DOCSLIB.ORG

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Big Chico Creek Forest Health Restoration Project Butte County, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Big Chico Creek Forest Health Restoration Project Butte County, California Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Big Chico Creek Forest Health Restoration Project Butte County, California Prepared by: Butte County Resource Conservation District (BCRCD) 150 Chuck Yeager Way, Suite A, Oroville, CA 96130 (530) 693-3173, [email protected] April 2020 Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Big Chico Creek Forest Health Restoration Project Contents MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ................................................................................................... 1 Introduction and Regulatory Context ........................................................................................................ 1 Stage of CEQA Document Development ................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Regulatory Guidance .................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose of the Initial Study ........................................................................................................................ 2 Project Description and Environmental Setting ........................................................................................ 3 Project Location .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Background and Need for the Project ......................................................................................................... 3 Project Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Start Date ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Environmental Setting of the Project Region ............................................................................................. 6 Description of the Local Environment ....................................................................................................... 7 Current Land Use and Previous Impacts .................................................................................................... 8 Environmental Permits ............................................................................................................................. 11 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................................. 11 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................... 15 Initial Study-Environmental Checklist ......................................................................................................... 16 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................................ 16 Determination ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Environmental Checklist and Discussion ................................................................................................. 17 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................................. 17 Agricultural Resources ............................................................................................................................. 18 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................ 19 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................................ 21 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................... 33 Energy ....................................................................................................................................................... 35 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................................................... 36 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................................................... 38 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................ 41 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................................. 42 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................................. 45 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................................... 46 Noise ......................................................................................................................................................... 46 ii Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Big Chico Creek Forest Health Restoration Project Population and Housing ............................................................................................................................ 47 Public Services .......................................................................................................................................... 48 Recreation ................................................................................................................................................. 49 Transportation ........................................................................................................................................... 50 Tribal Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................... 51 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................................... 52 Wildfire ..................................................................................................................................................... 53 Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................................ 57 Appendix A ....................................................................................................................................................... 59 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ............................................................................................. 59 Potentially Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 59 PREPARERS OF THIS DOCUMENT ............................................................................................................ 65 EXPERTS CONSULTED ................................................................................................................................ 66 REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................................................... 67 iii Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Big Chico Creek Forest Health Restoration Project MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Introduction and Regulatory Context STAGE OF CEQA DOCUMENT DEVELOPMENT Administrative Draft. This California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document is in preparation by Butte County Resource Conservation District (BCRCD) staff. Public Document. This completed CEQA document has been filed by BCRCD at the State Clearinghouse on April 20, 2020, and is being circulated for a 30-day state agency and public review period. The review period ends on May 19, 2020. Final CEQA Document. This final CEQA document contains the changes made by the Department following consideration of comments received during the public and agency review period. The CEQA administrative record supporting this document is on file, and available for review, at CAL FIRE’s Sacramento Headquarters, Environmental Protection Program. INTRODUCTION This initial study-mitigated negative declaration (IS-MND) describes the environmental impact analysis conducted for the proposed project. This document was prepared by BCRCD staff utilizing information gathered from a number of sources including research, field review of the proposed project area and consultation with environmental planners and other experts on staff at other public agencies. Pursuant to § 21082.1 of CEQA, the lead agency, BCRCD, has prepared, reviewed, and analyzed the IS-MND and declares that the statements made in this document reflect BCRCD’s independent judgment as lead agency pursuant to CEQA. BCRCD further finds that the proposed project, which includes revised activities and mitigation measures designed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems Technical Report
    Draft Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems Technical Report Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation Prepared by: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation June 2013 Contents Contents Chapter 1 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Aquatic Habitat ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.2 Fisheries Resources......................................................................................... 1-13 1.1.3 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates ............................................................................ 1-48 Chapter 2 Impact Assessment .......................................................................................... 2-1 Chapter 3 References ........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Printed Sources .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Personal Communications ....................................................................................... 3-14 Tables Table 1-1. Fish Species Known to Occur in Primary Study Area ............................................. 1-13 Table 1-2. Central Valley Fish Species Potentially Affected
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration Opportunities at Tributary Confluences: Critical Habitat Assessment of the Big Chico Creek/Mud Creek/Sacramento River Confluence Area
    Restoration Opportunities at Tributary Confluences: Critical Habitat Assessment of the Big Chico Creek/Mud Creek/Sacramento River Confluence Area A report to: The Nature Conservancy, Sacramento River Project1 By: Eric M. Ginney2 Bidwell Environmental Institute, California State University, Chico December 2001. 1Please direct correspondence to: TNC, Sac. River Project Attn: D. Peterson 505 Main Street, Chico CA 95928 [email protected] 2Bidwell Environmental Institute CSU, Chico, Chico, CA 95929-0555 [email protected] Cover: An abstract view of the Sacramento River, looking upstream. Big Chico Creek enters from the east, in the lower portion of the image. Photograph and image manipulation by the author. Table of Contents Section I Study Purpose, Methods, and Objectives 1 Purpose 1 Methods and Objectives 2 Section II Tributary Confluences: Restoration 3 Opportunities Waiting to Happen Ecological Importance of Tributary Confluences and 3 Adjacent Floodplain Importance of Sacramento River Confluence Areas in 5 Collaborative Restoration Efforts Conservation by Design 7 Site-Specific Planning 8 Section III Critical Habitat Identification and Analysis 10 of Physical Processes Location and Description of Study Area 10 Landscape Level 10 Historic Conditions of Study Area and Changes 10 Through Time Current Conditions and Identification of Critical Habitat 16 Hydrologic Data 16 Soils 17 Hydro-geomorphic Processes 17 Site-Level Description: Singh Orchard Parcel 18 On-The-Ground Observations: Singh Parcel 19 Critical Habitat for Species of Concern
    [Show full text]
  • Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages and Their Relations with Environmental Variables in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Drainages, California, 1993-1997
    oo Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages and Their Relations with Environmental Variables in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Drainages, California, 1993-1997 NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4125 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages and Their Relations with Environmental Variables in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Drainages, California, 1993-1997 ByLarry R. Brown and Jason T. May1 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4125 National Water-Quality Assessment Program iON i O CO CN California State University Sacramento Foundation, Placer Hall, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, California 95619 Sacramento, California 2000 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Water Resources Division Box 25286 Placer Hall Denver, CO 80225-0286 6000 J Street Sacramento, California 95819-6129 FOREWORD The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey Improve understanding of the primary (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the natural and human factors that affect earth resources of the Nation and to provide informa­ water-quality conditions. tion that will assist resource managers and policymak- This information will help support the development ers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound and evaluation of management, regulatory, and moni­ decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Control Plan, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Amendments to the 1994 Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins The Third Edition of the Basin Plan was adopted by the Central Valley Water Board on 9 December 1994, approved by the State Water Board on 16 February 1995 and approved by the Office of Administrative Law on 9 May 1995. The Fourth Edition of the Basin Plan was the 1998 reprint of the Third Edition incorporating amendments adopted and approved between 1994 and 1998. The Basin Plan is in a loose-leaf format to facilitate the addition of amendments. The Basin Plan can be kept up-to-date by inserting the pages that have been revised to include subsequent amendments. The date subsequent amendments are adopted by the Central Valley Water Board will appear at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, all pages will be dated 1 September 1998. Basin plan amendments adopted by the Regional Central Valley Water Board must be approved by the State Water Board and the Office of Administrative Law. If the amendment involves adopting or revising a standard which relates to surface waters it must also be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [40 CFR Section 131(c)].
    [Show full text]
  • A.12 Central Valley Steelhead
    Appendix A. Species Account Butte County Association of Governments Central Valley Steelhead A.12 Central Valley Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) A.12.1 Legal and Other Status The Central Valley steelhead evolutionarily significant unit (ESU)1 was federally listed as threatened on March 19, 1998 (63 FR 13347). This listing included, “only natural spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) residing below naturally and manmade impassable barriers (e.g., impassible waterfalls and dams)... in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries” (63 FR 13347). Steelhead in San Pablo and San Francisco Bays and their tributaries were not included in this ESU. On June 14, 2004, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposed that all West Coast steelhead be reclassified from ESUs to Distinct Population Segments (DPS)2 and proposed to retain Central Valley steelhead as threatened (69 FR 33102). Threatened status of the Central Valley DPS was reaffirmed on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). This decision included the Coleman National Fish Hatchery and Feather River Hatchery steelhead populations. Although previously included in the ESU, these populations were not deemed essential for conservation and were, therefore, not included in the listed steelhead population. Critical habitat for the Central Valley steelhead was designated throughout the Central Valley on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52488). Critical habitat was further characterized in the Federal Register Final Rule for steelhead on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). Critical habitat for the species is divided into 22 hydrologic units by watersheds. Of these, two occur in Butte County and include the Marshville and Butte Creek Hydrologic Units.
    [Show full text]
  • In of T Alifornia
    IN OF T NTRAL VALLEV, ALIFORNIA, TUBE MAPS AND S ONS U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1401-C Geology of the Fresh Ground-Water Basin of the Central Valley, California, with Texture Maps and Sections By R. W. PAGE REGIONAL AQUIFER-SYSTEM ANALYSIS U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1401-C UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1986 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Page, R. W. Geology of the fresh ground-water basin of the Central Valley, California. (Regional aquifer-system analysis) (U.S. Geological Survey professional paper ; 1401-C) Bibliography: p. C50 Supt. of Docs, no.: I. 19.16:1401-C 1. Geology California Central Valley (Valley) 2. Water, Underground California Central Valley (Valley) I. Title. II. Series. III. Series: Geological Survey professional paper ; 1401-C. QE90.C46P34 1985 557.94'5 85-600316 For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225 FOREWORD THE REGIONAL AQUIFER-SYSTEM ANALYSIS PROGRAM The Regional Aquifer-System Analysis (RASA) Program was started in 1978 following a congressional mandate to develop quantitative appraisals of the major ground-water systems of the United States. The RASA Program represents a systematic effort to study a number of the Nation's most important aquifer systems, which in aggregate underlie much of the country and which represent an important component of the Nation's total water supply. In general, the boundaries of these studies are identified by the hydrologic extent of each system and accordingly transcend the political subdivisions to which investigations have often arbitrarily been limited in the past.
    [Show full text]
  • A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 15B - Animals of Conservation Concern, Supplemental Information
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 15b - Animals of Conservation Concern, Supplemental Information Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.15b ON THE COVER Giant Forest, Sequoia National Park Photography by: Brent Paull A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 15b - Animals of Conservation Concern, Supplemental Information Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.15b The Ecology Graduate Student Project Collective (Jessica Blickley, Esther Cole, Stella Copeland, Kristy Deiner, Kristen Dybala, P. Bjorn Erickson, Rebecca Green, Katie Holzer, Chris Mosser, Erin Reddy, Meghan Skaer, Jamie Shields, Anna Steel, Zachary Steel, Evan Wolf) University of California, Davis Graduate Group in Ecology One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Mark W. Schwartz University of California, Davis John Muir Institute of the Environment One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 June 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Existing Conditions
    2. EXISTING CONDITIONS FINAL BIDWELL PARK MASTER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 PARK ZONES For the purpose of this Master Management Plan Update, Bidwell Park has been divided into three primary use zones referred to as Lower Park, Middle Park, and Upper Park (Exhibit 1.1.1-2). This section describes the three main park planning zones as well as specific planning areas that are addressed as part of this planning effort. 2.1.1 LOWER PARK Lower Park, located between the historic Bidwell Mansion in downtown Chico and Manzanita Avenue in downtown Chico, can be characterized as a narrow, predominantly oak/sycamore dominated riparian corridor along Big Chico Creek. Lower Park’s valley oak population is one of the largest in the state, representing a habitat type that was once prevalent in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys before the arrival of modern agriculture. Lower Park’s flat terrain and thick canopy of trees provide ample shade for visitors. Facilities in Lower Park are shown in Exhibit 2.1.1.1. Lower Park has easy vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access to numerous park facilities including playgrounds, a swimming pool, and a visitor center. Several streets pass through the park. Lower Park’s woodlands, alluvial meadows, multiple-use trails, and turf areas constitute a 400 acre “back yard” for the community, subject to high intensity recreational use. One-Mile Recreation Area, a few blocks from downtown, is a park activity hub that accommodates special events, playing fields, a playground, parking, and restrooms. Of special interest at One-Mile is Sycamore Pool, a concrete pool that was constructed within Big Chico Creek in 1923–24.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Monitoring in the Sacramento River Basin
    Sacramento River Aerial Water Quality Monitoring IN THE SACRAMENTO RIVER BASIN Background Sacramento River Basin waterways historically were used as places to dispose of contaminants. The practice dates back at least to the gold rush era of the 1850s when miners dumped sediment and mercury into tributaries in their search for gold. The sediment clogged natural channels, sometimes making them too shallow for fish passage or navigation, and introduced contaminants such as metals, with mercury being particularly problematic. After the gold rush, the Sacramento River Basin’s rivers and creeks became dumping grounds for human and animal waste, often untreated. Cities and industries that dispose of wastes into the basin (known as point sources) follow much stricter standards since enactment of the federal Clean Water Act in 1971, and California’s Porter-Cologne Act in 1969. Both laws set pollutant-specific standards for discharges of contaminants into federal and state waters. In recent decades, treatment for municipal wastewater and industrial wastewater, and management of urban Fish population survey in Feather River tributary stormwater runoff, have increased and improved greatly. Industries and municipalities now provide at least secondary treatment of wastewater; large and medium-size cities are implementing urban stormwater programs to reduce the impacts of urban runoff to adjacent waterways. In the past several years, agricultural runoff has come under regulation. Agricultural groups have formed coalitions to work together to meet the new requirements. Monitoring on the Lower American Wintertime monitoring on the Pit River PAGE 175 CHAPTER 4: Water Quality Monitoring in the Sacramento River Basin Water quality monitoring on Lassen Creek Meadow stream survey work in Upper Feather Watershed Water Quality Monitoring Programs Today, there are dozens of citizen monitoring efforts and watershed-specific monitoring programs being implemented throughout the Sacramento River Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Article: Collecting Endemic and Rare Stoneflies (Plecoptera) in Califoria, U.S.A
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Perla Jahr/Year: 2011 Band/Volume: 29 Autor(en)/Author(s): Baumann Richard W., Kondratieff Boris C. Artikel/Article: Collecting endemic and rare stoneflies (Plecoptera) in Califoria, U.S.A. 13-19 ARTICLE COLLECTING ENDEMIC AND RARE STONEFLIES (PLECOPTERA) IN CALIFORNIA, U.S.A. Richard W. Baumann¹ & Boris C. Kondratieff² ¹Department of Biology and Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, U. S. A. 84602 E-mail: [email protected] ²Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, U. S. A. 80523 E-mail: [email protected] Introduction California is a remarkable state in regard to its geographical and biological diversity. Death Valley in the southeast is 86 m below sea level, the lowest point in the United States, and Mount Whitney (4,417 m) is the highest point in the contiguous 48 states. It has been estimated that there are more than 27,000 species of insects that occur in California (Ballmer 1995). The myriad of freshwater aquatic habitats in California support an amazing number of aquatic insect species (Usinger 1956, McElravy et al. 1989), including stoneflies. Jewett (1956) in the classic volume: “Aquatic of Insects of California,” listed 93 species of stoneflies from the state and then in 1960, he listed 101 species, noting that this number would increase. Currently, there are at least 186 species of stoneflies recorded from California (Stark et al. 2009, Baumann and Kondratieff 2009, Kondratieff and Lee 2010, Lee and Baumann 2010, Baumann and Kondratieff 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix I Surface Water Hydrology
    APPENDIX I SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY Andrew J. Draper October 15, 2000 INTRODUCTION CALVIN models California’s inter-connected water supply system. In Northern California, this consists of all inflows to the Central Valley originating from the Trinity-Cascade, Sierra Nevada and Coastal Mountain ranges. It also includes many small streams that result from direct runoff within the Valley floor. Much of Southern California is arid or semi-arid and is dependent on imports from the Central Valley, Owens Valley and the Colorado River for majority of its water supply. Local surface water supplies are available only in the South Coast Hydrologic Region, where coastal range streams represent approximately six percent of supply (DWR 1994, Vol. II, p103). CALVIN represents surface water supplies as a time series of monthly inflows. In HEC-PRM terminology, these inputs are referred to as “external flows”, and represent an inflow from the “super source” to a model node USACE (1999). The external flows can be divided into two categories: q Rim flows; and q Local water supplies. Rim flows represent streams that cross the boundary of the physical system being modeled. Typically they represent inflows to surface water reservoirs located in either the Sierra Nevada foothills or the Trinity/Cascade Mountain range. Local water supplies represent surface water that originates within the boundary of the region being modeled, either from direct runoff or through surface water-groundwater interaction. In some models, these local water supplies are called gains or accretions and depletions. The distinction between rim flows and local water supplies is made as two different sources of data have been used for estimating external flows in the Central Valley: one for rim flows, the other for local water supplies.
    [Show full text]
  • Watersheds in California with Salmon And/Or Steelhead Identified As NMFS Listed Resources of Concern for EPA's PGP
    Watersheds in California with Salmon and/or Steelhead identified as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern for EPA's PGP ESU Watershed Name Hydrologic Unit Sub-area California Coast chinook salmon Orick Hydrologic Sub-area 1107 110710 California Coast chinook salmon Beaver Hydrologic Sub-area 1107 110720 California Coast chinook salmon Lake Prairie Hydrologic Sub-area 1107 110730 California Coast chinook salmon Redwood Creek Hydrologic Unit 1107 California Coast chinook salmon Big Lagoon Hydrologic Sub-area 1108 110810 California Coast chinook salmon Little River Hydrologic Sub-area 1108 110820 California Coast chinook salmon Trinidad Hydrologic Unit 1108 California Coast chinook salmon Blue Lake Hydrologic Sub-area 1109 110910 California Coast chinook salmon Mad River Hydrologic Unit 1109 California Coast chinook salmon Ferndale Hydrologic Sub-area 1110 111111 California Coast chinook salmon Scotia Hydrologic Sub-area 1110 111112 California Coast chinook salmon Hydesville Hydrologic Sub-area 1110 111121 California Coast chinook salmon Yager Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 1110 111123 California Coast chinook salmon Weott Hydrologic Sub-area 1110 111131 California Coast chinook salmon Benbow Hydrologic Sub-area 1110 111132 California Coast chinook salmon Laytonville Hydrologic Sub-area 1110 111133 California Coast chinook salmon Sequoia Hydrologic Sub-area 1110 111141 California Coast chinook salmon Spy Rock Hydrologic Sub-area 1110 111142 California Coast chinook salmon North Fork Eel River Hydrologic Sub-area 1110 111150 California Coast chinook
    [Show full text]