2007 I SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT 1275 Meadow Crest Drive Soutb Lake Tahoe, California 96150 June 14, 2007 Attn: Ivo Bergsobn and Members of the Board of Directors Re: South-Upper Tiuckee Wells Control BUilding and Treatment Facility Draft Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration To Whom It May Concern: We, the undersigned residents of Christmas Valley and adjacent neighbors to the northwest of this proposed project are responding to your proposal as instructed, prior to the June 19, 2007 deadline for submitting our comments about this project. We have se~ous ~n~ a~ ~ prqJ~ .~ it i~ de.scrib~ in the Initial Stu4Y'~ feel the level o~ due . diligence done on environmental impact issues is inadequate as presented in the draft, or at least as they have been made readily available to us, the public, particuIarly when you look at what these issues are. They seem more appropriate in a big city, concrete and asphalt industrial area than in quiet, tranquil Christmas Valley, next to a river and watershed area, in the middle ofa residential zone! Frankly, we are simply stunned that anyone would even consider this an appropriate course of action at this location in this environmentally sensitive valley, in Lake Tahoe, one of the most regulated places 00 earth. ~ . .' i . ~ , . '. : ..!' ,i ,'-.' i. ;., '. ~ - - ,,: : .' . '_ > . .."' .I' ~ ~: ~' .We rescl'all tbe pages :ofthe repoitand did sonie backgroUnd research'so oUi'CommetitS:eoul(J.1)e reaSonable. ",; and factual - we did oot want to fall prey to the "Not in My Back Yard" Syndrome, although this project is literiiIly'in 6drbick yarn: fr6nf yard and side yard! And we certainly understand the need for public utility companies to develop plans for the greater good of the community. ~(at thepnce'~t~lf'des~yihgafiUnily;~:fife1 ':, Although we are not scientiSts, chemists, hydrO"geOIOgisU~' engineers Or' imyother type of professIonal, we also' made an effort to respect the ~ofk and knowledge that haS gone into this report. In return, although just ' ordinary people working hard to builds: 'hOfue aild raise our Wnily, and as 3'S-yeac resideotS of this 'pristine valley in this home, we ~ our deep 'con~sfor theheaith and'welfare of oUr family ,Win be given as much coDsiderat10D as'imy tecIullCat or scl~~tific'oppoSitioit'to thoSe coriCe~;- ,; ..' 'J' At a Nei~borhood Meeting in Aprilr ~OO7 intended to acquaint the neighborhood with the project design, only a bare haDdful of residents were ootified'bya flyer aooutthet'iieeting, Many, angry and upset neighbors showed up. after hearing abo~t the ~in$ omy thr~':18h word-of-IIiOuth and began asking many queStions that largely went ulialiswered. One of thoSe questions related to an enviroiunental impact report. . We were told ..... construction was duet<> start in July 2007, but no environmental reporthadoome opt yet.' We were also told that STPUD didn't really needtoget:our input or approviUto 'go fuiWard with thiS project. ' Todat~ in spite'ofniany people requesting it, no such environmental impact report has been given to anyone. Is that because you don't i'eally cafe ~hat we think or howtbis 'proj~ impaCts us? J '.:7 .... I ( p;. ().\ v: ;,' ~l.::: :", . ~.., ' ~. ,;...:- :'~,::',:.':~:;l.. :;(;oq (:1 r:~'(.. C{.~'.d.!LH~"tij:Jf. Thesb att'oUt~jor'cOncems::_;' '," ",) '.. '\., , ," ,,",~.:,:"';:. ;Ji: :i:~':,iC" '" j!il:<'; I:<:! !',:':,'~ .:F,:~.t:~~ li"(',:~~( !.~ ,<, ,1":_::.F~'~; ~~1t1 ;.' ie.' f~2'r.' ':,: ,'"(J "\~", ~".;;ir'~,: / :~'!~~L. ?!.1.k~~.OL'_~'",,, ~t::r{):r::'~':! r~_1~,... ~",:.,"}-lt.(~;: :~.~ 1) RADIO J'N'iERFERENCE~] We have lived llli~oII1fortably IieXt to'tms well..kDown 'asSoiitli'Upper:Tiilckee Well No.3 <S,UTN(). 3)f~.~y years ~y. AO:~ a modification to the well over 10 years ago we lost all t. ... i , '. t, ;...~ ' . j, t.' " . . '.:" . - . , t '''.' , '. 2 decent radio reception from interference created by pumps inside the well house. Listening to the radio all day is very important to a member of our family who must stay at home all the time now for health reasons. If that isn't the situation with you then you can't really imagine how fiustrating it is to be deprived of simple pleasures. While certainly not a huge,lif~threatening issue, it's definitely a constant and annoying problem. STPUD has apparently made efforts to fix the problem, and spent considerable money we were told, but the radio interference remained so we have been forced to live with static and very poor reception. The new project involves pumps and aerators that will most certainly create an even greater interference in our use of any electronics inside our own home and nothing was said to us or in the report about how that problem is going to be handled. We'd really like to enjoy our home in the same manner as all of you. 2) NOISE POLLUTION - The pumps and aerators that are to be a part of this system to aerate the water of its radioactive waste by-products is going to create a loud, constant noise about 10-14 hours per day, 7 days per week, and 52. weeks per year. The TRPA .communitynoise level equivalent for Christmas. Valley is 50 dB, roughly equivalent to somewhere in between ambient library sounds (4OdB) and normal conversation (60dB), This machinery is going to generate a sound level of86dB (motorcycle or lawn mower) that will, supposedly, be silenced "at the property line" down to 50dB. There is just a presumption that baftles will silence it, and the baftles won't vibrate and the sound won't be carried further than anticipated or become omni directional by wind. In this valley you can literally hear a pin drop on Echo Summit, and except for the occasional coyote songs it is a lovely experience to just listen to the silence. .. "'Our information tells us that it is "not so much the pitch or loudness of a sound that makes it unbearable as it is . ... . . .:the repetitive nature, the distraction it causes and the lack of control over it". Imagine hearing an alarm clock ,:go off3 feet away (80 dB), but it stops - now imagine that radio static we mentioned being played low, 50dB, An your home 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks per yearl We asked at the Neighborhood Meeting what .\would happen if the noise was not adequately silenced as stated and we were told "they" (STPUD) would have totry'and fix: it. Like they fixed the radio interference, right? And the Draft Study has the audacity to state there will be "less than significant impact" from the noise! No definitive tests have been done or proposed to insure this industrial noise will not create unbearable noise pollution in our quiet residential area. Instead of birds chirping and the river rushing, we will hear a constant, low mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm that will destroy any serenity we once enjoyed in our own yard. We would simply like to enjoy our yard in the same manner as all of you. 3) TOXIC CHEMICAL STORAGE - Even if the radio interference and noise pollution were not issues, one of the biggest issues (along with the next one) is that this STPun well stmcture will house hazardous chemicals a short distance from our home and just a few hundred feet from the river. They plan to hold 200 gallons of diesel fuel, plus toxic chemicals for treating the water, inside that building. Now we will be subjected to the smell of diesel fuel whenever the backup generator is tested or run, plus possible chemical odors emanating from the openings in the strocture used for exhaust. We have large concerns about damage to the structure from unknown risks not calculated in the report, causing fire danger and/or toxic chemical spills into the Tmckee River watershed area just across the street. 3 Anyone who has lived in Tahoe for a while knows that cars periodically come flying off Echo Summit, whether intentionally or not, and crash down the mountain. We have seen and heard large boulders come down. We and our neighbors have reported several such incidents repeatedly to law enforcement. Not that many years ago a car flew off Echo Summit, crashed all the way down to South Upper Truckee and burst into flame on the road... ,just about a mile from this proposed project! Medical, military and news helicopters fly low through this valley all the time. Cars and drunks race down the road at unsafe speeds, or spin out wildly on icy conditions. There are too many unca1culated risk factors to dismiss them by omission in this report and it is naive to assume it can't or won't happen. It can, and does, all the time. We are terrified to think what might happen if there is any collision with that structure since it is so close to South Upper Truckee with not protective barriers. I doubt the fire hydrant is going to contain a diesel fuel explosion quickly enough to protect the forest and closest homes to the blast zone - us. We would just like to go to sleep at night and enjoy our home as you do, knowing a chemical spill or fuel explosion ~ll not awaken us in the night. 4) RADIOACTIVE WASTE - RADON - We bought a home in a nice residential area, in a peaceful valley, overlooking a pristine river, 35 years ago. Now we are going to be living next door to a noisy chemical plantl What happened to allow this aberration of environmental protection? How can the TRP A be so strict on homeowners with the smallest of changes to the properties, yet pem1it radioactive waste, fuels and chemicals in the same area?! We reviewed the Industrial Zoning uses that apply to this property (17.60.020 Uses Permitted By Right - EI Dorado County Planning Department - Lake T8.hoe)...in which "no odor, gas, fumes, dust, smoke, noise, vibrations, glare, heat, electrical interference, radioactive waste or material is produced or emitted beyond the confines of the owner's premises to adjacent properties or into the air or watercourses, and which does not constitute a physical hazard to persons or property beyond the confines of the owner's premises by reason of fire, explosion or similar cause". In the next section it states that any of those conditions require a special use permit. How can any reasonable person reading that draft report think that in a less-than-perfectly-modeled-world, where all risk factors are not controlled by STPUD, some of those conditions, if not all, will NOT exist at some point? Our position is that we are completely against the issues mentioned above and at the very least, require further environmental impact reports and baseline testing of all the methods proposed, in advance of construction, which apply to any of the factors requiring a special use permit. We do not accept that "STPUD will fix it later if it becomes a problem". That is completely unacceptable to us, How can STPUD be permitted to arbitrarily make such gross intrusions into our lives and the lives of our neighbors, who are equally concerned? There must be balance between the obligations of STPUD to the community for clean, healthy drinking water, and the peaceful use and enjoyment by a neighborhood oftheir own property! Our country is littered with examples of big business, public utilities, chemical laden industry and highly trained professional who have jeopardized the lives and health of thousands and thousands of people with unconscionable decisions that favored money, industry and so-called progress over the lives of an individual, or a group of individuals. We do not imply that is the case here - we hope it is not. But by adopting this project ._,.,..,-,.,....."~.,,.._-....-.-,,_.-. ,~~ .~-. .... .....m.._~"....\.'!:.~_..~ ......r.......... .'1:. .. ..___......'"........,v".,. 4 exactly as it is proposed our use and enjoyment of our property, and our very health and welfare, will most certainly be negatively altered forever. ~Q.,~ Herman Marty / ~~~ /ff2(pz1Zj~ ~ E' Marty 3132 Egret Way South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 B&-t 6500 (2 S.~~T~ GA<q6J5""5 j . South Tahoe Public Utility District S-ou-fh Opper Truckee WeTl CoiilfoTs Bu1R:ffngand Treatment FacilIty Initial Study/Negative Declaration Comment Form . Please provide your comments below regarding the project issues addressed in the Administrative Draft Initial StudyiNegative Declaration that will be prepared for the South Tahoe Public Utility District South Upper Tru:ckee Well Controls Building and Corrosion Control Treatment Facility project. Please include your name, address, email address (if applicable) and telephone number so that we may contact you if necessary; Comnient(s): 1. Planned project wouldbeiiria "residential" area on a residential lot, which should not be permitted. .The planned building and driveway etc. would be way over allowed TRPAcoverage. It would substantially decrease property value in the neighborhood. Noise and transportation traffic would be significant. Taking arsenic, C02 and radon out of the water and then blowing it into the air, for us to breathe, does not make much sense. 'l'herewould also be substantial noise pollution, caused by air intake. and air outlet chimneys. . The proposed project would have cause radio interference.. STPUD in this neighborhood for years. longer. a VFD - driven pump. VFD motors has been polluting the airwaves This will not be permitted any Thepr6posed building will involve storage of reportable quantities of hazardous materials - If spilled this could end up in the nearby Upper Truckee River. Objedtionable odors may also be created. Name: Herman and Mercy Marty Address: 31 32 Eqret Way Email: POBox .550012 Phone: 577""1 000 Please complete your comment in the space above. Attach additional sheets if required. Upon completion, please return no later. than June 19,2007 to: South Tahoe Public. Utility District. . 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Attn.: South Upper Truckee Well No.3 ISIND. ,/:1 .1': South Tahoe Public Utility District South Upper Trucke-eWeTIC6ntroTsBiJrrarng and Treatment-Facility Initial Study/Negative Declaration Comment Form Please provide your comments below regarding the project issues addressed in the Administrative Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration that will be prepared for the South Tahoe Public Utility District South Upper Truckee Well Controls Building and Corrosion Control Treatment Facility project. Please include your name,. address, email address (if applicable) and telephone number so that we may contact you if necessary. . fL". :-.. a-- 'dW--07- Name: J<L~ ~S~ fhtLLtpf. .. ... Addres~ ~r p~;:(tiB~';1 S't;'tVI, L.ab.., I""~ Email: . ')f~jV~~ @. . eel . . Phone.: Cf3l) 359,-oP-;_cf Please complete your comment in the space. above. Attach additional sheets if required. Upon completion, please retuni no later than Jime 19.2007 to: . . .~ South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive .. South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 . Attn.: South Upper Tmckee Well No. 3 ISiND June 15, 2007 TO: South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 ATTN: South Upper Truckee Well No.3 ISIND Re: South Upper Truckee Well Controls Building & Treatment Facility Initial Study/Negative Declaration Comments from Julie and Stu Phillips To the STPUD Leadership: We would like to express our disgust and concern with the proposed project in the South Upper Truckee/Egret neighborhood. . It is shocking and appalling that a project of this magnitude and potential short and long- term impact on people and the environment was given so little public review. You may have met your "legal" requirements for notification of the public and contiguous neighbors but you failed in your moral, ethical and political responsibility to your constituency. First, let us ask each and every board member for STPUD if you have actually read the entire proposal? If so, are vou williof! to locate such a riskY and Dotentiallv dane:erous Droiect in vour neie:hborhood? We think that your staff and consultants have not done their homework and fully investigated the precedent your district is setting for the Tahoe Basin, State of California and the nation. We attended the STPUD neighborhood meeting on Friday, April 13 hosted by your staff and consultants to the project. Most of the concerns and questions could not be adequately answered by your team. In fact, the more we questioned the project, the more obvious it was how little research had been done into the long-term health and environmental impacts of this STPUD project. We absolutely oppose this project for the following reasons and formally request that you stop this project and move forward with updating your other STPUD wells in the Tahoe Basin to meet the requirements of the federal Arsenic Rule. South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) South Upper Truckee Well No.3 IS/ND June 15, 2007 Page 2 Our comments to the Draft Initial Study/ND: 1. The dane:erous release of radon in a neighborhood 13' above the ground on a possible 24/7 basis, year-round and within 100' of surrounding homes is absolutely unacceptable, and the potential health and environmental impacts to , surrounding neighbors, the ecosystem and the community is such an eeree:ious violation of vour public duty. We are attaching a summary prepared for the residents of Egret neighborhood by Dr. Gary Fisher, entitled the "Dangers of Radon Exposure", dated June 14,2007, to be included in the public record. This report will be given to every resident in the area and forwarded to every newspaper in the Tahoe Basin, Bay Area, Sacramento and surrounding areas. Additionally it will be forwarded to the Governor's Office, State Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal EPA as well. 2. We are again, appalled, by vour utilization of an "untested" method on the neie:hborhood. Upon questioning your staff and consultants at the neighborhood meeting, they admitted that the radon emissions was untested and there were no other operations like what STPUD is proposing, One of your staff members jokingly stated that they "wouldn't want this in their neighborhood". 3. We are concerned by the potential "low level hummine: noises" on a 24/7, year- round basis, that will occur as a result of the pumps running in the valley. This industrial operation has no place in a residential setting. The size and magnitude of this proj ect does not meet a reasonable standard for residential operation. This project will forever destroy the beauty and serenity of this scenic and pristine river, wildlife corridor and recreational area so critical to the Tahoe Basin. 4. The industrial storage of hazardous chemicals and diesel fuel in a residential ~ of this magnitude is unacceptable and creates a dangerous situation for this fragile and scenic valley and neighborhood. 5. The South Upper Truckee river watershed is essential habitat for native fish. amphibians and other wildHfe and does not meet the new industrial area standard you are creating in this vital corridor. No reasonable agency or individuals would deem this site appropriate for such activity. And no reasonable agency would move forward with a negative declaration without appropriate environmental research and investigation, which would include all the potential stakeholders in the Tahoe Basin. The obvious circumventing of the public review process is troubling. We will be asking all the necessary stakeholders including nonprofits, special districts, conservationists, legal analysts and others to review this project and see if any laws were circumvented during its development. .. . , a South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) South Upper Truckee Well No.3 ISIND June 15,2007 Page 3 6, We challenge your environmental review process as it does not appear that you actually did an environmental review. We would like to know if any the following scientific questions were addressed: what is the potential impacts of short and long-term exposure to radon, hazardous chemicals and low level noises to humans, wildlife, and the overall ecosystem of South Upper Truckee? What is the potential impact of a hazardous chemical spill or release into the air, water or soil in this fragile ecosystem? What is the potential short and long-term impact on wildlife movement through this critical corridor providing connectivity for wildlife? What is the short and long-term impact of continuous radon exposure on the temperate forests, riparian community and other plant life contiguous with the STPUD project? We urge you to stop this project immediately on the basis of its long-term impact on this community and the Tahoe Basin. Please ask yourself if you would like this operation running 24/7, year-round, next to your children's bedroom window? This project will create your legacy as a public official - is this the way you want to be remembered? Please do the right thing and reject this proposal and move to modify and update existing wells. cerely, -.. M I 'l/'- ~~ ie, ~m~s U vvv 074 Egret Way South Lake Tahoe Dangers of Radon Exposure Summary . June 14, 2007 Prepared for the residents of the Egret neighborhood Christmas Valley, South Lake Tahoe in response to the proposed South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) South Upper Truckee Well Controls Building and Treatment Facility Draft Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration (ND) By Dr. Gary Fisher Chemistry ph.D. University of California, Santa Cruz Chemistry Professor, De Anza College 21250 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, CA 95014 (408)864-5633 First, a summary: Radon, Rn, element #86, is the heaviest of the noble gases. Radon is chemically unreactive except with fluorine and, because of its constant radioactive decay, any compounds it makes with fluorine decompose rapidly, Radon is predominantly an alpha-emitter. An alpha particle is an extremely high-energy +2 charged Helium nucleus, Alpha-particles can be stopped by a single sheet of paper; however, inhalation of alpha-particle emitters like Radon is considered by all reputable experts in the field, from the EPA, FDA. Los Alamos National Labs. etc., to be extremely dangerous because of the widespread damage to DNA that such inhaled alpha-emitters cause. Radon is not a charged atom and, even though radon is a noble gas, radon is very fat-soluble. Unchar:ed gaseous radon is absorbed directly into the blood from.the lungs and is spread by the bloodstream throughout the body. The major danger from radon comes not from the radon itselfbutfrom the charged daughter particles (Radon daughters) that form from emission of alpha-particles by the radon. These radon daughters are all intense alpha-particle emitters themselves and, because these daughters are charged particles, said daughters will bind strongly to dust particles and be carried over long distances. The charged daughter particles will also lodge in lung tissue where they bind strongly to the alveoli and cause extensive damage to DNA. Radon is considered to be a mutagen, a teratogen, a carcinogen. and recent studies at Los Alamos National Laboratories indicate that the ionizing alpha- particles emitted by Radon create extremely damaging high-energy oxygen based free radicals that lead to widespread cellular damage and cellular aging, believed to be predominantly a free radical process. Chronic exposure to radon leads to many kinds of cancer, respiratory tract lesions, and chromosomal aberrations. Perhaps worst of all, it is the LOW-LEVEL exposure that is the most dangerous because the cells with damaged DNA most likely will not die quickly enough to prevent them from passing on their damaged DNA during replication, Dangers of Radon Summary Prepared for the residents of the Egret neighborhood Christmas Valley, South Lake Tahoe June 14, 2007 Page 2 High-level radon exposure causes rapid cell death and thus prevents such propagation of genetic damage. However, the cellular damage resulting from high-level exposure is so severe that organism-wide deleterious effects are common. Radon is also soluble in water and poses an ingestion hazard because of absorption from the gut into the blood stream and, ultimately, deposition in the lungs. Radon in homes poses 1000X the cancer risk than any other environmental toxin or carcinogen found in the home. Finally, it is essential to note that reliable evidence exists from,many sources that a single alpha particle is capable of causing major genomic damage in a living cell. Radon exposure and emission is regulated bV both the EPA and the FDA. The maximum allowable EP A and FDA limit on radon levels before remediation is required is 4 pCi!L. Please note that the STPUD proposes to release 30 pCilL from their 13 foot tall stack! This is 7.5X the allowable EP A maximum that requires immediate remediation. Finally. some questions I have for the neighbors and the STPUD leadership: 1, How can the community be sure that, even if the STPUO says it isn't using the radon-contaminated water, that STPUO isn't using it anyway without informing you? 2. The STPUD document talks about using the radon-rich wells that are better producers of water than wells in the same area; doesn't that strike fear into anyone else but me? Is the well that STPUD is all ready using contaminated? How close are their current wells to the new one they are proposing to use? 3, Will the aeration be carried out 24/7? If so, then 24/7 monitoring of the radon being released from their stack should be required. 4. Will the highly charged and far more dangerous radon daughter nuclides be monitored? If so, how? Such monitoring is essential in order to obtain an accurate measure of how much radon is actually being released? 5. Are there ANY studies of air flow patterns from the proposed exhaust stack over the entire neighborhood to be able to reliably predict where the radioactive plume will spread, how far the plume will spread, and how fast the plume will dissipate? 6. Radon can be adsorbed very effectively using carbon block filters that, ultimately, must be treated as radioactive waste; has the STPun investigated this much safer option for radon removal? .) , I' rJ Dangers of Radon Summary Prepared for the residents of the Egret neighborhood Christmas Valley, South Lake Tahoe June 14, 2007 Page 3 7. Aeration removes 30-70% of total radon: the rest remains in the water as an ingestion hazard. Does the STPUO have ANY studies that show aeration to be more effective than that? Even a 70% removal leaves 8-9 pCilL unaccounted for, nearly double the maximum allowed by the EPA and FDA . ' 8. The cost of a potential lawsuit will offset by many orders of magnitude any savings this new hazardous water source might produce; are the STPUD board members aware of "Love Canal"? 9. According to STPUD's own document, the savings resulting from using this new radon-contaminated water source would be small; wouldn't it be wiser to charge a tiny bit more to the rate payers and guarantee safe water and safe air around the plant? There is not just faulty reasoning here, there is NO reasoning. 10, Have you investigated any links between STPUO and other investors or sources of unseen funding? The proposed project seems so fraught with potential legal, and more importantly, major dangers to human health that in my professional opinion, other safe alternatives should be pursued. Sources cited: Chemistry of the Environment, RA. Bailey, etal., 2002. Academic Press, San Diego. Principles of Environmental Chemistry, J.E. Girard, 2005, Jones & Bartlett, Mass. PubH 5103/5104 Environmental Impacts of Radon. Publication from the University of . Minnesota, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health - which itself contains multiple links to the EP A, FDA, Los Alamos National Laboratories and publications as well. Radon I have a number of concerns relative to the stripping of radon from the SUT#3 well waters and local release at 3140 Egret. · The total release of radioactivity to the residential environment in Christmas Valley through the deaeration of SUT#3 well water is enormous and the radon222 released is extremely toxic. Based on pilot tests it is clear that the proposed deaerator will remove 604 pCi/L from the 1400gpm of extracted well water. This will result in the release of 1.68 Curies per year into a residential neighborhood in Christmas Valley. o This is an enormous amount of radioactive material. It exceeds twice the total curies released under continuous operation in 2004 by the 1100 MWe Diablo Canyon Unit 1 nuclear powerplant (0.84 curies in continuous gaseous release in 2004). It is over half (55%) of all gaseous releases made by the unit in that year (3.05 curies). Diablo Canyon Unit 1 is one of the largest nuclear powerplants in the United States. o At Diablo Canyon, exclusion areas result in the gaseous radioactive releases being made miles from the nearest residence, not 40 feet as in Christmas Valley o The radioactive toxicity of the Radon222 to be released in Christmas Valley is - 100 times greater than that of Ar41, Kr85 and Xe 133 which comprise almost all of the Diablo Can yon gaseous releases (10 CFR 20 App B Table 2). o If this well were licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), offsite exposures to the public could not exceed 0.1 pCi/L ( 50 mRem annual exposure.. . equivalent to about 10 chest X-rays) but more importantly, STPUD would also be required to control emissions such that they are As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). This last requirement is taken very seriously by the NRC and would require engineering alternatives at reasonably higher costs be adopted if they can lower dose. Radon is difficult to regulate due to the high natural background (0.5 pCi/L or greater), however it is still in the public health interest for entities handling concentrated natural sources, such as some ground waters, to take steps to not concentrate them in other pathways to which to which certain members of the public may be exposed. . The Plume screening study carried out as part of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration may not be adequate to properly model the SUT#3 situation o One input does not appear consistent with the pilot study and well #3 chemistry. The radon concentration appears incorrect by as much as 20%. o Sensitivity analysis does not appear to be performed. The exposures calculated by the model appear to be very sensitive to the height of the receptor (possibly 2 to 3 orders of magnitude). There are a number of residences in close proximity to the well stack that have second stories in which people likely sleep and spend an appreciable fraction of their time with windows open during much of the year. There exposure will be underestimated. o The model assumes the stack will release a plume at the same temperature as ambient air. During much of the year the well water in the de aerator (with well water at - 47, 48 deg F) will subcool the stack exhaust air relative to ambient air. This would likely result in negative buoyancy for the plume, a lower height and increased exposure to local residents. Further there is some indication that the EP A model used was designed primarily for powerplant plumes and may not be appropriate for plumes in which the exhaust air is below ambient air temperatures. o It is not clear what analysis was conducted to evaluate models for plumes at high elevations (6300 ft) and for local-Christmas valley- geographical and meteorological conditions. Strictly from winter observation (when there is smoke in the valley) there appear to be frequent occasions in which there are inversions or some meteorology which traps emissions near the ground. At the emission rate from the stack this might result in 1- 2 mrem/hr if such meteorology could expose people to near stack concentrations. A few days of this per year might result in exposures which easily easily exceed IS mRemlyr EPA guidance · ISv=100Rem ImSv=100mRem 1 wl=100pCi/L · 44,000 pCi/sec stack release rate · NominalSOO pCi/L water, 1400 gpm · Actual SUT Well3 was 629 pCi/L · Deaerator efficiency based on well 1 pilot test (462-18)/462===96% · Eff x sut3=.96 x 629pCi/L= 603.84 pCi/L remove from water stream · 1400 gal/min x 3.79 Ugal x 60 minfhr x 8760 hr/yr x 603.4 pCi/L=1.68 Ci/yr Radon · Nominal 31.0 pC ilL, 3000 cfm @ stack exhaust · 0.0064 pCi/L @ 19m annual avg=====3.2mRem/yr . 0.08 pCi/L @ 19m max hr======40 mRem/yr, SCREEN3 · .1 pCi/L ===50mRem/yr (100% occupancy) · Indoor EPA Rn action level 4 pCi/L=====800mRem/yr (8S% occupancy) · EPA Standards require<ISmRem/yr and ALARA Noise · Deaerator Fan · Emergency Diesel C02 South Tahoe Public Utility District -Soiifh Upper TfilcKEie Well CohlroTs'Bunarng ana Treatment-Facility Initial Study/Negative Declaration Comment Form Please provide your comments below regarding the project issues addressed in the Administrative Draft Initial Study /Negative Declaration that will be prepared for the South Tahoe Public Utility District South Upper Truckee Well Contro~s Building and Corrosion Control Treatment Facility project. Please inchide your name, address, emailaddress (if appiicable) and telephone number so that we may contact you if necessary. Comment(s): ~ oi>>ij\gJ-, Name: I ",l.. fi;. \~ Address:~ . Email: Phone: Please complete your comment in the space above. Attach aqditional sheets if required. Upon completion, please retuni no later than June 19,2007 to: South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake tahoe, CA 96150. Attn.: South Upper Truckee Well No.3 IS/ND LESL Y I. FLECK P.O. Box 551090 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96155 530.577.3647 phone 530.577.3646 fax Mr, Ivo Bergsohn, PG, CHg SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 June 19,2007 Re: STPUD Draft Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration for the South Upper Truckee Well Controls Building and Treatment Facility Ivo - As my neighbor you know that I am a resident of Egret Way, the location for this project. I have lived in Lake Tahoe since 1973 and on this street since 1989 so my vested interest in this community, this neighborhood, this street runs deep. I've read the draft proposal mentioned above; the Corrosion Control Report, the Water System Master Planning Alternative/Alternatives for Arsenic Rule Compliance, plus hundreds and hundreds of pages of research documents. I've reluctantly concluded that while you have probably met the minimum compliance criteria required of appropriate regulatory agencies, particularly as it applies to hazardous chemicals and radioactive gas emissions, there are nonetheless ambiguous areas in the project description that, fust, demand further scrutiny using more site-specific data and secondly, demand a notification campaign that broadens the suggested "impact zone" . Perhaps you may also want to include notification to the parents of the children who may congregate at the bus stop within the supposed radon, hazardous chemical ''no-impact'' zone! At the Neighborhood Meeting in April you indicated that TRPA regulations only require a notification process to include residents within 350 feet of the project and you extended that to 500. That is negligently insufficient given the potential for negative impact from this project by hazardous waste or toxic spills, potential damage to nearby fragile ecosystems and wildlife habitat, increases and sustained constancy in ambient noise levels and emission of undesirable gasses, all of which could drift, leak, spill, reverberate or damage well beyond the TRP A defmed radius. STPUD is tasked with a delicate act of balance that no reasonable person can ignore - mandated regulatory compliance to meet the new Arsenic Rule, Lead and Copper Rule, etc., management of water quality and systems, resource utilization, long term planning, funding allocation for present to future projects and combining all these criteria into a master plan for the greater good of the community. We are all united in our desire for safe, clean drinking water - no one can argue that point or expect STPUD to achieve their goals while ignoring any key component of the whole. Understandably, the aquifer that the new well will draw from is a valuable and needed asset to the district's network. But those of us who object to the proposal have identified serious gaps in data which MUST be addressed with the same vigorous attention to accuracy that has been done on other aspects of the project. These are my objections to the proposal - 1) The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for Christmas Valley, TRPA Plan Area 137, of 50 dB sets a maximum noise equivalent level standard that is not to be exceeded at any time, by anyone activity, I believe it is highly likely that this well project will eventually operate as a full time resource rather than just a backup as indicated in the report- it's simply too productive of an asset to think it won't be fully utilized at some point. The impact ofa 24 hour-per-day, 7 day- per-week, 365 day per year constant noise level at 50dB can create health hazards for those who live closest to the source. Scientific studies have shown it is not so much the decibel of sound coming from a single event that can cause health problems, but rather the long tenn CONSTANCY of a noise level, even as low as 45dB. Imagine how annoying it is to hear your neighbor down the street nmning a lawn mower or leaf blower for 2 hours on a peaceful Sunday morning, Now imagine that sound slightly abated, but running a minimum 10-14 hours per day. Your every waking moment, your every step outside in your own yard will potentially be infused with a low level background hum, as if a bee hive were dangling from your eaves. Fleck Page 2 June 19,2007 The TRPA CNEL mandates a standard of 50dB OR ambient levels prior to August 26, 1982. This is a quiet, peaceful and serene valley with ambient noise levels that include birds, coyotes and rushing water all punctuated by an occasional siren or traffic from parallel Scenic Corridors of Echo Summit and Luther Pass, Prior to 1982 the ambient levels would have been no greater than now and most likely lower as there were fewer residents and less highway traffic in the valley. One ofthe most breathtaking aspects of this valley is the nature sounds. There are very few developed areas left in our community where nature's ambient sounds are dominant over the sounds of humankind and that, too, is a precious resource not to be taken frivolously simply because it is easily calculated away from us. In Christmas Valley on a tranquil summer evening the caU of a coyote will echo up and down the valley for a mile. I sincerely doubt residents want to exchange that for a low level throbbing hum, We prefer our white noise to be the river and not a baffled fan motor. I believe it is important to the preservation of original Christmas Valley standards to either conform to an independent measured average of the present ambient CNEL for the valley as a good faith replication of 1982 values (which will advantage STPUD), or present an onsite demonstration of the proposed sound mitigated from 86dB down to SOdB to residents living with the Plan 137 Area so they may have an opportunity to comment on what the impact will actually be. Therefore I request that STPUD provide the entire community as designated by Christmas Valley Plan Area 137, and the TRP A, with a Noise Impact Report and a community demonstration on site of the potential noise impact It is simply not reasonable to assume that a constant, low level mechanical sound will not impact this area beyond the limited zone you have designated in your report 2) The HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BUSINESS PLAN to be filed with EI Dorado County Environmental Management Division, as stated in your proposal, should be available for public review and comment within the public review time period. I have been advised by EMD that this document has NOT yet been filed therefore the public has not had adequate opportunity for review and comment. This is critical due to the environmentally sensitive stream zone, proximity to the river, waterfowl habitat and bird migration routes that sWTound this project. There are other interested environmental groups who have not been given equal opportunity to comment on the impact hazardous materials and emissions may have on the wildlife and habitat areas adjacent to the project. STPun is not qualified to make that assumption on their behalf, as has been indicated in the TRPA Environmental Impact Report filed by STPUD, indicating all the "nos" to environmental impact issues. I request that the public be given reasonable additional time to review and comment on the completed Hazardous Materials Business Plan document as referenced in the Draft Proposal provided to the public. 3) TRPA INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST for DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - I disagree with the following statements contained in the checklist. all of which where checked "NO" by STPUD and I believe the reasonable answer to each of these should be a "YES", barring absolute data to the contrary (such as a full EIR), or "Insufficient Data" when no long term data was shown for the conclusion. The point of my objections is in parenthesis following each statement: 2. AIR OU ALITY of ambient (existing) air quality? ... Will the proposal result in... (b) Deterioration of ambient (existing) air quality? (Increase to ambient radioactive radon emissions - actual levels of ambient, and actual future levels of increased, unknown - insufficient site data) (c) The creation of objectionable odors? (Diesel fuel and hazardous chemical usage) (d) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? (Air dispersion procedures) (e) Increased use of diesel fuel? (200 gallon on site storage and use) 3. WATER OUALITY...Will the proposal result in... (j) The potential discharge of contaminants to the groundwater or any alteration of groundwater quality? (rhere is always the potential for hazardous chemical discharge when there is hazardous chemical storage at a site - no disaster mitigation plan has been presented to the public for review and comment) (k) Is the project located within 600 feet of a drinldng water source? Fleck Page 3 June 19,2007 (d) Deterioration of existingfzsh or wildlife habitat quantity or quality? (Insufficient data given to determine long range impact of chemical and radon impact on wildlife) 6. NOISE... Will the proposal result in... (a) Increases in existing Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) beyond those permitted in the applicable Plan Area Statement Community Plan or Master Plan? (Should have at least been "No, with mitigation ") 1 O. RISK OF UPSET... Will the Drooosal... (a) Involve a risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation in the event of an accident or upset? (Christmas Valley is a notorious area for cars and boulders coming down off Echo Summit... afew years back a car came off the cliff all the way down to South Upper Truckee and burst into flames. The project is almost in a direct line from the gulley below Echo Summit where several cars have careened over the side, intentionally and otherwise, in the pastfew years... 2 such incidents alone last year. The valley is also a "low flying" area for helicopters, so it would be very prudent to consider the possibility for "upset conditions" more than has been done in the STPUD proposal). 17. HUMAN HEALTH... Will the DroDosal result in... (a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? (I'o ignore the potential long term health implications of radon emissions, first with insufficient data to support the presumption in the STPUD proposal that there IS no impact, and secondly to overlook the necessity for long term monitoring of the radon emissions, is negligent). (b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? (Data exists to support that constant noise, radon and hazardous chemicals all can have long term health consequences, it's simply a matter of exposure patterns, which has not been adequately considered in the STPUD proposal that declares it will bring thesefactors into our neighborhood yet by STPUD 's declaration as the controlling authority, there is no health hazard!). 18. SCENIC RESOURCES/COMMUNITY DESIGN... Will the proposal result in... (a) Be visible from any state or federal highway, Pioneer Trail, or from Lake Tahoe? (The property is visible from Echo Summit which is a TRP A Scenic Corridor. Given the air currents in the valley and sound echoes, it's very possible sound from the project, and any odors, may easily draft upward to Echo Summit. Residents of Christ mas Valley can often hear everyday conversations (normal conversation is 60dB) of tourists who have stopped in the road turnouts to take pictures. 21. FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE... (b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental goals? [A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endure well into the future]. (I leave this question for the readers of my letter to determine for themselves - my opinion is ').>es, unequivocally'j. Another issue that has not been addressed by either the proposal or the Environmental Impact Statement is the fact that documented evidence exists to show that long-term exposure to C02 has killed vegetation and pine trees in Mammoth Lakes. The general circumstances were different than exist with this project, but the chemical emission is the same and it is reasonable to assume there will be some environmental impact from the C02 emissions on our forest not yet identified or quantified. 4) RADON I've saved radon for the last because I've spent two weeks reading data and researching every possible study, government agency web site, accumulated data and independent paper, plus talked to several government agencies about the subject. I'm not a scientist, chemist, environmental scientist, consultant, physicist, geologist or radioactive specialist... but I can read. So here is my simplified and unscientific perception of the problem I see with the STPUD proposal as it relates to radon. Fleck Page 4 June 19,2007 Radon is a big deal with the EPA and in the governmental agency and environmental world...and also, not a big deal! It's all a matter of quantity and exposure pathway. Radon is a decay product that originates with radioactive uranium then processes down to the gas found in underground waters and soil. It can accumulate in high levels and pose a severe health hazard if inhaled, either in the air in our home or out-gasses from our water. It is extremely toxic in any inhalation pathway, indoors or outdoors, depending on the levels. EPA has said that more than any other hazardous substance on any of their toxic chemical lists, Radon is the one we have the most certainty about as a carcinogenic. That is because there was abundant data available from testing coal miners who still had very high rates oflung cancer even when not exposed to other toxic substances. After years of study and mountains of good research the EP A established that radon is really bad stuff, but like any agency they must prioritize where to put their time and money. Their data showed that the greatest incidences for human health hazards come from high levels of indoor radon gas exposure. So although the EP A is not yet federally mandating outdoor exposure levels (except with Uranium mine tailings) their recommended "action level" indoors for homes is 4 pCi/l, or 4 pico curies per liter. They want every home in America, and particularly high risk areas where there is a lot of granite and radioactive minerals in soils, to test for radon gas in their homes and mitigate levels to below 4 pCi/l. I've personally tested my own home using a short term (2 day) test and found the level to be 1.9 pCi/l. EPA recommends exposure mitigation begins at 2 DCi/1. such as crawl space ventilation to disperse the gas into the ambient air where it will volatize. So here's the conclusion that data can show, engineers and geologists will reference, etc. Radon is BAD if it accumulates in an enclosed space and you inhale it, but it's theoretically "OK" ifit's out in the ambient air, mixing with the existing ambient air. The fact is, radon is all around us, in the soil, in groundwaters and surface waters, in big and small buildings, in building materials, in your home, in your kid's school. in this room. It's in Christmas Valley in the air all around all the neighbors who are concerned about it, and that's referred to as the "ambient concentration". But here are the gray areas. EP A has also stated on their website that, because they know how really bad this stuff is when the alpha particles are inhaled into your lungs and the little bursts of energy permanently damage tissue cells, the idealized reduction goal for radon is......................... ..0...... ...zero. EP A would like to see mitigation efforts reduce the level of radon in all enclosed structures down to nothing.. . zip.. . nada. Unfortunately that's not realistic for EPA to achieve at the moment but it's on the table for someday and the reasons are clear. Radon is bad, really bad. Whereas many toxic and hazardous chemicals are bad in higher doses but data doesn't support them doing damage to the human body at lower doses, radon is not in the same category. It's recognized by most responsible scientists and health professionals, including the Surgeon General. the World Health Organization, the American Lung Cancer Association and the American Medical Association as being a real health hazard to the human body, and particularly when someone receives long term sustained doses. even at lower levels than a short term. more intense dose. The problem for us residents ofChristrnas Valley who may be guinea pigs for radon dosing is that the government and environmental community is in kindergarten when it comes to managing, tracking and regulating the long term impact of radon dosing. Ten years from now we'll know a lot more, but everyone pretty much suspects the long term results from below-threshold levels will not be good......and the EPA has said their threshold level is O. However, in the absence ofa 0 threshold, they've acquiesced to an overall "ambient level" as the threshold (except if you're a smoking pile of uranium mine tailings on your way to being a Superfund site...then the threshold is 20 pCi/l). Most of us can remember a time when radium (glowing clock dials from the 50's) lead paint, asbestos, mercury (thermometers) and arsenic were an unregulated part of our everyday life. Then as more data, and more cases of human damage, came to the attention of regulatory agencies more controls were put in place to protect us from the damaging health effects ofthese substances. This is exactly what STPUD is facing now with regulatory controls on copper, lead and arsenic in our drinking water. Those are certainly immediate and significant priorities for the district. We're so new in the world of radon that there simply aren't a lot of long term studies, ifany, that define health hazards (translate into cases oflung cancer or cancer clusters) from constant low level radon exposure. All we know for certain is that scientists generally agree there IS a very high potential for health hazards from long term exposure - we just don't know what that threshold is yet until enough people get sick and die over time AND those results are documented and studied. Fleck Page 5 June 19,2007 Just because it isn't on paper somewhere yet does not mean it doesn't exist or won't happen. Maybe Erin Brockovich will have to help us figure that one out! The STPUD draft proposal uses an EPA estimate ofthe average nationwide outdoor radon level of O.4pCi/l. Based on this number they have arrived at a worst-case concentration level of 0.0802pCi/1. (or less than v.. of recommended indoor exposure) at 19 meters outdoors. The problem with the EPA number is that it is averaged over a wide field (nationwide average done 15 years ago) and not specific to the Lake Tahoe region, the area or this particular project site. The math is simple: wider data field = smaller resultant number. Here's a simplified comparison and one we have all heard many times; Lake Tahoe is 1600+ feet deep at its deepest level, but if you spread that water all over the State of California the Lake Tahoe waters are now only 14 inches deep in anyone spot. Therefore,] can say that averaged statewide, Lake Tahoe waters are only 14" deep and my data would be accurate. I have located data for an ambient outdoor radon level that is much closer to home as well as potentially more indicative of higher-than-normallevels we may have all over Lake Tahoe, including the project site, due to the large accumulations of granite in the geology of Lake Tahoe. University ofNevada/Reno, Bureau of Mines and Geology did an extensive study in cooperation with the EP A in 1994 on outdoor radon levels in Nevada. Part of that study included recording ambient outdoor levels at 50 sites in Nevada. It was calculated that Zephyr Cove, Nevada (14 miles away from STPUD site) had an outdoor radon level of 0.88 cpCi/l... Not only that but within the UNRlBureau of Mines study was a statement that the research produced "unexpected" results about outdoor radon concentrations, even despite all the knowledge about radon gas accumulations as we supposedly know. O.88pCVl in Zephyr Cove, versus O.4pCVI EPA nationwide average......more than twice as high as the ambient level used by STPUD to calculate whether or not the human exposure to radon in this neighborhood will be "safe" or not! Which level is more relevant to the residents of this neighborhood who will be inhaling radon alpha particles into their lungs? That variable could make a fairly significant difference in the fmal calculations of ambient air radon concentrations, yet this data was not considered, and probably not sought out, in the STPUD proposal. Amending the calculations to include actual radon emission for this site combined with actual ambient concentrations for the site (completely unknown due to INSUFFICIENT DATA) could easily put the supposedly safe ambient air emission level proposed by STPUD into the realm of "mitigation recommended by EPA" arena, and that is an unreasonable and completely unacceptable standard to impose on the residents who would be most impacted by this. Given the importance of radon's health hazards and what we don't really know about the long tenn effects other than there probably are damaging effects, or without sufficient and exact site-specific Christmas Valley data to support any calculations or conclusions created by STPUD, I ask STPUD to amend their proposal and base all their radon data calculations on current. accurate. site specific measurements of radon gas. Radon gas levels are affected by temperature, precipitation, diurnal changes, geology, meteorology and even the moon (so I am told by a scientist!), so I would suggest the data be collected at random intervals of night and day, during temperature extremes, seasonal variations and precipitation changes, throughout the designated impact zone as described by STPUD in the proposal. I would also suggest that this data, as well as a full environmental report on the risks and hazards of radon, be prepared by a scientist who specializes in radioactive hazards, then the report be submitted for further public review and comment. I would also request that STPun maintain ongoing, onsite radon emission measurements, and at the neighboring properties closest to the impact zone, as well, to insure there is no dangerous variation in any calculated levels or to begin additional mitigation procedures as required. It would be irresponsible to calculate the likelihood for human exposure damage based on an assumption that STPUD knows all there is to know about the inherent risks of radon. l Thank you for considering my comments. Please be aware that we residents of Christmas Valley who speak in protest of the recent proposal do so because we think STPUD will compromise our neighborhood's health, welfare and safety ifthis proposal is adopted as a ''Negative Declaration" without further mitigation on the issues of greatest concern to us. To do so without resolving our concerns would only escalate our determination and momentum. SoutVt Tel Vtoe Ri.c~GlVci SoLbrLg c:;eveerGlL MGlveGlger- 'Pub Ltc VlttLtt~ Dtsbict 150ard Members KGlthLeeve FGlrreLL JGlvt-tes R.Jovees MGlrl:::J Lou MosbGlc~er DUGlvee WGlLLGlce 5rLc SC~Glfer Me lItA..O rtlll\,~ u lItA.. Date: June 20, 2007 To: Board of Directors From: Ivo Bergsohn Subject: IS/NO for South Upper Truckee Well Controls Building and Treatment Facility Project - Responses to Written Comments Herman and Mercy Marty (06/13/07): Comment 1: "Planned project would be in a residential area on a residential lot, which should not be permitted." Response: EI Dorado County Zoning Ordinance 17.56.030 (C) includes "Public utilities buildings and structures other than distribution and transmission lines" as an allowable use within the TR-1 one-family residential zone after obtaining a special use permit from the planning commission. Entrix, on behalf of the District submitted application items and accompanying fees to the Development Services Department (DSD) for a Special Use Permit (Application S 07-0010) in February 2007. On March 29,2007, the DSD deemed the application complete for processing. On June 14,2007, Tom Dougherty, Associate Planner, EI Dorado County Planning Department notified the District that a Special Use Permit would not be required for this project. Legal opinion from the County and District concur that this project is exempt from County building and zoning ordinances under Section 53091 of the Government Code. Comment 2: "The planned building and driveway etc. would be way over allowed TRPA coverage." Response: The excess coverage for this project is estimated at 1,403 square feet. The District shall offset this impact through the acquisition of potential land coverage rights and permanently retire said rights in the amount of 1,403 square feet. The TRPA code allows excess coverage for public health and safety projects. South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474. Facsimile 530.541.0614 · www.stpud.us 1 Comment 3: "It would substantially decrease property value in the neighborhood." Response: The majority of District water supply wells are situated within residential neighborhoods. Several of these sites (Clement Well- 1992, Bakersfield Well - 2004, Arrowhead Well - 2001) include treatment facilities. While it is difficult to obtain the necessary historical data on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis on such short notice, the readily available South Tahoe Board of Realty data indicates double digit Median Prices by Area in South Lake Tahoe and no correlation between sales price and proximity to a drinking water well. Property values in the South Tahoe area do not appear to have been adversely affected by existence of these facilities. Comment 4: "Noise and transportation traffic would be significant." Response: The District appreciates and values the serenity of this area and will take all reasonable steps to maintain this condition. Facilities and equipment will be installed as necessary to meet the 50db community noise limitation. In addition, the District intends to install additional or expanded features as necessary to control noise and particular frequencies and modulations that may present a nuisance to the neighborhood. Noise control was a major issue during the District's design process that resulted in the following sound dampening features: 1. All mechanical equipment will be housed within a concrete block building 2. A submersible pump and motor set in the production well; 3. A universal inlet silencer and sound attenuation wrap will be installed on the aeration blower and motor; 4. Sound dampening board will be installed on the interior ceiling and walls of the mechanical building; 5. A noise silencer will be placed on the air inlet; and 6. The air inlet will be directed toward the west, away from neighboring residences. Although we believe these systems will provide the necessary noise control, additional equipment and/or features will be installed if necessary. The District is open to having the TRPA assist or consult in the completion of a sound survey. The District estimates an average of two trips per day would be generated by the project for routine operations and maintenance. EI Dorado County estimates that this is less than a quarter of the Transportation/Traffic generated by a single-family residence (estimated at an average of 10 trips per day). Transportation traffic is addressed in the draft IS/ND, Appendix A, Section XV - Transportation/Traffic. According to the draft IS/ND, Transportation/Traffic from the project would have a less than significant impact or no impact. Comment 5: "Taking arsenic, C02 and radon out of the water and then blowing it into the air, for us to breathe, does not make much sense." South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474. Facsimile 530.541.0614 · www.stpud.us 2 Response: The District retained a qualified water treatment specialist (Robert Ryder, P.E., Kennedy/Jenks Consultants) to complete a Corrosion Control Study in conformance with Department of Health Service (DHS) requirements. This study included an initial screening of corrosion control options (including use of silicate and phosphate inhibitors, pH adjustment by lime or sodium hydroxide addition and aeration) the findings from a field study pilot test and a recommended treatment alternative. Based on the findings of the study, the recommended treatment option (low profile aeration with chemical addition, if necessary), was approved by the DHS on April 9, 2007. The proposed project would implement the recommended treatment option. Comment 6: "There would also be substantial noise pollution, caused by air intake and air outlet chimneys." Response: See response to Comment 4. Comment 7: ''The proposed project would have a VFD - driven pump. VFD motors cause radio interference. STPUD has been polluting the airwaves in this neighborhood for years. This will not be permitted any longer." Response: A variable frequency drive (VFD) will be used as a motor control for the booster pump in order to pump treated water from the discharge side of the aerators into the water distribution system at the required pressures and discharge rates. VFDs are advantageous in providing increased motor speed and torque control, as well as providing improved operation energy efficiency and reduced mechanical wear and tear on motor components. It is believed that with proper installation, radio frequency interference problems associated with VFDs can be minimized and possibly eliminated. The following paragraph has been referenced in the specifications for the VFD. The standards referenced are internationally recognized standards that provide guidelines for suppressing and limiting electromagnetic interferences: 1. "The VFD shall fulfill all electromagnetic compatibility immunity requirements per the following standards utilizing input and output EMI/RFI filters. These filters shall suppress all objectionable interference to AM and FM radio signals in the immediate vicinity of the facility. a. IEC 61800-2 and -3. b. EN 50082-1 and -2. c. EN 61000-6-1, -6-2, and-6-4. d. EN 61800-3+A11." Comment 8: "The proposed building will involve storage of reportable quantities of hazardous materials - If spilled this could end up in the nearby Upper Truckee River." South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474. Facsimile 530.541.0614. www.stDud.us 3 Response: The District has been using sodium hypochlorite (12.5 %) as a disinfectant at drinking water wells since 1989. The active ingredient in household bleach is 5% sodium hypochlorite. Since 1989, sodium hypochlorite has been safely and properly used at the South Upper Truckee site without incident. Sodium hypochlorite for this project will be contained in a double-walled 400-gallon tank within the chemical room. Any spills from the tank would be contained within the building and directed to the floor drain to the District sanitary sewer. The District has been using diesel fuel to power emergency stand-by generators at six (6) drinking water well facilities through the South Tahoe area, including the South Upper Truckee site. Diesel fuel has been used at the South Upper Truckee site since installation of the emergency power generator in 1993. Diesel fuel for this project would be contained within a 200 gallon double-walled belly tank underlying the generator within the building. Spill buckets would be used to clean-up spills from the tank. The proposed project will not change the use of sodium hypochlorite or diesel fuel at the site. The District has developed a Hazardous Materials Business Plan to be filed with the EI Dorado County Environmental Management Department, prior to construction of the facility. The Hazardous Materials Plan includes a training plan that informs District staff on the proper use of spill clean-up procedures, notification requirements and the proper handling of hazardous materials used at this site. Comment 9: "Objectionable odors may also be created." Response: During the fall of 2006, the District completed an approximately nine (9) week field pilot test using low profile aeration. Objectionable odors from the aerated water were not observed during the pilot study. South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474. Facsimile 530.541.0614 · www.stoud.us 4 Julie and Stuart Phillips (06/15/07): Comment: "It is shocking and appalling that a project of this magnitude and potential short and long-term impact on people and the environment was given so little public review." Response: The need for this project was initially discussed during a Board Workshop convened in October 2005. In December 2005, the Board authorized staff to request proposals from consulting engineering firms to conduct a Corrosion Control Study (CCS) for the South Upper Truckee Well No.3, in accordance with California Safe Drinking Water Act Requirements. In February 2006, the Board approved staff recommendation to select Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (K1JC) to conduct Phase I of the study. In June 2007, the Board approved Phase II of the CCS. In March 2007, Kennedy Jenks Consultants (K1JC) provided a 20-minute presentation describing the purpose, methods and major findings from the Corrosion Control Study. In April 2007, the District conducted a neighborhood meeting that discussed plans for the construction of the CCS water treatment facility. At each of these meetings, the public has had an opportunity to provide input on this project. Comment: 'We think that your staff and consultants have not done their homework and fully investigate the precedent your district is setting for the Tahoe Basin, State of California and the nation." Response: Please note that the purpose of the draft initial study (IS) is to show the probable environmental effects of the proposed project. The need for the project is based, in part, on the Treatment Alternative recommended in the District's Arsenic Compliance Plan, completed in 2005. In November 2005, the District Board directed staff to continue work on the Treatment Alternative including completion of the South Upper Truckee Well NO.3 Well Controls Building Facility project. Corrosion control treatment was added to the project due to the corrosive nature of the produced waters and to remain compliant with the Federal and State Lead and Copper rule. The District retained K/JC to complete a Corrosion Control Report (CCR) that was submitted to the California Department of Health Services (DHS) in February 2007. The DHS approved the corrosion control treatment option recommended in the CCR in April 2007. Comment: 'We attended the STPUD neighborhood meeting on Friday, April 13 hosted by your staff and consultants to the project. Most of the concerns and questions could not be adequately answered by your team. In fact, the more we questioned the project, the more obvious it was how little research had been done into the long-term health and environmental impacts of this STPUD project." Response: At the time of the April 13 neighborhood meeting, the environmental review for the project was in-progress and results from that review were either incomplete or not available. Many of the questions and concerns raised at the meeting are addressed in the May 18, 2007 draft IS/NO document. This document was made available for public review, starting on May 19, 2007. South Tahoe Public Utility District · 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614 · www.stoud.us 5 Comment 1: "The dangerous release of radon in a neighborhood 13' above the ground on a possible 24/7 basis, year-round and within 100' of surrounding homes is absolutely unacceptable, and the potential health and environmental impacts to surrounding neighbors, the ecosystem and the community is such an egregious violation of your public duty." Response: The release height of the outlet chimney is 20.67 feet above the surrounding ground elevation. Based on historical usage, it is estimated that the South Upper Truckee Well facility would most likely be operated on a daily average basis, about 14 hours per day. Radon is a naturally-occurring radioactive gas that is ubiquitous in groundwater sources located in the South Tahoe Groundwater Basin. Radon is present in all of the District's water sources ranging in average concentrations from 502 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) to 5,615 pC ilL. The average concentration of radon found in District drinking water is on the order of 1,750 pCi/L. The source of this gas is believed to be from the release of radon into groundwater, from the granitic bedrock and soils that surround and fill the basin. As noted in the draft ISIND, Appendix E, Section 5.0 - EPA RADON MAP FOR CALIFORNIA, South Lake Tahoe is situated in an area with a moderate predicted average indoor radon screening level. The DHS has found elevated levels of radon in some homes in portions of the Lake Tahoe area. It is clear that radon is not a new phenomenon, but is a natural part of the surrounding environment. Environmental impacts to the release of radon from the proposed project is addressed in the draft ISIND, Appendix E, Section 4.0 - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT. Findings from the exposure assessment shows that average ambient concentration of radon gas in zone of maximum impact (that is 62 feet from the outlet chimney at a height of 59 inches above surrounding ground elevation) would be equivalent to a 1.6% of EPA's average nationwide outdoor radon level (0.4 pCi/L). These radon concentrations are not believed to pose a significant risk to public health on a lifetime exposure basis. Comment 2: 'We are again appalled, by your utilization of an untested method on the neighborhood. Upon questioning your staff and consultants at the neighborhood meeting, they admitted that the radon emissions was untested and there were no other operations like STPUD is proposing." Response: At the April 13 neighborhood meeting, District staff noted that attempts were made to find a laboratory that would conduct outdoor radon emissions monitoring during the field pilot study. Unfortunately, this portion of the pilot study was not completed, as the District staff and its consultant were unable to find a suitable lab that could provide these services. From 1993 through about 1999, the District operated a packed-tower air stripper to remove Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) from drinking water produced in the Gardner Mountain area. The facility was shut down owing to MTSE contamination making the South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614 · www.stpud.us 6 wells unusable. Water from this well contains radon gas at concentrations ranging from 800 pCi/L to 3,055 pCi/L. The radon gas was released to the atmosphere along with the PCE through the treatment process. Both packed-tower air strippers and multi-stage bubble chambers are similar processes in that both use aeration to remove volatile gasses dissolved in groundwater. This facility is a newer-generation aeration unit. Comment 3a: 'We are concerned by the potential low level humming noises on a 24/7, year round basis, that will occur as a result of the pumps running in the valley." Response: See response to H & M Marty (06/13/07), Comment 4. Note that this property has been used as a well facility since the early 1960's. The District is unaware of any noise complaints from these operations. Comment 3b: "This industrial operation has no place in a residential setting." Response: The state of California recognizes that public facilities used for the production, generation, storage or transmission of water are indispensable and must be located at the discretion of the water district to assure the efficient and economic delivery of drinking water to its customers. The District has completed engineering planning studies showing the need and utility of the proposed project, as the most cost effective means to continue to provide adequate quantities of safe drinking water that meets the South Lake Tahoe community's needs. See also response to H & M Marty (06/13/07), Comment 1. Comment 3c: "This size and magnitude of this project does not meet a reasonable standard for residential operation." Response: The project is sized to meet the objectives of the intended use of the well controls building and treatment facility. The District retained an Architect that designed the facility in such a manner to conform to the residential setting. The majority of District drinking water well facilities are situated in residential neighborhoods throughout the South Tahoe area. Many of the surrounding neighbors are unaware of there existence, due to the unobtrusive design and operation of these facilities. See also response to H & M Marty (06/13/07), Comment 2. Comment 3d: "This project will forever destroy the beauty and serenity of this scenic and pristine river, wildlife corridor and recreational area so critical to the Tahoe Basin." Response: This property has been used as a well facility since the early 1960's, without any detrimental effects to the surrounding area. Native habitat does not occur on this site. The proposed facility is situated outside a designated stream environment zone. South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614 · www.stpud.us 7 Comment 4: "The industrial storage of hazardous chemicals and diesel fuel in a residential area of this magnitude is unacceptable and creates a dangerous situation for the fragile and scenic valley and neighborhood." Response: See response to H & M Marty (06/13/07), Comment 8. Comment 5: "The South Upper Truckee river watershed is essential habitat for native fish, amphibians and other wildlife and does not meet the new industrial standard you are creating in this vital corridor." Response: Implementation of this project will in no manner change the One-family Residential (TR1) District designated by EI Dorado County Zoning ordinance for this area. South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474. Facsimile 530.541.0614 · www.stpud.us 8 Dr. Gary Fisher I06/14/07}: Comment: Radon exposure and emission is reaulated bv both the EPA and the FDA. The maximum allowable EPA and FDA limit on radon levels before remediation is required is 4 pCi/L. Please note that the STPUD proposes to release 30 pCi/L from their 13 foot tall stack! This is 7.5X the allowable EPA maximum that reauires immediate remediation.. Response: The comment includes the concentration reduction in the aeration unit, but neglects to consider concentration reduction by dispersion. This process will lead to an annual average concentration of 0.0064 pCi/L, which is 0.16% of the EPA action level. Question 1: "How can the community be sure that, even if the STPUD says it isn't using the radon-contaminated water, that STPUD isn't using it anyway without informing you?" Response: The District has been providing a safe and reliant source of drinking water to it's customers since 1973. The District is required to sample water that it provides to its users, and report these results to its users. The District regularly provides Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs) detailing the quality of its drinking water provided, including natural radioactivity, in accordance with California Safe Drinking Water Act laws and regulations. Though radon is not currently regulated by the EPA or the state, we report radon in our CCR. Question 2: "The STPUD document talks about using the radon-rich wells that are better producers of water than wells in the same area; doesn't that strike fear into anyone else but me? Is the well that STPUD is all ready using contaminated? How close are their current wells to the new one they are proposing to use?" Response: All District drinking water sources contain some levels of dissolved radon. The District is proposing to treat a well having low levels of arsenic, for corrosion control, rather than having to treat a well having high levels of arsenic, for arsenic. Operationally, it is more cost effective to treat water for corrosion control than for arsenic removal. The subject property has been used as a well facility since the early 1960's. The District has produced drinking water from the South Upper Truckee (SUT) Well No.1 and the former South Upper Truckee Well No.2 for more than twenty years. Both the SUT NO.1 and former SUT NO.2 wells have similar chemistry as the new SUT Well No.3. These wells are situated within 50 feet of each other. The existing wells have had levels of radon within safe levels. Question 3: 'Will the aeration be carried out 24/7? If so, then 24/7 monitoring of the radon being released from their stack should be required" South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474. Facsimile 530.541.0614. www.stpud.us 9 Response: The well, and aeration unit, will be used as needed, from less than one hour to continuously. Based on historical usage, it is estimated that the South Upper Truckee Well facility would most likely be operated on a daily average basis, about 14 hours per day. Environmental impacts to the release of radon from the proposed project is addressed in the draft IS/NO, Appendix E, Section 4.0 - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT. Findings from the exposure assessment shows that average ambient concentration of radon gas in zone of maximum impact (that is 62 feet from the outlet chimney at a height of 59 inches above surrounding ground elevation) would be equivalent to a 1.6% of EPA's average nationwide outdoor radon level (0.4 pCi/L). These radon concentrations are not believed to pose a significant risk to public health on a lifetime exposure basis. Based on the results of the impact assessment, the impact does not require monitoring or mitigation as suggested in the comment. Question 4: 'Will the highly charged and far more dangerous radon daughter nuclides be monitored?" Response: At this time, the project does not include a requirement for radon air emissions monitoring. Question 5: "Are there any studies of air flow patterns from the proposed exhaust stack over the entire neighborhood to be able to reliably predict where the radioactive plume will spread, how far the plume will spread, and how fast the plume will dissipate?" Response: Details regarding the dispersion analysis used in the radon gas exposure assessment are provided in the draft IS/NO, Appendix E, Section 3.0 - DISPERSION ANALYSIS. The model makes conservative (worst-case) assumptions in order to provide an upper bound on the maximum concentration that could be emitted. Consideration of more site-specific conditions would lead to lower concentrations. Since the result of the screening level model produced such a minor concentration, the more site-specific modeling was not needed for impact assessment purposes. The screening analysis showed that annual average outdoor concentrations of radon gas would increase by 1.6% or less of EPA's average nationwide outdoor radon level in any location with respect to the exhaust stack. Question 6: "Radon can be adsorbed very effectively using carbon block filters that ultimately, must be treated as radioactive waste; has the STPUD investigated this much safer option for radon removal?" Response: Drinking water regulations for radon have been proposed, but have not been adopted. The proposed Radon in Drinking Water Rule would provide an enforceable maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 300 pCi/L and alternative MCL of 4,000 pCi/L. The drinking water standard that would apply would be contingent on whether the State or Community Water System developed a multimedia mitigation South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474. Facsimile 530.541.0614 · www.stpud.us 10 program to address radon in indoor air. The District will consider radon treatment after the Radon in Drinking Water Rule is adopted. Question 7: "Aeration removes 30 - 70% of total radon; the rest remains in the water as an ingestion hazard. Does the STPUD have any studies that show aeration to be more effective than that? Even a 70% removal leaves 8-9 pCi/L unaccounted for, nearly the double maximum allowed by the EPA and FDA.". Response: During corrosion control treatment pilot testing, water quality sampling showed a greater than 90% reduction in dissolved radon concentration using bubble aeration. During pilot testing, influent radon concentration averaged 483 pCi/ and effluent radon concentration averaged 24 pCi/L. It is our understanding that a drinking water standard for radon has not been adopted by the EPA. Question 8: "The cost of a potential lawsuit will offset by many orders of magnitude any savings this new hazardous water source might produce; are the STPUD board members aware of Love Canal?" Response: Yes, STPUD Is aware of "Love Canal". There is no evidence to support the contention that the new water source is hazardous. The subject property has been used to provide drinking water since the early 1960's. Drinking water produced from this site has met all state and federal drinking water standards. The District has worked closely with the Department of Health Services to insure that this site and the South Tahoe PUD water system will continue to provide a safe and reliable source of drinking water to meet the needs of its customers. Question 9: "According to STPUD's own document, the savings resulting from using this new radon-contaminated water source would be small; wouldn't it be wiser to charge a tiny bit more to the rate payers and guarantee safe water and safe air around the plant? .There is not just faulty reasoning here, there is no reasoning?" Response: The purpose of the draft IS/NO is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts from the proposed project. District planning studies suggest that District water treatment costs could be significantly reduced by cost effective corrosion treatment at the SUT Well No.3. It is unclear to which STPUD document is being referenced. Question 10: "Have you investigated any links between STPUD and other investors or sources of unseen funding?" Response: The District is a public agency, formed in 1950, that provides wastewater collection, treatment and recycling and drinking water to the community of South Lake Tahoe. The District provides a comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) each fiscal year that includes an independent auditor's report. The District has received numerous awards from the Government Finance Officers Association for its excellence South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614 · www.stpud.us 11 in financial reporting. The District does not encourage, maintain or accept any sources of unseen funding. All funds for projects and staff come from service charges and other fees from our customers, or from state or federal grants. South Tahoe Public Utility District · 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614. www.stDud.us 12 Leslv I. Fleck (06/19/07) Item 1) Noise: Concerns about increase in noise levels and request for an onsite demonstration and noise impact report: Response: The District appreciates and values the serenity of this area and will take all reasonable steps to maintain this condition. Facilities and equipment will be installed as necessary to meet the 50db community noise limitation. In addition, the District intends to install additional or expanded features as necessary to control noise and particular frequencies and modulations that may present a nuisance to the neighborhood. Noise control was a major issue during the District's design process that resulted in the following sound dampening features: 7. All mechanical equipment will be housed within a concrete block building 8. A submersible pump and motor set in the production well; 9. A universal inlet silencer and sound attenuation wrap will be installed on the aeration blower and motor; 10. Sound dampening board will be installed on the interior ceiling and walls of the mechanical building; 11. A noise silencer will be placed on the air inlet; and 12. The air inlet will be directed toward the west, away from neighboring residences. Although we believe these systems will provide the necessary noise control, additional equipment and/or features will be installed if necessary. The District is open to having the TRPA assist or consult in the completion of a sound survey. Item 2) Hazardous Materials Business Plan: Request for additional reasonable time to review and comment on completed Hazardous Materials Business Plan: Response: The Hazardous Materials Business Plan is currently in draft form and is being completed in compliance with and as required by the EI Dorado County Environmental Management Department. This plan includes information on two materials, sodium hypochlorite (similar to household bleach) and diesel fuel, that meet the reporting requirements set by the County. The District's draft plan includes general materials information, estimated volume of consumption, materials handling and storage procedures, and emergency contacts, response procedures and precautions. This is basic information that the County requires to assess potential hazards and to make sure that the necessary procedures and precautions are in place before the facility goes online. The District has been using sodium hypochlorite as a disinfectant at drinking water wells since 1989. Sodium hypochlorite has been used at the South Upper Truckee site without incident since 1989. The sodium hypochlorite will be contained in a double- walled 400-gallon tank within the chemical room. Any spills from the tank would be contained within the building and directed to the floor drain to the District sanitary sewer. South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474. Facsimile 530.541.0614. www.stDud.us 13 The District has been using diesel fuel to power emergency stand-by generators at six (6) drinking water well facilities through the South Tahoe area, including the South Upper Truckee site. Diesel fuel has been used at the South Upper Truckee site since installation of the emergency power generator in 1993. Diesel fuel for this project will be contained within a 200-gallon double-walled belly tank underlying the generator within the building. Spill buckets would be used to clean-up spills from the tank. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan will not be completed and approved by the County for perhaps several months and does not need to be completed until the well is ready for startup operations in March 2008. The District is completing this Plan as required by the EI Dorado County Environmental Management Department for their review, comment, and approval. A public review period is not part of this process and we believe unnecessary in this case based on the benign, common nature of the two reportable materials, sodium hypochlorite and diesel fuel. If you would like to review the draft or final plans, you will need to contact Virginia Huber at the EI Dorado County Environmental Management Department, 3368 Lake Tahoe Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA, 96150. Item 3) TRPA Initial Environmental Checklist for Determination of Environmental Impact: - I disagree with the followin~ statements contained in the checklist, all of which are checked "No" by STPUD and I believe the reasonable answer to each of these should be a "YES", barring absolute data to the contrary (such as a full EIR), or "Insufficient Data" when no long term data was shown for the conclusion. The point of my objections is in parenthesis following each statement: 2. Air Quality of ambient (existing) air quality?... Will the proposal result in... (b) Deterioration of ambient (existing) air quality? (Increase to ambient radioactive radon emissions - actual levels of ambient, and actual future levels of increased, unknown - insufficient site data) Response: A dispersion analysis was performed using a conservative model that provides "worst-case" impacts. The screening analysis showed that annual average outdoor concentrations of radon gas would increase by 1.6% or less of EPA's average nationwide outdoor radon level in any location with respect to the exhaust stack. STPUD cannot be expected to control the ambient level of radon in Christmas Valley, however, its model shows that this project's impact on the air quality is much less than the EPA's standards. (c) The creation of objectionable odors (Diesel fuel and hazardous chemical usage) Response: The project will not create objectionable odors. During the fall of 2006, the District completed an approximately nine (9) week field pilot test using low profile aeration. Objectionable odors from the aerated water were not observed during the pilot study. South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614. www.stpud.us 14 (d) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? (Air dispersion procedures?) Response: Since ambient air will be used in the deep bubble aerators, air will leave the building at the same temperature and moisture level. The area of impact the blowers that accelerate air from the stack are minor and cannot alter air movement. (e) Increased use of diesel fuel? (200 gallon on site storage and use) Response: Diesel fuel has been used at the South Upper Truckee site since the installation of the emergency power generator in 1993. No change is proposed to the use or amount of diesel fuel at the site. 3. Water Quality... Will the proposal result in... U) The potential discharge of contaminants to the groundwater or any alteration of groundwater quality? (There is always the potential for hazardous chemical discharge when there is hazardous chemical storage at a site - no disaster mitigation plan has been presented to the public for review and comment) Response: The District has been using sodium hypochlorite as a disinfectant at drinking water wells since 1989. Sodium hypochlorite has been used at the South Upper Truckee site without incident since 1989. Sodium hypochlorite for this project will be contained in a double-walled 400-gallon tank within the chemical room. Any spills from the tank would be contained within the building and directed to the floor drain to the District sanitary sewer. The District has been using diesel fuel to power emergency stand-by generators at six (6) drinking water well facilities through the South Tahoe area, including the South Upper Truckee site. Diesel fuel has been used at the South Upper Truckee site since installation of the emergency power generator in 1993. Diesel fuel for this project would be contained within a 200 gallon double-walled belly tank underlying the generator within the building. Spill buckets would be used to clean-up spills from the tank. The proposed project will not change the use of sodium hypochlorite or diesel fuel at the site. The District has developed a Hazardous Materials Business Plan to be filed with the EI Dorado County Environmental Management Department, prior to construction of the facility. The Hazardous Materials Plan includes a training plan that informs District staff on the proper use of spill clean-up procedures, notification requirements and the proper handling of hazardous materials used at this site. (k) Is the project located within 600 feet of a drinking water source? Response: The project is at least 1,080 feet from each of the 3 neighboring private wells in the area. Although the project itself is providing drinking water, it is not considered a drinking water source because the water must go through treatment before it is considered potable. South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614 · www.stoud.us 15 (d) Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat quantity or quality? (Insufficient data given to determine long range impact of chemical and radon impact on wildlife) Response: Wildlife will not come in contact with chemicals (See response to 3. Water Quality... will result in...). Assuming that the same regulations for human health apply to wildlife, the "worst case" model showed radon emissions were well within EPA regulations and 1.6% or less of the EPA's average nationwide outdoor radon level of 0.4 pCi/L in any location. 6. Noise... Will the proposal result in... (a) Increases in existing Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) beyond those permitted in the applicable Plan Area Statement Community Plan or Master Plan? (Should have at least been "No, with mitigation") Response: The project itself, without mitigation required elsewhere, is designed to meet the TRPA CNEL of 50 decibels for the Christmas Valley Area. The following measures are not mitigation measures but are components of the project: 1. All mechanical equipment will be housed within a concrete block building 2. A submersible pump and motor set in the production well; 3. A universal inlet silencer and sound attenuation wrap will be installed on the aeration blower and motor; 4. Sound dampening board will be installed on the interior ceiling and walls of the mechanical building; 5. A noise silencer will be placed on the air inlet; and 6. The air inlet will be directed toward the west, away from neighboring residences. Construction related activities would generate a short-term increase in ambient noise levels. However, according to Chapter 23.8, construction noise is exempt from the quantitative limits contained in the Noise Ordinance if construction occurs between the house of 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. 10. Risk of upset... Will the proposal... (a) Involve a risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation in the event of an accident or upset? (Christmas Valley is a notorious area for cars and boulders coming down off Echo Summit... a few years back a car came off the cliff all the way down to South Upper Truckee and burst into flames. The project is almost in a direct line from the gulley below Echo Summit where several cars have careened over the side, intentionally and otherwise, in the past few years... 2 such incidents alone last year. The valley is also a "low flying" area for helicopters, so it would be very prudent to consider the possibility for "upset conditions" more than has been done in the STPUD proposal). Response: The project itself does not involve the risk of explosion. It is possible a car could drive off the cliff on Echo Summit or a catastrophic earthquake could occur, but the same dangers could occur with any project in the Christmas Valley Area. South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614. www.stpud.us 16 17. Human Health... Will the proposal result in... (a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? (To ignore the potential long term health implications of radon emissions, first with insufficient data to support the presumption in the STPUD proposal that there IS no impact, and secondly to overlook the necessity for long term monitoring of the radon emissions, is negligent). Response: STPUD does have sufficient data to support both the amount of radon emissions from the project and human exposure to the radon emissions. Using mass balance along with a conservative model, STPUD presented the "worst case" scenario for radon exposure and still was well below the EPA's risk guidelines. As for potential long term health implications, STPUD is relying on the EPA's standards for outdoor radon concentrations. (b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? (Data exists to support that constant noise, radon and hazardous chemicals all can have long term health consequences, it's simply a matter of exposure patterns, which has not been adequately considered in the STPUD proposal that declares it will bring these factors into our neighborhood yet by STPUD's declaration as the controlling authority, there is no health hazard!). Response: See responses to 6. Noise, 17.a Human Health, and 3. Water Quality above. 18. Scenic Resource/Community Design... Will the proposal result in... (a) Be visible from any state or federal highway, Pioneer Trail, or from Lake Tahoe? (The property is visible from Echo Summit which is a TRPA Scenic Corridor. Given the air currents in the valley and sound echoes, it's very possible sound from the project, and any odors, may easily draft upward to Echo Summit. Residents of Christmas Valley can often hear everyday conversations (normal conversation is 60 dB) of tourists who have stopped in the road turnouts to take pictures. Response: The project area is located in a scenic corridor designated by the TRPA (Roadway Unit 37, Echo Summit). While the entry point view's scenic quality is rated "high", there will be no adverse effect on the scenic vista as the structure's appearance will conform to TRPA's Design Review Guidelines. 21. Findings of significance... (b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental goals? {A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endure well into the future}. (I leave this question for the readers of my letter to determine for themselves - my opinion is "yes, unequivocally"). Response: See responses above. South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614. www.stpud.us 17 Item 4) RADON Question 1: 0.88 pCi/1 in Zephyr Cove, versus 0.4 pCi/1 EPA nationwide average.. .more than twice as high as the ambient level used by STPUD to calculate whether or not the human exposure to radon in this neighborhood will be safe or not! Response: Using the higher value for Zephyr cover (0.88 pCi/l) results in the incremental additional annual average ambient concentration of radon gas in the zone of maximum impact being 0.7 percent. The local value, therefore, results in the impact of the discharge being less than reported in the Initial Study, and supports the proposed action. Question 2: Amending the calculations to include actual radon emission for this site combined with actual ambient concentrations for the site (completely unknown due to insufficient data) could easily put the supposedly safe ambient emission level proposed by STPUD into the realm of "mitigation recommended by EPA" arena, and that is an unreasonable and completely unacceptable standard to impose on the residents who would be most impacted by this. Response: The actual annual average radon emission concentration from the site will be less than 0.0064 pCi/L. This is 0.16 percent of the EPAs action level of 4 pCi/L and well within measurement uncertainty of radon detection. Therefore, the emission will not have a detectable effect on sites that are already near the EPA action level of 4 pCi/L. Question 3: Given the importance of radon's health hazards and what we don't really know about the long term effects other than there probably are damaging effects, or without sufficient site-specific Christmas Valley data to support any calculations or conclusions created by STPUD, I ask STPUD to amend their proposal and base all their radon data calculations on current, accurate, site specific measurements of radon gas. Response: The calculations of radon emissions from the facility have been based on site-specific water concentrations. The air dispersion model provides conservative results for radon concentrations in air; that is, the model provides a higher level of radon than would actually be emitted from the facility. The radon concentrations are 0.16 percent of EPA's indoor action level for radon, 1.6 percent of the average outdoor radon concentration, and 0.7 percent of the concentration cited by the commenter for Zephyr Cove. The percentage increase in radon from the facility is within the measurement error of ambient levels, and so ambient levels will not be measurably affected by the discharge. Question 4: Radon gas levels are affected by temperature, precipitation, diurnal changes, geology, meteorology, and even the moon, so I would suggest the data be collected at random intervals of night and day, during temperature extremes, seasonal variations and precipitation changes, throughout the designated impact zone as described by STPUD in the proposal. I would also suggest that this data, as well as a full environmental report on the risks and hazards of radon, be prepared by a scientist who specializes in radioactive hazards, then the report be submitted for further public South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474. Facsimile 530.541.0614. www.stoud.us 18 review and comment. I would also request that STPUD maintain ongoing, onsite radon emission measurements, and at the neighboring properties closest to the impact zone, as well, to insure there is no dangerous variation in any calculated levels or to begin additional mitigation procedures as required. Response: See response to question 3 regarding site-specific information used to calculate radon emissions from the facility, and the conservative (worst case) nature of the dispersion modeling methods. The proposed testing program is intended to quantify the background levels of radon, and the contribution of the facility. See response to question 3 regarding the percentage contribution of the facility to background concentrations. The more detailed measurement of natural background concentrations are not warranted, based on the de minimus contribution of this source. The Initial Study has a full disclosure of the public health effects of radon. Question 5: It would be irresponsible to calculate the likelihood for human exposure damage based on an assumption that STPUD knows all there is to know about the inherent risks of radon. Response: The assessment has been based on data developed by or on behalf of the US EPA and not by STPUD. The EPA has used the studies to establish safe levels based, and the incremental increase is within measurement uncertainty compared to these levels. In the narrative portion of this comment letter, reference was made to an EPA goal of 0 for radon exposure. As noted elsewhere in the comment, however, background levels due to natural sources are 0.4 pCi/1 on a national basis, and 0.88 pCi/L at Zephyr Cove. As such, zero radon exposure in this setting is not feasible owing to the naturally-occurring sources. South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614 · www.stoud.us 19 T. and L. Moulia (06/19/07) Question 1: It is morally and ethically wrong for entities handling radioactively concentrated natural sources, such as Tahoe groundwaters, to take steps which radioactively concentrate other pathways (eg air) and force small fractions of the population to bear the brunt of the radiation exposure. The EPA has adopted this position and begun efforts to regulate Technically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORM). It has provided guidance on the effects on the public from airborne radon releases from venting of uranium mines. It has also provided guidance to Community Water Districts on proper handling of water treatment and filter mediums which have become radioactively contaminated in the normal course of treating groundwater with high concentrations of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM). Unfortunately, STPUD's proposed method of corrosion control for water from SUT#3 is a novel approach having much the same impact as mine venting of radon, but not yet addressed in regulation. Their proposal clearly meets the intent of what EPA has proposed to regulate under its' TENORM Program but the specifics of which.. ..for this type of corrosion control treatment....have not yet been addressed. I would trust that in an environmentally aware community such as Tahoe, in an environmentally sensitive area such as Tahoe, that all involved would wish to meet not just the letter of environmental regulation but also the intent. Response: The approach taken in the impact assessment is to compare the increase to standards set by EPA for residential areas, such as that in the vicinity of the facility. As such, the exposure estimates and levels of significant are likely to be stricter than those that may come in the future from EPA regarding TENORM. Question 2: The total release of radioactivity to the residential environment in Christmas Valley through the deaeration of SUT#3 well water is enormous and the radioisotope released, radon222, is extremely toxic. o Based on pilot tests it is clear that the proposed deaerator will remove 604 pCi/L from the 1400gpm of extracted well water. This will result in the release of 1.68 Curies per year into a residential neighborhood in Christmas Valley. o This is an enormous amount of radioactive material. It exceeds twice the total curies released under continuous operation in 2004 by the 1100 MWe Diablo Canyon Unit 1 nuclear powerplant (0.84 curies in continuous gaseous release in 2004). It is over half (55%) of all gaseous releases made by the same unit in that year (3.05 curies). Diablo Canyon Unit 1 is one of the largest nuclear powerplants in the United States. o At Diablo Canyon, exclusion areas result in the gaseous radioactive releases being made miles from the nearest residence, not 40 feet as in Christmas Valley o The radioactive toxicity of the Radon222 to be released in Christmas Valley is - 100 times greater than that of Ar41 , Kr85 and Xe133 which comprised almost all of the Diablo Canyon gaseous releases in 2004 South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614. www.stpud.us 20 (Diablo Remp EDB rptLicenseeReleaseAmts.asp.htm ,10 CFR 20 App B Table2). o If this well were licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), offsite exposures to the public could not exceed 0.1 pCi/L were much lower (50 mRem annual exposure.. .equivalent to about 10 chest X-rays) but more importantly, STPUD would also be required to control emissions such that they are As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). This last requirement is taken very seriously by the NRC and would require engineering alternatives at reasonably higher costs be adopted if they can lower dose. Response: The commenter calculates the amount of radon removed from the water. The amount removed from water (500 pCi/L in the Initial Study) is reduced to 31.2 pCi/L in the aerator, and then further reduced to 0.08 by dispersion from the stack. On an annual average basis, the maximum radon concentration emitted from the facility would be 0.0064 pCi/L. The risk assessment procedures used by the EPA take these exposure concentrations, and then consider the duration of exposure. These procedures are the basis for the levels that EPA would require mitigation. As is clear from the analysis, the facility's emission 0.16 percent of the EPAs action level of 4 pCi/L and well within measurement uncertainty of radon detection. Therefore, the emission will not have a detectable effect on sites that are already near the EPA action level of 4 pCi/L. Furthermore, the average annual increase in radon concentration from the facility would be 1.6 % of EPAs average nationwide outdoor radon level of 0.4 pCi/L. Based on the Radon Map provided in the Initial Study, the Lake Tahoe area is likely to be higher than this national average, and as such the emission is an even smaller percentage. The comparison to Diablo Canyon is not equivalent; the nuclear power plant can emit gamma and beta radiation, which is much more resistant to shielding than the alpha particles emitted by radon. Accordingly, the regulatory framework governing Diablo Canyon differs from that used by EPA to protect residential populations from radon exposure. Question 3: The plume screening study carried out as part of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration may not be adequate to properly model the SUT#3 situation, and does not provide enough information to allow the public to adequately judge their risk. a) One input does not appear consistent with the pilot study and well #3 chemistry. The radon concentration appears incorrect by as much as 20%. b) Sensitivity analyses do not appear to have been performed. The exposures calculated by the model appear to be very sensitive to the height of the receptor (possibly 2 or 3 orders of magnitude). There are a number of residences in close proximity to the well stack that have second stories in which people likely sleep and spend an appreciable fraction of their time with windows open during much of the year. There exposure will be underestimated. c) The model assumes the stack will release a plume at the same temperature as ambient air. During much of the year the well water in the deaerator (with well water at - 47,48 deg F) will subcool the stack exhaust air relative to ambient air. This would likely result in negative South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614 · www.stpud.us 21 buoyancy for the plume, a lower height and increased exposure to local residents. Further there is some indication that the EPA model used was designed primarily for powerplant plumes and may not be appropriate for plumes in which the exhaust air is below ambient air temperatures. d) It is not clear what analysis was conducted to evaluate models for plumes at high elevations (6300 ft) and for local-Christmas Valley- geographical and meteorological conditions. Strictly from winter observation (when there is smoke in the valley) there appear to be frequent occasions in which there are inversions or some meteorology which traps emissions near the ground. At the emission rate from the stack this might result in 1- 2 mrem/hr if such meteorology could expose people to near stack concentrations. A few days of this per year might result in exposures which easily exceed the 15 mRem/yr EPA guidance. e) This program simply calculates average radioactive concentrations. Because of the high radiotoxicity of radon a small concentration can still result in a significant risk. Any analysis should also identify dose to the most affected members of the public. Including a range of outcomes to show what might occur in improbable years with particularly bad weather outcomes (inversions?). Response: The responses are presented according to the letter of the paragraph indicated above. a. The Initial Study used a wider range of measurements than in the pilot study. A change of 20% to the input value would not lead to a different conclusion from the study, based on the very low concentrations calculated. b. The model is widely used and has been extensively validated, including sensitivity analysis. The Initial Study describes the effects of some of the variables, based on this information. c. The dispersion model did not include provision of plume buoyancy, and as noted in the report this leads to a conservative outcome to the model. d. The model makes conservative (worst-case) assumptions in order to provide an upper bound on the maximum concentration that could be emitted. Consideration of more site-specific conditions would lead to lower concentrations. Since the result of the screening level model produced such a minor concentration, the more site-specific modeling was not needed for impact assessment purposes. e. See response to "d"; the more specific modeling was not needed because the bounding-level analysis showed such minor concentrations emitted from the facility. Question 4: Hazardous Materials: I have not had time to analyze this issue yet, but to be stroring hazardous materials in bulk quantities.. .NAOH, chlorine etc.. .Iess than 150 feet from the Truckee River seems hard to believe. I have dealt with industrial facilities and there is no doubt that between operations problems, tank/piping aging, transportation of bulk chemicals to the site.. ..there will be a spill. ..it's not a matter of if but when. The big question will be whether the spill will impact the Upper Truckee River. South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614 · www.stpud.us 22 With the close proximity to the river, it seems probable that at some point there will be a problem. Response: The District has been using sodium hypochlorite as a disinfectant at drinking water wells since 1989. Since 1989, sodium hypochlorite has been safely and properly used at the South Upper Truckee site without incident. Sodium hypochlorite for this project will be contained in a double-walled 400-gallon tank within the chemical room. Any spills from the tank would be contained within the building and directed to the floor drain to the District sanitary sewer. The District has been using diesel fuel to power emergency stand-by generators at six (6) drinking water well facilities through the South Tahoe area, including the South Upper Truckee site. Diesel fuel has been used at the South Upper Truckee site since installation of the emergency power generator in 1993. Diesel fuel for this project would be contained within a 200 gallon double-walled belly tank underlying the generator within the building. Spill buckets would be used to clean-up spills from the tank. The proposed project will not change the use of sodium hypochlorite or diesel fuel at the site. The District has developed a Hazardous Materials Business Plan to be filed with the EI Dorado County Environmental Management Department, prior to construction of the facility. The Hazardous Materials Plan includes a training plan that informs District staff on the proper use of spill clean-up procedures, notification requirements and the proper handling of hazardous materials used at this site. Question 5 Noise: The TRPA guidance for this project should be "not exceed August... .1982.. ..levels" or 50dB whichever is most limiting. (Note 1982 levels would not be greater than ambient levels today, 2007 and therefore ambient 2007 levels should be able to be used as a limit when these are less than 50db). I would suspect that at many times of day and year, Christmas Valley will see ambient sound levels, absent the pumping and water treatment facility, less than 50 dB. Just because a rural area may have a low ambient background noise level should not provide the right for a company to create a noisier environment up to the TRPA 50 db limits. Fans are inherently noisy and difficult to silence. Two 25 HP, 3600 RPM, 1500cfm fans operating 24 hrs/day 365 days a year likely create a discernable background noise even with good silencing especially during quiet periods of the day (early morning hours) and particularly quiet times of the year. If this project is actually constructed, which it should not be, then the standard should be no discernable noise level at any time of day or year above ambient conditions. This should be an easy standard to measure. STPUD should agree to contract with a knowledgeable noise engineering organization to develop a testing procedure to measure instantaneous ambient noise levels at the quietest periods of time both daily and during the course of a year and during those periods to have STPUD cycle the treatment/pump facility on and off while instantaneous measurements are taken. Within their ability to measure there should be no discernable difference in noise levels on an South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614 · www.stoud.us 23 instantaneous basis at the property line or STPUD should modify its structures/systems so that they do meet this standard or shut them down. Response: The District appreciates and values the serenity of this area and will take all reasonable steps to maintain this condition. Facilities and equipment will be installed as necessary to meet the 50db community noise limitation. In addition, the District intends to install additional or expanded features as necessary to control noise and particular frequencies and modulations that may present a nuisance to the neighborhood. Noise control was a major issue during the District's design process that resulted in the following sound dampening features: 1. All mechanical equipment will be housed within a concrete block building 2. A submersible pump and motor set in the production well; 3. A universal inlet silencer and sound attenuation wrap will be installed on the aeration blower and motor; 4. Sound dampening board will be installed on the interior ceiling and walls of the mechanical building; 5. A noise silencer will be placed on the air inlet; and 6. The air inlet will be directed toward the west, away from neighboring residences. Although we believe these systems will provide the necessary noise control, additional equipment and/or features will be installed if necessary. The District is open to having the TRPA assist or consult in the completion of a sound survey. Question 6 C02: Finally, I find it very interesting that we are at a time in this world when many progressive states, cities and corporations are doing everything they can to create programs to minimize adding greenhouse gases to the environment. A major theme in green house gas mitigation strategies has been to sequester carbon back into the ground. For many industrial facilities this will come at a very high cost. South Lake Tahoe, an environmentally aware community where I assume support for Global Warming mitigation has almost unanimous support, is going to pick an option for treating its drinking water in which it takes already sequestered carbon (C02) in groundwater, strip it out of the water and release it to the air. Is this really what we want to do? Response: The District retained a qualified water treatment specialist and chemical engineer to evaluate corrosion control treatment options in compliance with CCR 9 64683(a). Corrosion control options under consideration included use of chemical additives, such as silicate or phosphate inhibitors and pH adjustment using aeration and/or chemical addition. Use of phosphate inhibitors was ruled out for cost, as well as environmental reasons, as phosphate addition has the potential to indirectly contribute to eutrophication of Lake Tahoe. Silicate inhibitors were also ruled out due to cost, as well as potentially detrimental affects to finished water quality. With regard to pH adjustment, South Tahoe Public Utility District · 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614 · www.stoud.us 24 addition of chemical additives alone (sodium hydroxide or lime) was not selected as these required exceedingly large doses to achieve the required results, which would lead to greater costs, larger facilities footprint and on-site storage and handling of greater amounts of feed chemicals and waste by-products. For these and other reasons, the findings and treatment recommendation for this facility was to use aeration by mechanical means, with minimal addition of chemical additive, if necessary. The District believes that this is the most appropriate and cost effective corrosion control treatment alternative for the South Upper Truckee Well No.3. The Department of Health Services carefully reviewed the Corrosion Control Report and approved the recommended treatment option. South Tahoe Public Utility District · 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474. Facsimile 530.541.0614. www.stpud.us 25 Ron and Karyn Yost (06/19/07) Comment 1: "We object to the limited time that has been allocated to review and evaluate this report. Three weeks do not allow adequate time for the layman to fully understand and analyze the facts presented and consult experts. Please allow additional time so that we can more adequately understand this project which impacts our neighborhood, the air we breathe, and our quality of life. We absolutely must obtain outside qualified evaluations to fully address our concerns." Response: The project is being proceeding in compliance with the reporting, notification, and review requirements as prescribed by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, the District has provided extra opportunities for public review and comment, as detailed in the following paragraph. The need for this project was initially discussed during a Board Workshop convened in October 2005. In December 2005, the Board authorized staff to request proposals from consulting engineering firms to conduct a Corrosion Control Study (CCS) for the South Upper Truckee Well No.3, in accordance with California Safe Drinking Water Act Requirements. In February 2006, the Board approved staff recommendation to select Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (K1JC) to conduct Phase I of the study. In June 2007, the Board approved Phase II ofthe CCS was approved by the Board. In March 2007, Kennedy Jenks Consultants (K1JC) provided a 20-minute presentation describing the purpose, methods and major findings from the Corrosion Control Study. In April 2007, the District conducted a neighborhood meeting that discussed plans for the construction of the CCS water treatment facility. At each of these meetings, the public has had an opportunity to provide input on this project. In addition to public review and comment, numerous public agencies, including the TRPA, EI Dorado County, and the California Department of Health Services, have been involved with the project. These agencies have experts in various fields that are able to provide unique expertise during the review and comment period as an independent agent for the average homeowner or layperson. Comment 2: "According to your report regarding noise of the intended well, "...the noise leaving the building will be through the air inlet...directed toward the west away from neighboring residences." Our property at 3168 South Upper Truckee appears to be in the direct path of the air inlet. Although your report indicates that a silencer will be installed, we are EXTREMELY CONCERNED that any noise will greatly diminish the value of our property and the peacefulness of our setting." Response: The District appreciates and values the serenity of this area and will take all reasonable steps to maintain this condition. Facilities and equipment will be installed as necessary to meet the 50db community noise limitation. In addition, the District intends to install additional or expanded features as necessary to control noise and particular frequencies and modulations that may present a nuisance to the neighborhood. Noise control was a major issue during the District's design process that resulted in the following sound dampening features: South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614 · www.stpud.us 26 1. All mechanical equipment will be housed within a concrete block building 2. A submersible pump and motor set in the production well; 3. A universal inlet silencer and sound attenuation wrap will be installed on the aeration blower and motor; 4. Sound dampening board will be installed on the interior ceiling and walls of the mechanical building; 5. A noise silencer will be placed on the air inlet; and 6. The air inlet will be directed toward the west, away from neighboring residences. Although we believe these systems will provide the necessary noise control, additional equipment and/or features will be installed if necessary. The District is open to having the TRPA assist or consult in the completion of a sound survey. Comment 3: "The release of carbon dioxide and radon from the proposed chimney and air outlet are of great concern. We have read reports which indicate that this situation should be much more closely examined and evaluated before any plans are finalized. We are most concerned about our own health as well as that of our neighbors. We question your statements that these emissions pose "...no significant risk to public health." At the very least, more research is needed to accurately evaluate the short and long-term impact of these emissions into our mountain and neighborhood environment." Response: CO2 and radon are naturally occurring elements present in the groundwater at the SUT well. The levels of these constituents are below limitations set by the California Department of Health Services (DHS) and do not present a health concern and do not require removal or treatment. The DHS is responsible for the safety of the water we drink as well as the safety of any water treatment processes including the safety of the release of CO2 and radon into the air. The low levels of C02 and radon in the groundwater result in low, insignificant levels released into the air by the aeration system. Environmental impacts to the release of radon from the proposed project are addressed in the draft IS/NO, Appendix E, Section 4.0 - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT. Findings from the exposure assessment shows that average ambient concentration of radon gas in zone of maximum impact (that is 62 feet from the outlet chimney at a height of 59 inches above surrounding ground elevation) would be equivalent to a 1.6% of EPA's average nationwide outdoor radon level (0.4 pCi/L). The annual average radon emission concentration from the site will be less than 0.0064 pCi/L. This is 0.16 percent of the EPAs action level of 4 pCi/L and well within measurement uncertainty of radon detection. Therefore, the emission will not have a detectable effect on ambient radon levels. Comment 4: "The industrial storage of hazardous chemicals and diesel fuel in a residential area is unacceptable. These substances pose a health threat to our neighborhood as well as the wildlife that inhabits the area." South Tahoe Public Utility District · 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474. Facsimile 530.541.0614. www.stoud.us 27 Response: The amount and nature of the materials to be located on site do not represent a significant risk to human or environmental health. The District has completed a draft of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan in compliance with and as required by the EI Dorado County Environmental Management Department. This plan includes information on two materials, sodium hypochlorite (similar to household bleach) and diesel fuel, that meet the reporting requirements set by the County. The District's draft plan includes general materials information, estimated volume of consumption, materials handling and storage procedures, and emergency contacts, response procedures and precautions. This is basic information that the County requires to assess potential hazards and to make sure that the necessary procedures and precautions are in place before the facility goes online. The District has been using sodium hypochlorite as a disinfectant at drinking water wells since 1989. Sodium hypochlorite has been used at the South Upper Truckee site without incident since 1989. The sodium hypochlorite will be contained in a double- walled 400-gallon tank within the chemical room. Any spills from the tank would be contained within the building and directed to the floor drain to the District sanitary sewer. The District has been using diesel fuel to power emergency stand-by generators at six (6) drinking water well facilities through the South Tahoe area, including the South Upper Truckee site. Diesel fuel has been used at the South Upper Truckee site since installation of the emergency power generator in 1993. Diesel fuel for this project will be contained within a 200-gallon double-walled belly tank underlying the generator within the building. Spill buckets would be used to clean-up spills from the tank. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan will not be completed and approved by the County for perhaps several months and does not need to be complete until the well is ready for startup operations in March 2008. The District is completing this Plan as required by the EI Dorado County Environmental Management Department for their review, comment, and approval. A public review period is not part of this process and we believe unnecessary in this case based on the benign, common nature of the two reportable materials, sodium hypochlorite and diesel fuel. If you would like to review the draft or final plans, you will need to contact Virginia Huber at the EI Dorado County Environmental Management Department, 3368 Lake Tahoe Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA, 96150. Comment 5: "Since the corner of Egret and South Upper Truckee is a much-used school bus stop by the Lake Tahoe Unified School District, this project impacts students on a daily basis during the school year. This factor should be carefully considered." Response: We appreciate and share your concern about the safety of students and all others during the construction of the project. We will maintain a safe construction site including all OSHA requirements, and meet all safety requirements as indicated by the South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474. Facsimile 530.541.0614. www.stpud.us 28 County Department of Transportation. At this time, we don't believe that a change in the bus stop will be necessary. South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474. Facsimile 530.541.0614. www.stpud.us 29 U> C -I w Ie. ., 0) l;:::l en Z o I ., CD < (ii' o' :J I~ OJ U>"TIS:;:())> G> Z )> ::r::g ZOZ~CD --O":J "TIZ)>=e. a G> -I ~ x' )>U>O_)> ZO:::Oco, ()"TI-<3() m xm <0 :=)> I\) w ~ 0)000() :JOO-::r e.35(00) Cil"OCDacE -. CD 0 5 CD 3~ge._ g!a:J:E~ Cil o' - !a s:;: CD :J 0 CD _. 3::f::f:::$ CD ., CD 0 0) 3.gcnr-+g o 10 -I ffi :J - ::r ~ 0) :i" 000 ~o_ o 0 CD ~5:EUa q CD 0) CDe. CD CO- e. o I::: ~ "0 -. g g CIl ::l. :J :J_~~:T o CD CD- co CD OCD "0 !e. CD 3 :E ., CIl x '" CD .Q, . CD"'=CD 3g,2U "0 <_ I::: :JO o CD" :J "0 CIl CIl (ii' CIl oe.-I amffi :.i" ;:::l ~enl? @zQ, o :;;!. ~. (ii' cE ~:JG> ., 0 ., ~ 00 _ :J C -< 10 g, c-CD< CD ., < _. CD 0) :J~co 10 CD ., e.U() CD _. 0 < < e. ~~CD .g )> Cil ~CilCD' . :5. Cil CIl :J CD 0 e.CD e. 5' (j) -- ~ I\) -- I\) o o '"-.I - ::r CD A AA I I G tit k l, l f" (, A ~ fl/^.l~ :L4e vY"\ ~ ~ d. ~ ~ 51 ~ ~ ~ ~,-~\-Vll a e!,3S.S. o' -. ::r ::r :J ~ ;. e -I ::j:I: III .... "C III = ., "C ::r a. CD 0 ~ <' ., CD <CD-I"tl -. ., C CDCCO" :CQlO- n=~t;- os-CDe 3;:;::E~ 3 -. CD ;:;: CD e!, = '< :Jennc it .... 0 -. C :J (II Q.....!:t ~ac:r z-- CD (II co OJ a.c <' s: CD _, c:J CD co (') III -:J ~ Q. a.-I o' Cil :J III .... 3:3 III CD '< 3- ~." !'Jill ~ ~. 0:: ~~ "tl ., .E. CD (') .... ~I())> )> -< ::r"O -IO~~ m:::O":J :::oOiFQ, o,-x cO~)> )>G>CD I ,-<3() -)><m -Iz=o -<0:-)> x :::; 0) I\) .,OO() ~. :E CIl ::r 3 :J CIl 0) c-CDo:J C Cil _10 Cil _10 CD CD::r"- 3 ago CDC:J-i :J 10 e. ::r -::r:ECD 0(0)0 -0- 0:J~![ O:J_., :J CD 0 o' CIl 0 - 2" 01::: :T :E CD _. U:JO)= o' CD' ~CD ~ :J CD 0 CD Oco"'-' o x CD 0 !e.CDe.O CIl 3 ~ 3 "0 -'"0 I:::~CD o _ :J :J CD CIl ~ :E ~ e.~g Oe.-i am::r 5' ;:::l CD g @~ CDZ= CIl-. O:;;!. -, :J o CIllO ~:JG> ., 0 ., ~ 00 _:JC -< 10 g, c-CD< CD ., < -. CD 0) :J~co 10 CD ., e.U() CD -. 0 < < e. ~~CD .g )> Cil ~CilCD' . :5. Cil CIl :J CD 0 e.CD e. 5' ~ w "tl III co CD ::j:I: :::; "C "C co ::r c- 01 :J CD en C co co CD (II .... CD Q. m Q. ;:;: (II ;a CD < iii' o' :J (II 0- ., ;:0 CD III (II o :J - ::r CD South Tahoe Public Utility District ~... iii.... .....1t6t6rtt ~ ~Wn F.-mlll ;.m.1t .x-. Mal)' Lou MofMpacfw DIlsN ~ ErIc~ I 1275 MadowCrest [)rfve.5outh L.akeTahoe.CA 96150-7401 f'hon8 530 54+&474- fax 5W 541-0614.www.5tpwtu5 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 15a TO: Board of Directors FROM: Richard H. SOlbrig, General Manager MEETING DATE: June 21,2007 ITEM - PROJECT: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Direct staff. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) of the California Government Code, Closed Session may be held for conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation: Meyers Landfill Site - United States of America vs. EI Dorado County and City of South Lake Tahoe and Third Party Defendants, Civil Action No. 5-01-1520 LKK GGH, United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. SCHEDULE: COSTS: ACCOUNT NO: BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~ NO CATEGORY: Sewer -103- GonInlf ........ ~H."'" South Tahoe Public Utility District ~ KlrthIoM FlIltrlllI ,Jam,. It ..IoNs .....ry Lou t.at>&tw DuaNW.w. Erfc;~ ~, .. J 1Z75 Meadowen.t Drive-South l..ake T~- CA 96150-7401 PI'ton8 550 544-6474- Fax 530 541-0614.www.5tpUd.u5 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 15b TO: Board of Directors FROM: Richard H. Solbrig, General Manager MEETING DATE: June 21, 2007 ITEM - PROJECT: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Direct staff. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) of the California Government Code, Closed Session may be held for conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation: Advanced Companies against Nicholas Construction, Inc., Civil Action Court Case No. SC-2007 -0042, Superior Court, County of EI Dorado, State of California. SCHEDULE: COSTS: ACCOUNT NO: BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES f(.H..I NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES'Y1fpr ~ NO CATEGORY: Sewer -105- South Tahoe Public Utility District UIllInllnII.~ ~.H."'" DII'eGtore lYt1:h1oM FAII'TIlII ~ll:.JoNf MlII)' Lou t.406t>lIdw Du.tne w.-.. Eric SctuIfor 1275 Meadow Qy,st ~. South l..akB Tahoe- CA 96100-1401 Phor16 530 544-6414- Fax 5:30 541-OO14.www.5tpud.us BOARD AGENDA ITEM 15c TO: Board of Directors FROM: Richard Solbrig, General Manager, Paul Sciuto, Assistant General Manager/Engineer MEETING DATE: June 21,2007 ITEM - PROJECT: Conference with Legal Counsel- Anticipated Litigation (one case) REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Direct legal counsel. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Section 54956.9(b) of the California Government Code, Closed Session may be held for conference with legal counsel regarding anticipation of litigation. SCHEDULE: COSTS: ACCOUNT NO: BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~NO CATEGORY: -107- l:JIdtWllII.... ,.... ~It.... South Tahoe Public Utility District ~ ~ F."". JMntl6\ It JoMe Marylou ~ Du.tfIo w.a.c. E!'fc; &Mfer 1275 Madowen.t CJrtve.9outh Lake Tahoe. CA 96150-7401 f'hon6 530 544 ..6474.f'1I)( 530 541-0614 .www.et:pu4us BOARD AGENDA ITEM 15d TO: Board of Directors FROM: MEETING DATE: Executive Committee (Schafer I Jones) June 21, 2007 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Public Employee Evaluation - General Manager REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Conduct Evaluation DISCUSSION: Pursuant to section 54957 of the California Government Code, Closed Session may be held regarding contract negotiations for unrepresented employee position. Unrepresented Employee Position: General Manager Agency Negotiators: Executive Committee, Board of Directors SCHEDULE: COSTS: ACCOUNT NO: BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES J2H 4' NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YESIlJ:f'rr RirIe- NO CATEGORY: General -109- Turf Buy Back • Program .EN 2007 1.4 Why buy back turf? • Water savings • Decrease peak summer demand Environmental benefits • Decrease fertilizer use • Less nutrients into watershed -Q-oapital-anO7e wings , -- Eliminate need for drilling additional ,....s-Fliminatelong-ternvQ&M costs Pre - conversion Eligibility ea Must be within City of SLT or Tahoe Basin portion of EDC Need not be District water customer Areas to be converted must be lawn, not native vegetation Landscaping Requirements Efficient Irrigation • If irrigation system used, must be drip Surface Treatments • Must be covered by permeable mulch 50% Livin • Plant Cover • At coriapletion, must be 50% coverage .when p mature Terms of Rebate • District's Assurance • Six-month expiration • One conversion per application • 'ncentive Amounts and Limits • $2.00 per sq. ft. for first 1,500 sq. ft. Terms (Cont) Final inspection • District verifies completion • If failure to meet guidelines — 60 days to complete Requirement to Sustain Conversion ■ Must remain in conversion for five years Requirement voided upon transfer of ownership Terms (Cont) Other Responsibilities • District enforces only conversion agreement • Applicant responsible for complying with all laws, policies, codes, and covenants • Quality and appearance of conversion is Funding Prop. 40 • $325,168 total • $149,410 for incentive programs Prop. 50 • $375,704 total • $234,629 for incentive programs Questions? Turf Buy-Back Program Board Presentation June 21, 2007 Presented by Shelly Barnes Why Buy Turf · Water savings · Decrease peak summer demand · Environmental benefits · Decrease fertilizer use · Less nutrients into watershed · Capital and O&M savings · Eliminate need for drilling additional wells · Eliminate long-term O&M costs Pre-conversion Eligibility · Must be within City of SL T or Tahoe Basin portion of EDC · Need not be District water customer · Areas to be converted must be lawn, not native vegetation · At least 400 sq. ft. (with exceptions) · Must submit application and pre-conversion site visit before start of conversion Landscaping Requirements · Efficient Irrigation · If irrigation system used, must be drip · Surface Treatments · Must be covered by permeable mulch · 50% Living Plant Cover · At completion, must be 50% coverage when plants fully mature Terms of Rebate · District's Assurance · Six-month expiration · One conversion per application · Incentive Amounts and Limits · $2.00 per sq. ft. for first 1,500 sq. ft. · $1.50 per sq. ft. in excess of 1,5000 sq. ft. · Only issued to property owner (or designee) · Checks issued 30-60 after project final · Final inspection · District verifies completion · If failure to meet guidelines - 60 days to complete · Requirement to Sustain Conversion · Must remain in conversion for five years · Requirement voided upon transfer of ownership · Other Responsibilities · District enforces only conversion agreement · Applicant responsible for complying with all laws, policies, codes, and covenants · Quality and appearance of conversion is applicants responsibility · Rebate may be considered taxable income Funding · Prop. 40 · $325,168 total · $149,410 for incentive programs · Prop. 50 · $375,704 total · $234,629 for incentive programs Questions? Clear Day Page 1 of 1 Chris Whalen From: Lisa Coyner Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 20079:14 AM To: Kathy Sharp; Chris Whalen; Help Desk Cc: Shelly Barnes; Lynn Nolan; Dennis Cocking Subject: Board Presentation Shelly Barnes, District Water Conservation Specialist, will be doing a Board presentation at the June 21 st meeting titled "The South Tahoe Public Utility District's Turf Buy-Back Program". It will be a Power Point presentation. I would appreciate having it right after the consent calendar so those that want to leave, can. Thank you! Lisa M. Coyner Manager of Customer Service South Tahoe Public Utility District Phone: (530) 543-6221 Fax: (530) 541-0614 6/13/2007 About the District The South Tahoe Public Utility District is a California special district formed on September 28, 1950, to provide fiscally and environmentally responsible water and waste- water services to the community of South Lake Tahoe. Special districts are legally constituted governmental enti- ties that are neither cities nor counties, and are formed by voters to perform specific services within defined bounda- ries. An elected five - member Board of Directors, which serve staggered four -year terms, govern the District The Board of Directors meet on the first and third Thursday of each month at 2:00 p.m. The meetings are held at the Cus- tomer Services Building located at 1275 Meadow Crest Drive in South Lake Tahoe. All board meetings are open to the public and the District encourages and welcomes customer input. •awo3u! a!gExe3 paJa - pisuo3 aq dew aaegaa zuE3!Idde at1 ;o d3!pq!suodsaJ alp s! uo!sJanuo3 at1 ;o a3u.JEadde pue d3!IEna zuauniedap aay Imo! Jnod Jo IOSI•£tiS•0£S 1E Gobi 33E1UO3 'a3eds alq!sua;ad aJ! j Jo sa3!33E1d 3uausSeuel„) 3sag uo uou - ewJO ;w .10j •d!dde dew lap S3UEUaAOD pue 'sapo3 'sap -god 'sMel IIE t1!M 2u!Aldwo3 Jo; a!q!suodsaJ s! 3uE>i!dde ayl 7uawaaJse a3EgaJ uo!sJanuo3 ay3 ;o suon!puo3 ay3 Apo sa3JO)ua 13u3s!Q au— sap!I!q!suodsaa aay;o •d!ysJauMo ;o Ja;suen uodn pap!on s! 3uawaJ!nbaJ situ •sJEad any ;o pouad E Jo; suop!puo3 we oJd I!e t3!M aDuendwo3 w u!ewaJ 3snw eaie pa3Jan -UOD ayl —uolsaawuoD ay; u!e;sns o} ;uawaalnbaa •suon!puo3 weJSoJd ay3 t3!M didwo3 01 'JaleaJs s! Janay3!4M 'pouad tauow -xis atl ;o _opu!ewaJ aql JO sdep 09 pamoge aq II!M 1ue3!Idde 343 'uop3adsui spe; UO!SJaAUOD ay3 ;I •aDue!Idwo3 weiSoJd d;uan o1 uon3adsu! uE 33npuo3 IIIM 33u3s!Q at3 'uon - a!dwo3 33a!oJd ;o uone3ynou Jaw— uoppadsul mum •uo1Dadsw levy Jai ;e 13943 ;o a3uenss! JO; sdep 09 molly •ann - E3uasaJdaJ pa3wodde dlle8al sJauMo ar.p Jo Daum° d3Ja -doJd 343 03 panss! Apo am svato . spun ; 13!I!gel!ene ata uo paseq suone3!Idde am!! Jo 33alaJ dew 33u3s!a ayl lop; aJenbs Jad Os•I$ aq p 333; aJenbs 005 ;o ssa3xa u! seam Jo; annua3u! ayl •333; aJenbs 00s' lug 343 Jo; U0!SJ3AUO3 SU!Xp enb ;o 300; aJenbs Jad 007$ si annua3ui ayl- -smLun pue s;unousy awpuawl •uone3!Idde Mau a aJ!nbaJ suo!sJanuo3 aJnan; 4uawaaise pea JapUn pan!3 3J aq dew 3uawXEd auo Apo •stauow xis Jai ;e saJ!dxa 3uawaaJSe au- 33ueanssy s,pu;s!Q a}e9QN oy} Jo 9wJ21 •ap!n8 a3JnosaJ 3ua!la3xa ue s! 'uo!sua3x3 anovadooD yNn dq pays!lgnd • A4upm pun aoyoj a4n7 Joj awn 8uido)spuo awoH •a.mew dlln; am s3ueld at3 ua4M Jan03 Weld Swn!I 1ua3Jad Os 3sEal 3E aaeaJ3 03 meld 42noua UIE3UO3 3snw seam pa3Januo3 'uoualdwo3 3y —rawoD lurid Su!w!1 %OS •s!!e3ap 3ypads Jo; uoIEJ!Idde aas •Ja3EM puE J!e 03 algeauuad y3lnw ;o Jadel a dq pan/top d!a3aid -wo3 aq 3snw £3JE pa3Januo3 34j s;uaugeaaj aw}+ns •s1!E3ap 3ypads Jo; uope3lidde aas •sJa33wia pue Jo1e!nSaJ amssaJd Ja3Iy e tl!M paddinba uopeBum dup aq 3snw 3! 'pasn s! wa3sds guuame& a ;- uope2ual ;uap!j3 s}uawoJ!nba\( 5u!de3spue •alq!S!lau! U0!SJanuo3 ay3 aNew II!M IenoJdde 33!J3s!Q 3not3!M 33aload 343 Su!uu!Sag •Ma!naJ a3!s uo!SJanuo3 -aid 33!ns!Q E u! azedplzied 3snw 3ue3pdde 343 pue 33u3s!Q at3 03 pa33!wgns aq 3snw uon - eagdde at3 'uoOESw! Su!sea3 JO UMEI due SwnowaJ aJO;ag • •Sumamp dl!we; al&ws E ;o uMEI 13eq Jo 3UOJ; at3 aleuium13- �o d3JadoJd XI!we ; -p!nw Jo'Ieuop -mnsw •IepJawwo3 uo time! aaeu!w!la dla3aldwoD - :data;! paada33e aq dew s33afoJd Jailews •pa3Januo3 aq 3snw time! ;0 333; aJenbs Opp 3sea1 3 •uopEaaSan JO S3SSErS anpeu Sou 'time! pau!E3u!ew pa2eS!JJ! aq 3snw pa3Januo3 aq 01 seaJy • 73!J3s!Q a9a ;o Jawo3sn3 Ja3EM a aq 3ou paau no •dluno3 opeJop 13 ;o uonjod u!seg ao9Ej atl JO llS ;o d3!D 343 u!t3!M a!! 3snw pa3Januo3 aq o3 seaJV • III9I5 12 U -3Jd • •uope3!Idde ue pue s;uatuaalnbaa u3ea8oad Jo; g9Z9•PPS•0£S ;e ' ;s!leDads uopewaasuop aa;eM 'samara Allays Pe;uo3 aseald - 2! Jo 3 R3U npE aNei nod clay of dpeaJ s! pue wEJSoJd aAPEAODU! SI93 u! uoned0QJEd mod sawo3pM 33u1s!Q 341 • •pap!one aq ue3 mop aDueua2wew puE suopeiado WJa3 -Suoi pue s11aM Mau Jo; S3so3 IE3!de3 'spuewap Ja3EM Jawwns s,33u3s!Q 343 Supnpaa dg •suopdo 2u!dE3spuel 'an!sua3u! Ja3EM SSai 3nq •ancueme 93!M suMei J!393 a3eldaJ o3 tism o4M sJawo3sn3 Jo; '300; aJenbs Jad 007$ 3e 'sumel ;o >peq -dnq E3U 343 Jo; MOIIE amp s2ueJ8 uoIEAJasuo3 Ja3eM EN -JoneD o mans 0M3 papJeMe uaaq set 33u3s!Q ayu • •ieuou3un ;uou s,3F -3! Mow nod uayM uMEI mod uo mIIem Apo nod p- -gwnt3 ;o aura leJauas E Sy •JauMo ssau!snq JO 3W09 at3 J o; sa3Jnos -a J p ue awp u! 3so3 Surauo ue 3uasaJdaJ pue Ja3eM alseM —pasn dlaJeJ am Imp sauo —suMEI Ieuon3un;uoN • - ale - 1 343 ;o d3uep XJepua2al 343 33age ue3 3e93 t3M0J8 Ale Jo; S3uau3nu ap!AOJd X343 '3J343 a3uo aoyel axles mu! deM J!at3 amew dpenluana dare aJa9M 'paysJ32EM ay3 Dual UMel 342 JO; papua3u! slua!Janu ysnd uE3 uopeu!gwo3 s!t3 'sips aoyel snoJOd 9p!M •paz!Ii3Ja; Jan) puE paJa3eM Jana aq 03 pua3 suMel 'ann3adsJad IeauawuoJ!nua ue w)J j • •weaumw 03 an!suadxa aJe d343 puE :suoudo Su!de3spuel 3sow UEta Ja2eM aJOW asn sume! 'd!a3EUn3JO;un •ueld Su!de3spue! an!suayaJdwo3 e w 3Jed 3ue3JOd -w! ue de!d UE3 suMel 3E43 saz!uSoDaJ 33u3s!a ayu • n} 'I'e9 Fin9' 9M South Tahoe Fublic Utilit'y District TURF BUY-BACK PROGRAM-2007 The District recognizes lawns can play an important part in a comprehensive landscaping plan. Unfortunately. lawns use more water than most landscaping options. and they are expensive to maintain. . From an environmental perspective, lawns tend to be over fertilized and over watered. With porous Tahoe soils. this combination can push nutrients intended for the lawn into the watershed where they eventually make their way into lake Tahoe. Once there, they provide nutrients for algal growth that can affect the legendary clarity of the lake. . Nonfunctionallawns--ones that are rarely used--waste water and represent an ongoing cost in time and resources for the home or business owner. As a gen- eral rule of thumb-if you only walk on your lawn when you mow it--it's non- functional. . The District has recendy been awarded two state water conservation grants that allow for the voluntary buy-back of lawns, at $2.00 per square foot, for custom- ers who wish to replace their lawns with attractive, but less water intensive. landscaping options. By reducing the District's summer water demands. capital costs for new wells and long-term operations and maintenance can be avoided. . The District welcomes your participation in this innovative program and is ready to help you take advantage of it. Please contact Shelly Barnes, Water Conserva- tion Specialist at 543.6268 for program requirements and an application. • 2004 - SUT Well No. 3 • Summer 2005 - As Master Plan • Oct. /Nov. 2005 - Treatment Alternative • Feb. 2006 - CCS Pha • June 2006 - CCS Pha • Feb. 2007 - CCS Pha • April 2007 - DHS App • April /May 2007 — EPerform environmental review IZEPrepare draft Initial Study /Negative Declaration (IS /ND) • May 18, 2007 — EIS /ND — COMPLETED • May 19 — June 19, 2007 EPublic Notice of Availability 11Public Review • June 21, 2007 EPublic Meeting ❑Consideration of Negative Declaration • 2004 Well Construction QCEQA NOE QEDC Well Construction Permit T04 -3 QRWQCB NPDES Discharge Permit #6A090407003 • 2007 Facility Construction DEDC SUP # S 07 -0010 (Exempt) QEDC Building Permit (Exempt) ❑ EDC AQMD Auth. To Construct (In Review) ❑ DHS CEQA Compliance (TBC) ❑TRPA #20070265 (In Review) ❑ EDC Encroachment Permit (TBC) ❑ EDC Haz Mat Plan (TBS) • Hydrology & Water Quality — potential loss of groundwater to affected private well owners • Noise — Construction — Operations • Transportation /Traffic - Construction - Operations • Hydrology & Water Quality — Connection fee exemption — Construction cost reimbursement • Noise — Construction: 8:00 a.m. -6:30 p.m. — Operations: Sound dampening to reduce noise below CNEL (50db) • Transportation /Traffic — Construction: Traffic Controls — Operations: Less than Single - Family Residence • ZONING • AESTHETICS • TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC • HAZARDOUS MATERIALS • NOISE —Radio Frequency Interference • AIR EMISSIONS DAccept the South Upper Truckee Well Project Initial Study with staff comments DCertify Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact with written comments and responses to comments • File Notice of Determination ~ 4(~~(v\ q ~ t- \1 b ~..Zl"Oi'7 ((VV'\C Ui'll N B H/, Of C llf ,.Pll!i\ June 5, 2007 Mr. Reed Schmidt, Principal Bartle Wells Associates 1889 Alcatraz Avenue Berkeley, California 94703 Ms. Rhonda McFarlane South Tahoe PUD 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Re: SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT $10.0 Million Sewer Financing Loan Dear Reed and Rhonda: Based on information in your request for the above-referenced credit facility (the "Facility"), Union Bank of California, N.A. (the "Bank") is pleased to submit the following expression of interest. The proposed terms and conditions are summarized below. We have included various interest rate and term options in hopes of presenting a facility which will best suit the District's needs. All terms and conditions are for discussion purposes only. FACILITY TYPE: Loan - Bank qualified FACILITY AMOUNT: Estimated not to exceed $10 million FACILITY PURPOSE: To provide financing for the construction of wastewater system capital improvements. FACILITY TERM: (1) 15 years (2) 20 years (3) 25 years. INTEREST RATE: Fixed Rate Loan option: 1 (1 ) 4.128% fixed rate for 15 years (2) 4.199% fixed rate for 20 years (3) after 20 years, rate would be reset. 1 Rates have been locked for 90 days. 1 "; Variable Rate Loan ootion: (Any term as chosen by the District.) UBOR + .80% discounted by a tax-exempt factor. Based on today's rates and assuming 6-month UBOR is chosen, the rate would be approximately 4.15%. Variable ootion: District.) 4.23%2 Rate Swaooed to Fixed Rate {Any term as chosen by the PREPAYMENT PENAL TV: For variable rate options above, prepayment on any payment date without penaltv. For fixed rate options, see Addendum (page 5.) PAYMENT FREQUENCY: Principal and interest payments will be made semi-annually in equal installments. BANK RATINGS: Short-term: Long-term: S&P A1 A+ Moodv's P1 Aa- ORIGINATION FEE: None. DEFAULT RATE: Bank's Reference Rate+ 3% floating, calculated on a 360-day basis, actual days elapsed. LEGAL FEES AND OTHER OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES: Legal fees are for the account of the District, estimated at $30,000, accrue upon written acceptance of our commitment letter, and are payable upon the issuance or cancellation of the issuance of the Facility. (Note that if swap option is chosen and the District requires additional swap opinions, the legal fees could be higher.) COVENANTS: Covenants and conditions precedent will be included in order to protect our sources of repayment. The loan should: 1. be in a parity position with the District's outstanding Sewer Revenue Certificates of Participation; 2 Indication only. 2 . 2. have a direct pledge of the gross revenues of the Sewer System; 3. maintain a Rate Covenant equal to 1.2x. BANK OFFICER: Karen Coleman, VP Union Bank of California, N.A. 445 South Figueroa Street, G08-268 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 236-6435 Fax: (213) 236-6917 LEGAL COUNSEL: Neal S. Millard, Esq. White & Case 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 Phone: (213) 620-7773 Fax: (213) 687-0758 INTERNAL APPROVAL: We anticipate the credit approval process to take no more than two weeks from receipt of all necessary financial information. This proposal is not a commitment by us and nothing contained herein should be construed, explicitly or implicitly, as such. We expect to engage in further discussions with you and obtain additional information before deciding whether to provide such a commitment. The terms and conditions in this expression of interest are an outline of some of the essential terms and conditions for which we would request approval. Additionally, financial terms and conditions of this letter do not become your obligation until we issue and you accept our commitment letter. Document preparation and review by the Bank and its legal counsel will not be performed prior to our issuing and your accepting our commitment letter unless you request in writing that the Bank and its legal counsel perform such work. Such a request shall be deemed an acknowledgment by the party making such a request that such work is being performed as an accommodation to such party and that, until we issue and you accept our commitment letter, no commitment to issue the Facility will be implied from our performing such work. Upon such request, provisions in this letter relating to legal fees and expenses become effective. Please note that the Bank's name may not be used or referred to in any publicity or announcement concerning this Facility until such time as our commitment letter has been issued to you and accepted by you in accordance with the terms thereof. This proposal expires at 5:00 p.m. on August 27,2007 if we have not received your written acceptance prior to such date and time. We hope this proposal is responsive to your needs and provides a Facility which enables the District to successfully accomplish its financing goals. We look forward to working with you. 3 , Addendum: Prepayment penalty to be calculated as follows: 15 year option: . 5% penalty if payoff in the first year; . 4% penalty if payoff in the second year; . 3% penalty if payoff in the third year; . 2% penalty if payoff in the fourth year; . 1 % penalty if payoff in the next 4 years; . 0% penalty thereafter. 20 year option: . 5% penalty if payoff in the first 2 years; . 4% penalty if payoff in the next 2 years; . 3% penalty if payoff in the next 2 years; . 2% penalty if payoff in the next 2 years; . 1 % penalty if payoff in the next 2 years; . 0% penalty thereafter. 5