DOCSLIB.ORG

A. Magalia Forest Health Project CEQA17-0004

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A. Magalia Forest Health Project CEQA17-0004 Department of Development Services Tim Snellings, Director Pete Calarco, Assistant Director 7 County Center Drive T: 530.538.7601 buttecounty.net/dds Oroville, California 95965 F: 530.538.7785 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 30, 2017 TO: Tim Snellings, Zoning Administrator FROM: Pete Calarco, Assistant Director RE: Magalia Forest Health Project (CEQA17-0004) September 6, 2017 Zoning Administrator Hearing Recommendation Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Magalia Forest Health Project. Project Description The Magalia Forest Health Project is a grant funded program under the general guidance of the Butte County Fire Safe Council that covers 1,066 acres on numerous Assessor’s Parcel Numbers of publicly and privately owned property in the Magalia and Paradise Pines area. This project area is bounded by Coutolenc Road on the east and Nimshew Road on the west, on property owned by Paradise Irrigation District, Paradise Unified School District, Paradise Pines Property Owner’s Association, and others, extending from Andover Drive in the south to just south of Steiffer Road off of the Skyway to the north. The Butte County Fire Safe Council’s vision is to create communities that are resistant to the devastating impacts of wildland fires. The Fire Safe Council has been promoting shaded fuel breaks as a deterrent to major wildfires in the Magalia/Paradise area. This project proposes the creation of shaded fuel breaks through the removal of brush and small trees, reducing understory fuels to reduce the vertical continuity of the forest stand structure. Large trees may be pruned, and dead and down material, including both trees and shrubs, less than 10 inches in diameter will be removed. Treatment methods include hand cut and pile burning, hand cut and hand chip, and mechanical treatment using a Skid Steer mounted Masticator. Work is projected as a ten-year program on the subject properties and would occur as funding becomes available. The project is described in more detail in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Background The Butte Fire Safe County requested assistance from Butte County Development Services in processing an environmental document to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and their grant application. Development Services received a draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Magalia Forest Health Project. The MND was prepared by Sierra Timber Services in coordination with the Butte County Fire Safe Council. Staff reviewed this document exercising its independent judgement and accepted the MND as a County document. Development Services staff processed the MND under the requirements of CEQA and scheduled a noticed public hearing before the Zoning Administrator on September 6, 2017. Potential impacts were identified in the categories of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Mandatory Findings of Significance. Mitigation measures are outlined for each project impact to reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan is included in the MND. Three comment letters were received during the review period. One of those letters was from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board outlining the State and federal programs for water quality. Development Services staff has reviewed the comments and concludes that the MND adequately reviewed impacts to water quality and no modifications to the document are necessary. The two other letters were support letters from the Butte County Federal/State Land Use Coordinating Committee. Magalia Forest Health Project Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared by Sierra Timber Services 1600 Feather River Blvd. Ste. B Oroville, Ca 530-534-5229 Table of Contents 1. PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................. 2 DETERMINATION ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 2. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST SETTING ................................................................ 9 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ......................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Aesthetic/Visual Resources: ......................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Agriculture Resources: ............................................................................................................................... 10 4.3 Air Quality: ................................................................................................................................................ 11 4.4 Biological Resources:................................................................................................................................. 14 4.5 Cultural Resources: .................................................................................................................................... 17 4.5b Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................... 19 4.6 Geologic Processes: ................................................................................................................................... 20 4.7 Greeenhouse Gas Emissions: ....................................................................................................................... 22 4. 8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials: .............................................................................................................. 24 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 25 4.12 Noise: ......................................................................................................................................................... 26 4.15 Recreation ..................................................................................................................................................... 28 4.16 Transportation/Traffic: ............................................................................................................................... 28 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065):............................................................................... 29 5. MITIGATION MEASURES: .............................................................................................................................. 30 6. CONSULTED AGENCIES: ................................................................................................................................ 32 7. PROJECT SPONSOR(S) INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION INTO PROPOSED PROJECT: .................. 33 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................................. 34 Table 1. .................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Table 2. .................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Table 3. .................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Magalia Forest Health Botanical Survey ..................................................................................................................... 41 Biological Setting ................................................................................................................................................... 41 Study Methods ....................................................................................................................................................... 41 Results ......................................................................................................................................................................... 47 Special Status Species.............................................................................................................................................. 47 Sighted Species ............................................................................................................................................................ 48 Table 4. .................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Table 5. .................................................................................................................................................................... 51 CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines ............................................................................................................................ 53 ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL ..................................................................................................... 56 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Survey for Special-Status Vascular Plant Species
    SURVEY FOR SPECIAL-STATUS VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES For the proposed Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Project Tehama and Shasta Counties, California Prepared for: Tehama Environmental Solutions 910 Main Street, Suite D Red Bluff, California 96080 Prepared by: Dittes & Guardino Consulting P.O. Box 6 Los Molinos, California 96055 (530) 384-1774 [email protected] Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Improvement Project - Botany Report Sept. 12, 2018 Prepared by: Dittes & Guardino Consulting 1 SURVEY FOR SPECIAL-STATUS VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Project Shasta & Tehama Counties, California T30N, R1W, SE 1/4 Sec. 25, SE1/4 Sec. 24, NE ¼ Sec. 36 of the Shingletown 7.5’ USGS Topographic Quadrangle TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 4 II. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 III. Project Description ............................................................................................................................................... 4 IV. Location .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 V. Methods ..................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Other Botanical Resource Assessment
    USDA Forest Service Tahoe National Forest District Yuba River Ranger District OTHER BOTANICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Yuba Project 08/01/2017 Prepared by: Date: Courtney Rowe, District Botanist TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 TNF Watch List Botanical Species ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Summary of Analysis Procedure .................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Project Compliance ..................................................................................................................... 2 2 Special Status Plant Communities ....................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Project Compliance ..................................................................................................................... 5 3 Special Management Designations ..................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6 3.2 Project Compliance ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Special-Status Plants and Invasive/Noxious Weeds Technical Report
    SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT UPPER AMERICAN RIVER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2101) SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS AND INVASIVE/NOXIOUS WEEDS TECHNICAL REPORT Prepared by: Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. Sacramento, California Prepared for: Sacramento Municipal Utility District Sacramento, California JULY 2004 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Upper American River Project FERC Project No. 2101 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section & Description Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Special-Status Plants Study Plan ............................................................................ 2 2.2 Invasive/Noxious Weeds Study Plan...................................................................... 3 2.3 Water Year Types................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Agency Requested Information .............................................................................. 5 3.0 METHODS ......................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Special-Status Plants............................................................................................... 5 3.2 Noxious Weeds ....................................................................................................... 6 4.0 RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NORTH TABLE MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Land Management Plan
    NORTH TABLE MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Land Management Plan Prepared for: December 2006 State of California The Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game NORTH TABLE MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Land Management Plan Prepared for: December 2006 State of California The Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game 8950 Cal Center Drive Building 3, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95826 916.564.4500 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Petaluma Portland San Francisco Seattle Tampa 204427 ESA J MORTH TABLE MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Land Management Plan Approved by: Acting RegionalTftartager / Date _nhltn Acting Deputy Direaor for Regional Operations 'Date TABLE OF CONTENTS North Table Mountain Ecological Reserve Land Management Plan Page 1 Summary 1-1 2 Introduction 2-1 Purpose of Acquisition 2-1 Acquisition History 2-1 Purpose of This Management Plan 2-1 3 Property Description 3-1 Geographical Setting 3-1 Property Boundaries and Adjacent Lands 3-1 Geology, Soils, Climate, and Hydrology 3-1 Cultural Features 3-11 4 Vegetation Types, Habitat, and Species Descriptions 4-1 Vegetation Types and Habitats 4-1 Special-Status Species 4-5 5 Management Goals and Environmental Impacts 5-1 Definition of Terms Used in This Plan 5-1 Biological Elements: Goals, Objectives, and Environmental Impacts 5-1 Public Use Elements: Goals and Environmental Impacts 5-5 Facility Maintenance Elements: Goals and Environmental Impacts 5-6 6 Operations and Maintenance Summary 6-1 Operations and Maintenance Tasks to Implement Plan 6-1 Existing Staff and Additional Personnel
    [Show full text]
  • A Taxonomic Re-Evaluation of the Allium Sanbornii Complex
    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons University of the Pacific Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 1986 A taxonomic re-evaluation of the Allium sanbornii complex Stella Sue Denison University of the Pacific Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Denison, Stella Sue. (1986). A taxonomic re-evaluation of the Allium sanbornii complex. University of the Pacific, Thesis. https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/2124 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of the Pacific Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A TAXONOMIC RE-EVALUATION OF THE ALLIUM SANBORNII COMPLEX A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School University of the Pacific In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Stella S. Denison August 1986 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many contributions have been made for my successful completion of this work. Appreciation is extended to: Drs. Dale McNeal, Alice Hunter, and Anne Funkhouser for their advice and assistance during the research and in the preparation of this manuscript, the entire Biology faculty for their, friendship and suggestions, Ginger Tibbens for the typing of this manuscript, and to my husband, Craig, and my children, Amy, Eric and Deborah for their continued support and encouragement. Grateful acknowledgement is made to the curators of the herbaria from which material was borrowed during this investigation. These herbaria are indicated below by the standard abbreviations of Holmgren and Keuken (1974}.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Nevada Framework FEIS Chapter 3
    table of contrents Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.6 4.6. Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Fungi4.6. Fungi Introduction Part 3.1 of this chapter describes landscape-scale vegetation patterns. Part 3.2 describes the vegetative structure, function, and composition of old forest ecosystems, while Part 3.3 describes hardwood ecosystems and Part 3.4 describes aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems. This part focuses on botanical diversity in the Sierra Nevada, beginning with an overview of botanical resources and then presenting a more detailed analysis of the rarest elements of the flora, the threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plants. The bryophytes (mosses and liverworts), lichens, and fungi of the Sierra have been little studied in comparison to the vascular flora. In the Pacific Northwest, studies of these groups have received increased attention due to the President’s Northwest Forest Plan. New and valuable scientific data is being revealed, some of which may apply to species in the Sierra Nevada. This section presents an overview of the vascular plant flora, followed by summaries of what is generally known about bryophytes, lichens, and fungi in the Sierra Nevada. Environmental Consequences of the alternatives are only analyzed for the Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive plants, which include vascular plants, several bryophytes, and one species of lichen. 4.6.1. Vascular plants4.6.1. plants The diversity of topography, geology, and elevation in the Sierra Nevada combine to create a remarkably diverse flora (see Section 3.1 for an overview of landscape patterns and vegetation dynamics in the Sierra Nevada). More than half of the approximately 5,000 native vascular plant species in California occur in the Sierra Nevada, despite the fact that the range contains less than 20 percent of the state’s land base (Shevock 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Botanical Resources and Wetlands Technical Report
    Chapter 1 Affected Environment Figure 1-3g. Sensitive Biological Resources Between Shasta Dam and Red Bluff Pumping Plant 1-45 Draft – June 2013 Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation Biological Resources Appendix – Botanical Resources and Wetlands Technical Report This page left blank intentionally. 1-46 Draft – June 2013 Chapter 1 Affected Environment Figure 1-3h. Sensitive Biological Resources Between Shasta Dam and Red Bluff Pumping Plant 1-47 Draft – June 2013 Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation Biological Resources Appendix – Botanical Resources and Wetlands Technical Report This page left blank intentionally. 1-48 Draft – June 2013 Chapter 1 Affected Environment Figure 1-3i. Sensitive Biological Resources Between Shasta Dam and Red Bluff Pumping Plant 1-49 Draft – June 2013 Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation Biological Resources Appendix – Botanical Resources and Wetlands Technical Report This page left blank intentionally. 1-50 Draft – June 2013 Chapter 1 Affected Environment Figure 1-3j. Sensitive Biological Resources Between Shasta Dam and Red Bluff Pumping Plant 1-51 Draft – June 2013 Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation Biological Resources Appendix – Botanical Resources and Wetlands Technical Report This page left blank intentionally. 1-52 Draft – June 2013 Chapter 1 Affected Environment 1 Valley Oak Woodland This habitat type consists of an open savanna of 2 valley oak (Quercus lobata) trees and an annual grassland understory. Valley 3 oak is typically the only tree species present and shrubs are generally absent 4 except for occasional poison oak. Canopy cover rarely exceeds 30–40 percent in 5 valley oak woodland. This community occupies the highest portions of the 6 floodplain terrace where flooding is infrequent and shallow.
    [Show full text]
  • Botany Biological Assessment/ Biological Evaluation
    Botany Biological Assessment/ Biological Evaluation for the Lehigh Southwest Land Exchange Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area Shasta-Trinity National Forest Shasta County, California December 2012 Prepared by: 3/13/13 Leslie Perry, Environmental Analyst/Biologist Date Reviewed by: Martin Lenz, Shasta Lake District Botanist Date Botany BA/BE Lehigh Southwest Land Exchange FINAL I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Shasta-Trinity National Forest (STNF) proposes to exchange lands with Lehigh Southwest Cement Company (Lehigh) and approve a non-significant amendment to the STNF Land and Resource Management Plan (U.S. Forest Service 1994). The lands to be exchanged include two Federal parcels managed by the Forest Service near the Gray Rocks quarry on the south side of Shasta Lake east of Interstate 5, encompassing approximately 62.56 acres, and one private parcel owned by Lehigh on the east side of Shasta Lake at the McCloud River arm, encompassing up to approximately 243.94 acres (specific acreage to be determined during land appraisal). Easements on Road 33N99 would also be exchanged as part of the land transfer to maintain access for each party across the lands. The lands and Road 33N99 are in the Shasta Unit of the Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area on the STNF in Shasta County, California. The purpose of the exchange from private to Federal ownership is to consolidate National Forest ownership of lands in the Shasta Unit of the NRA and protect high quality plant and wildlife habitat along the McCloud River arm of Shasta Lake. A complete description of the purpose and need and alternatives can be found in the Environmental Assessment (see project record).
    [Show full text]
  • Green-Horse Habitat Restoration and Management Project Botany BABE Specialist Report
    Green-Horse Habitat Restoration and Maintenance Project Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment for Botanical Species and Supplementary Botany Report Prepared by: ____________________________________ Date: _____________ Christine West Botanist VMS Enterprise Unit (530) 370-4755 [email protected] Reviewed by: ____________________________________ Date: _____________ Julie Nelson Forest Botanist Shasta-Trinity National Forest (530) 226-2426 [email protected] i Table of Contents Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................... iii Table of Figures .............................................................................................................................. iii Biological Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Summary ......................................................................................................................... 4 Location ................................................................................................................................... 4 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................... 5 Regulatory Framework ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of Vascular Plants Endemic to California
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 3-2020 A Checklist of Vascular Plants Endemic to California James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "A Checklist of Vascular Plants Endemic to California" (2020). Botanical Studies. 42. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/42 This Flora of California is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A LIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS ENDEMIC TO CALIFORNIA Compiled By James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State University Arcata, California 13 February 2020 CONTENTS Willis Jepson (1923-1925) recognized that the assemblage of plants that characterized our flora excludes the desert province of southwest California Introduction. 1 and extends beyond its political boundaries to include An Overview. 2 southwestern Oregon, a small portion of western Endemic Genera . 2 Nevada, and the northern portion of Baja California, Almost Endemic Genera . 3 Mexico. This expanded region became known as the California Floristic Province (CFP). Keep in mind that List of Endemic Plants . 4 not all plants endemic to California lie within the CFP Plants Endemic to a Single County or Island 24 and others that are endemic to the CFP are not County and Channel Island Abbreviations .
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Survey for Special-Status Vascular Plant Species
    REVISED SURVEY FOR SPECIAL-STATUS VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES For the proposed Deer Creek Irrigation District Fish Passage Improvement Project Tehama County, California Prepared for: Tehama Environmental Solutions 910 Main Street, Suite D Red Bluff, California 96080 Prepared by: Dittes & Guardino Consulting P.O. Box 6 Los Molinos, California 96055 (530) 384-1774 [email protected] Deer Creek DCID Dam Fish Passage Project - Botany Report January 22, 2019 Prepared by: Dittes & Guardino Consulting 1 REVISED SURVEY FOR SPECIAL-STATUS VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES Deer Creek DCID Dam Fish Passage Project Tehama County, California T25N, R1W, NW1/4 Sec. 23, NE1/4 Sec. 22 of the Acorn Hollow 7.5’ USGS Topographic Quadrangle & T25N, R1W, E1/2 Sec. 27 of the Richardson Springs NW 7.5’ USGS Topographic Quadrangle TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 4 II. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 III. Project Description ............................................................................................................................................... 5 IV. Location .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 V. Methods ..................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • California Geophytesgeophytes
    $12.00 (Free to Members) VOL. 44, NO.3 • DECEMBER 2016 FREMONTIAFREMONTIA JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY SPECIAL ISSUE: VOL. 44, NO. 3, DECEMBER 2016 FREMONTIA CALIFORNIACALIFORNIA GEOPHYTESGEOPHYTES V44_3_cover.pmd 1 2/20/17, 5:26 AM CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY CNPS, 2707 K Street, Suite 1; Sacramento, CA 95816-5130 FREMONTIA Phone: (916) 447-2677 Fax: (916) 447-2727 Web site: www.cnps.org Email: [email protected] VOL. 44, NO. 3, DECEMBER 2016 MEMBERSHIP Copyright © 2016 Members receive many benefits, including subscriptions to Fremontia and California Native Plant Society the CNPS Bulletin. Membership form is on inside back cover. Mariposa Lily . $1,500 Family or Group . $75 Benefactor . $600 International or Library . $75 M. Kat Anderson, Guest Editor Patron . $300 Individual . $45 Michael Kauffmann, Editor Plant Lover . $100 Student/Retired/Limited Income . $25 CORPORATE/ORGANIZATIONAL Beth Hansen-Winter, Designer 10+ Employees . $2,500 4-6 Employees . $500 7-10 Employees . $1,000 1-3 Employees . $150 california Native STAFF & CONTRACTORS Plant Society Dan Gluesenkamp: Executive Director Marin: Charlotte Torgovitsky Chris Brown: Admin Assistant Milo Baker: Leia Giambastiani, Sarah Protecting California’s Native Flora Jennifer Buck-Diaz: Vegetation Ecologist Gordon Since 1965 Catherine Curley: Assistant Botanist Mojave Desert: Timothy Thomas Joslyn Curtis, Assistant Veg. Ecologist Monterey Bay: Christopher Hauser The views expressed by authors do not Julie Evens: Vegetation Program Dir. Mount Lassen: Woody Elliot necessarily
    [Show full text]