HomeMy WebLinkAboutCEQA17-0004_ZA_Rpt Department of Development Services Tim Snellings, Director
Pete Calarco, Assistant Director
7 County Center Drive T: 530.538.7601
Oroville, California 95965 F: 530.538.7785
buttecounty.net/dds
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
1
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 ................................................................................................................. 58
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................................................. 58
2
1. PROJECT INFORMATION
Owner/Representative:
Wood, Charles (Trustee)
Terriere, Timothy J. and Bonnie J.
Strauss, Marcus G.
Klein, Don and Maria
Paradise Irrigation District
Paradise Pines Property Owners Association
Paradise Unified School District
Lead Agency name and address:
Butte County 7 County Center Drive Oroville, Ca 95965
Staff Contact: Pete Calarco, Assistant Director Butte County Department of Development Services, Callie-Jane DeAnda, Butte County Fire Safe Council
Project Name: Magalia Forest Health Project
Legal Description: The project site is located in portions of Sections 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36 Township
23N R3E All MDB&M.
Parcels
Paradise Unified School District 065-270-003-000 066-010-038-000
Paradise Pines
Property Owners Association 064-010-032-000 064-440-020-000
064-040-042-000 064-470-001-000 064-060-014-000 064-490-043-000 064-090-015-000 064-540-044-000
064-160-001-000 064-580-031-000 064-170-028-000 064-600-001-000 064-200-020-000 064-640-005-000
064-250-029-000 064-780-015-000 064-270-044-000 066-010-003-000 064-290-005-000 066-010-008-000
064-290-006-000 066-140-028-000 064-290-010-000 066-150-040-000
064-400-064-000 066-210-044-000
064-430-008-000 066-250-019-000
3
064-440-020-000 066-250-026-000
064-470-001-000 066-280-006-000
064-490-043-000 066-300-026-000 Paradise Irrigation District 065-110-024-000 065-160-003-000
065-150-001-000 065-180-012-000
065-150-002-000 065-180-019-000 065-150-003-000 065-180-020-000
065-160-002-000 065-180-031-000 065-160-003-000 065-260-011-000 Wood Terriere 066-010-015-000 066-010-016-000
066-010-017-000 Klein 066-010-018-000 066-010-019-000 Strauss
066-010-020-000
USGS 7.5’ Quad Map: Paradise East.
Project Vicinity Map attached: Project Location Map attached:
Project Site Size: 1066 acres
Zoning: Timber Mountain, Timber production, Resource Conservation, Public, Residential.
Environmental Setting: This project 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 Charles Wood, Trustee, extending from Andover Drive in the south to just south of Steiffer Road off of the Skyway to the north. (See location map attached). Elevations range from 1900-2675 feet.
The environmental setting for this project includes Magalia reservoir with its federally protected wetland, and
adjacent riparian habitat, being fed by Little Butte Creek. Proceeding up the ridge from Little Butte Creek, vegetation types are Fir/Oak/Cedar, Mixed Conifer and Serpentine endemics.
Paradise Pines subdivision and Greenbelts are located at the top of the ridge. Greenbelts in the Paradise Pines Property Owner’s Association are Mixed Conifer and Fir/Live Oak/Cedar vegetation type. Middle Butte Creek is
located on the western edge of Paradise Pines, with vegetation types of Mixed Conifer, Fir/Live Oak/Cedar and Ceanothus /Scrub on a volcanic rock outcrop. Slaughterhouse Ravine encompasses the western edge of the project,
with Fir/Live Oak/Cedar and Mixed Conifer vegetation types.
Eight distinct vegetation types and plant species found within these vegetation types have been mapped on the
project. Serpentine endemics, Riparian, Grey Pine/Oak, Fir/Live Oak/Cedar, Fir/Pine/Oak, Ceanothus/Scrub, Ponderosa Pine, and Mixed conifer.
Major tree species include Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa), Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrans), Live Oak (Quercus chrysolepis) , Black Oak ( Quercus kellogii) , MacNab Cypress (Hesperocyparis macnabiana), and Foothill Pine (Pinus sabiana). Brush species include Buck Brush (Ceanothus cuneatus), California Bay Laurel (Umbellaria californica), Manzanita (Arctostaphylus mewukka), and Non-native
Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius).
4
Project Description
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 since 1999 by writing proposals and gaining funding to facilitate the creation of fuel breaks. This Initial Study/Mitigated Neg Dec will cover 1066 acres, with the cooperation of 4 owners in Magalia.
Several treatment units have been planned and are shown on the Planning Map, however, to improve operational flexibility this Initial Study/ Mitigated Neg Dec will be used as the environmental document for shaded fuel breaks
in the project area for the next 10 years as funding/grants become available, therefore additional projects may take place anywhere within the project area not prohibited by the document.
This project proposes the creation of shaded fuel breaks through the removal of brush and small trees up to 10”
DBH, reducing understory fuels to reduce the vertical continuity of the forest stand structure. Large trees may be pruned up to 16 ‘, 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, mechanical treatment using a Skid Steer mounted Masticator, and understory prescribed burning activities. Prescribed burning activities
will be used as a maintenance treatment after the initial treatment of hand cut or mechanical treatment, to further reduce fuel loads and control re-sprouting of vegetation, under the supervision of CALFIRE. No more than 50 acres
a year will be treated with prescribed burning, with up to 500 acres treated over 10 years in the project area.
Fuel Break Treatment/Retreatment Needed
5
Treated Fuel Break
Legend
Project Area
1 inch = 3,500 feet¯
Magalia Forest Health Plan
Project Vicinity Map
Legend
Project Area
1 inch = 3,500 feet¯
Magalia Forest Health Plan
Project Location Map
9
2. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST SETTING
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project; however, with the
incorporation of mitigation measures, potentially significant project related impacts are reduce to a “less than significant” level (CEQA Guidelines 15382).
[X ] 4.1 Aesthetics [X] 4.2 Agriculture/Forestry Resources [X ] 4.3 Air Quality [X] 4.4 Biological Resources [X] 4.5 Cultural Resources [X ] 4.6 Geological Processes
[X] 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions [X] 4.8 Hazards/Hazardous Material [X] 4.9 Hydrology/Water Quality
[ ] 4.10 Land Use [ ] 4.11 Mineral Resources [X ] 4.12 Noise
[ ] 4.13 Housing [ ] 4.14 Public Services [X] 4.15 Recreation
[X] 4.16 Transportation/Traffic [ ] 4.17 Utilities/Service Systems [ ] 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
4.1 Aesthetic/Visual Resources:
Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? X
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X
Setting:
Impact Discussion:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not significantly affect a scenic vista nor have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. No scenic resources have been identified to be on the project site, or in the surrounding area. Additionally, the project site is not located along a designated scenic vista or a state or county
scenic highway area.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The project will be visible along portions of the Skyway and Coutolenc Road,
thinning of the understory will not alter the aesthetics of the vicinity.
d) No Impact. The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare.
Mitigation Measure: None required.
10
4.2 Agriculture Resources:
Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
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?
X
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act Contract? X
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
X
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? X
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
a) No Impact. The project site is not designated as Important Farmland in the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of Important Farmland to a non-agricultural use.
b) No Impact. The project site is zoned primarily for residential, resource conservation, timber and public uses.
The proposed project would not result in a change to the current zoning designation of the property
c) No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with, or cause the rezoning of, a timber resource zoning
designation.
d) No Impact. No forest products will be sold as a result of this project so no Cal Fire permits are required. No loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use will occur.
e) No Impact. No change in the existing environment will occur that would result in the conversion of forest land
to non-forest use.
Mitigation Measure: None required.
11
4.3 Air Quality:
Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
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)?
X
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? X
Impact Discussion:
The Magalia Forest Health Project is aimed at preventing the loss property, life, and natural resources that a
catastrophic wildfire can incur. In looking at Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas emissions, a model of emissions if a wildfire occurred is included in this discussion. (See Consume 4.2 Total Emissions for unit Magalia, below), along
with emissions for the project. (See Projected Emissions for Magalia Forest Health, below).
Consume 4.2 Emissions for
Magalia Wildfire
Pollutant Emissions(Tons)
CH4 Emissions 236.65
CO Emissions 5121.42
CO2 Emissions 94488.15
NMHC Emissions 182.60
PM Emissions 933.86
PM10 Emissions 660.49
PM25 Emissions 603.57
According to the Consume4.2 model used, a wildfire in the Magalia area would emit 94,488 tons of CO2, 5121. 4
tons CO, 660.4 tons PM10, 603.5 PM2.5 and 236.6 tons CH4. In comparison the Magalia Forest Health Project would emit 2172.3 CO2, 48.5 tons CO, 10.2 tons PM10, 8.9 tons PM2.5, and 3.6 tons CH4.
12
a) Less than significant Impact. District Air Quality thresholds for PM<10 in both Construction Related
and Operation Related categories are 80 lbs/ day. (See Table ES-2). Projected emissions from pile burning of the Magalia Forest Health Project for PM<10 are 23.23 lbs. /day significantly less than BCAQ Management District threshold, therefore the project would have a less than significant impact.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Operational criteria air pollutants are below the levels of significance, even under an “unmitigated” scenario, the proposed project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or project violation. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. In Butte County, the State Designation of 24 hour PM10 is ‘Nonattainment’, however, pile burning PM10 emissions are far below the per day thresholds for both categories of construction and operation in Butte County.
d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations may occur while pile burning is being done, implementation of Mitigation Measure #1 will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. e) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Exposure to objectionable odors may occur while pile burning or prescribed burning is being done, implementation of Mitigation Measure #1 will reduce impacts to less than significant level.
Butte County – State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status:
Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation
1-hour ozone Nonattainment —
8-hour ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon monoxide Attainment Attainment / Maintenance (Chico)
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment
24-Hour PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
24-Hour PM2.5 No Standard Nonattainment
Annual PM10 Attainment No Standard
Annual PM2.5 Nonattainment Attainment
Source: Butte County AQMD, 2014
13
District Air Quality Thresholds of Significance.(Table ES-2)
Mitigation Measure #1:
1. A Smoke Management Plan shall be submitted to the Butte County Air Quality Management District through Prescribed Fire Information Reporting System at least 14 days prior to ignition.
2. A Butte County Air Quality Management District Burn Permit shall be obtained prior to ignition. 3. Burns will be conducted in small units (<20 acres per day) and only on designated burn days and
within the approved prescription.
14
4.4 Biological Resources:
Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 or the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means)?
X
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
X
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy ordinance? X
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
g. A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range,
or an impact to the critical habitat of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of animals? X
h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals
onsite (including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish or invertebrates)? X
i. A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)? X
j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species? X
k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, human presence and/or domestic animals) which could
hinder the normal activities of wildlife?
X
15
Impact Discussion:
a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site contains habitats that support species that are endangered, threatened or species of special concern according to the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife. Carex xerophyla (1B.2 on the Rare Plant ranking) has been identified in the serpentine outcrop near Magalia Reservoir and on PID property, on a serpentine outcrop in the northern portion of the project (See Operations Map). Carex xerophila was found to be absent in recently burned ground in Pine Hill from a 2007 fire,
indicating its sensitivity to fire (Zika, Janeway 2014). Fritillaria eastwoodiae (3.2 on the Rare Plant ranking) has been identified on a rock outcrop near Middle Butte Creek (See Operations Map). A 2009 study of Slapjack DFPZ unit 133 (Janeway, Christofferson 2009)showed that there was no statistical difference in basal leaves and flowering
stems on Fritillary eastwoodiae prior to prescribed burn and after prescribed burn when prescribed fires were conducted in the fall when there is sufficient moisture in the fuel. Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii has been identified in the northeastern portion of PID property next to USFS property and in PID property on the southern
portion of the Serpentine outcrop (see Operations Map). Due to a lack of statistical data on the effect of fire on Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii, and because this is a special status plant, an assumption that it is sensitive to prescribed burn is made. Implementation of Mitigation Measures #2, #3, #4, #7, and #8 will reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project area shall exclude Federally Protected Wetland, at the upper end of Magalia Reservoir. (See Watercourse Map for location.) See Mitigation Measure #6.
c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The federally protected wetland area is excluded from the project. See Mitigation Measure #6.
d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. No major migratory routes have been designated through the project site. The site may facilitate home range and dispersal movement of resident wildlife
species, but does not serve as a designated wildlife movement corridor. Potential native wildlife nesting is discussed in Mitigation #2, #4, and #5.
e) No Impact. Butte County has not adopted a tree ordinance. Paradise Pines Tree Ordinance does not cover
Greenbelts and common area.
f) No Impact. The Butte Regional Conservation Plan (BRCP) is a joint Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/National Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) that is for the western half of the Butte County, and is
scheduled to be completed in 2017. The project site is not located within the proposed plan area of the BRCP.
g) Less than significant impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones established around the streams, ponds and reservoirs in the project area, See Mitigation Measure #9, (see Operations
Map) along with the exclusion of sensitive areas Serpentine outcrop, Mitigation #8, (see Operations Map), and
Mitigation #2 through #4, prevents a reduction in numbers, restriction in range or an impact to critical habitat of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of animals.
h) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Mitigation measure # 13 will prevent wildlife from becoming entrapped during burning operations. The project will not reduce the diversity or numbers of animals on-site.
i) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones
established around streams, ponds and the reservoir, Mitigation #9 along with Mitigation #2 through Mitigation #5, will prevent impact to or deterioration of fish or wildlife habitat. (See Watercourse Map).
j) No Impact. No barriers to movement of fish or wildlife will be introduce to the project area.
k) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Lights and fencing are not being introduced in the project area. Noise and human presence are increasing during the project operations, however Mitigation Measure #2through #5 and #13 will prevent normal activities of wildlife from being hindered.
Mitigation Measure #12:
1. Prescribed burning shall take place between September 1 and February 15th.
16
Mitigation Measure #2:
1. If operations take place during the critical period (March 15 to August 15), before operations begin a walking raptor survey shall be conducted for Accipiter gentilis (Northern Goshawk), and Pandion haliaetus (Osprey) nests.
2. If either Acipiter gentilis or Pandion haliaetus nest are found, a 5 acre ‘no operations’ buffer shall be created around the nest. 3. Operations may take place after the critical period in the ‘no operation’ buffer.
Mitigation Measure #3: 1. Sambucas species (Elderberry) shall not be cut down or removed from project area. Sambucas species (Elderberry) has not been found to date in project area, however potential habitat exists, any Sambucas
(Elderberry) bushes within treatment area are protected during operations.
Mitigation Measure #4:
1. If operations are scheduled to occur during Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle) critical period (January 15 until August 15 or four weeks after fledging), before operations may begin a survey shall be conducted
for Haliaeetus leucocephalus nest(s). 2. A known occurrence of a Bald Eagle nest occurs in the project area (see Operation Map).If operations take place during Haliaeetus leucocephalus ( Bald Eagle) critical period (Jan. 15 to Aug. 15, or 4 weeks after fledgling), if the Bald Eagle nest is occupied, a ‘no operations’ buffer zone of 10 acres shall be created
around the Bald Eagle nest. 3. Operations may take place after the critical period in the ‘no operations’ zone.
Mitigation Measure #5
1. If operations are scheduled to occur during critical nesting period of Migratory birds, before operations may begin a walking survey shall be conducted for nests. (See Table 4.)
Mitigation Measure #6: 1. The federally protected wetlands, (See Operation Map), shall not be in the project area.
Mitigation Measure #7: 1. Special Status plants (Carex xerophila, Fritillaria eastwoodiae, and Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii) have been found in the Serpentine outcrop and volcanic outcrop areas, (see Operation Map).
Before operations may begin within these areas on any given year, a protocol botanical survey shall be conducted. (See Appendix A for Protocol Survey Guidelines.)
2. If any special status plants are located within the project area, a 25’ equipment exclusion zone (EEZ) shall be established to protect the plants during the blooming period. No burn piles shall be located within the EEZ. Prescribed burning may occur where Fritillaria eastwoodiae has been found, in the fall.
3. Prescribed burning shall not take place where Carex xerophila or Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii have been found in the Serpentine outcrop and volcanic outcrop areas.
17
Mitigation Measure #8:
Water Class Characteristics: (Adapted from California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Regulations.)
Water Class I: Domestic supplies, including springs. Fish always or seasonally present onsite, includes habitat to sustain fish migration and spawning. (Middle Butte Creek, Little Butte Creek, Magalia
Reservoir).
Water Class II: Aquatic habitat for non-fish aquatic species is present year around.
Water Class III: No Aquatic life present, watercourse showing evidence of being capable of sediment
transport to Class I and II waters under normal high water flow conditions (storm events).
1. Watercourse Protection Zone widths for mechanized treatment areas.
Watercourse Protection
Zone Widths (Equipment)
Slope % Class I Class II Class III
<30 75 ft. 50 ft. 25 ft.
30-50 100 ft. 75 ft. 50 ft.
>50 150 ft. 100 ft. 50 ft.
2. No prescribed burning or containment lines shall be done within the above protection zone
widths.
3. Watercourse and Lake Protection Zone widths for hand treatment areas.
For Class III watercourses there shall be no protection buffer for hand treatment.
For Class I and II watercourses, there shall be a 25 ft. protection zone width.
4.5 Cultural Resources:
Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in § 156064.5? X
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to § 15064.5?
X
18
Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
d. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
Impact Discussion:
Archaeological Inventory Summary of Project Findings: This report details the results of an archaeological inventory survey of approximately 1,066 acres, comprising
multiple parcels, greenbelt corridors and land areas located within the community of Magalia, in Butte County, California.
The proposed undertaking will involve a forest health plan, which could involve vegetation removal along multiple segments of forest within the approximately 1,066 acre project area.
Existing records at the North East Information Center document that approximately 20% of the present area of potential effects (APE) had been subjected to previous archaeological investigation, and that no prehistoric sites
have been previously documented within the APE, while technically eleven (11) historic-era sites have been documented within the APE. As well, the present effort included an intensive-level pedestrian survey. Two
prehistoric sites and two historic-era sites were identified and recorded within the APE. Both prehistoric sites have been recommended potentially eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), while
the remaining two historic-era sites have been recommended not eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, under any of the relevant criteria, and specifically due to the lack of necessary integrity required to meet the threshold of a
significant historical resource. An information request letter was delivered to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on January 30,
2017. The NAHC responded on February 8, 2017, indicating that, “A records search of the SLF was completed for the APE referenced above with negative results.”
Aside from the recommended treatment (avoidance) for two prehistoric sites recommended eligible for inclusion in the CRHR which have been documented within the APE, archaeological clearance is recommended for the
remainder of the project/undertaking as presently proposed, although the following general provisions are considered appropriate:
1. Consultation in the event of inadvertent discovery of cultural material: The present evaluation and recommendations are based on the findings of an inventory-level surface survey only. There is always the possibility
that important unidentified cultural materials could be encountered on or below the surface during the course of future development activities. This possibility is particularly relevant considering the constraints generally to
archaeological field survey, and particularly where past ground disturbance activities (e.g., residential development, road construction, utility placement, tree removal, fuel reduction, etc.) have partially obscured historic ground
surface visibility, as in the present case. In the event of an inadvertent discovery of previously unidentified cultural material, archaeological consultation should be sought immediately.
2. Consultation in the event of inadvertent discovery of human remains: In the event that human remains are inadvertently encountered during trenching or other ground disturbing activity or at any time subsequently, State law
shall be followed, which includes, but is not limited to, immediately contacting the County Coroner's office upon any discovery of human remains.
Recommendations of Archaeologist: The recommendation set forth in this report is that these two prehistoric resources (MFH 1 and MFH 2) should be
identified on future project maps as sensitive areas which are to be avoided. Implementation of this recommendation would ensure that neither of these resources would be impacted during future vegetation management or other
planned activities.
19
a) No Impact. Historical resources have been determined by Archeologist Shawn Jensen to lack adequate integrity due to wholesale destruction, and/or substantial alteration, and are considered not significant. The
project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance. b) Less than significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Prehistoric resources MFH 1 and MFH 2 (see Sensitive Sites Map). See Mitigation Measure #10, #14, #15. Based on the specific findings two significant
historical resources are located within the present APE. c) Less than significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Prehistoric resources MFH 1 and MFH 2 (see Sensitive Sites Map). See Mitigation Measure #10, #14, #15.
d) No Impact.
Mitigation Measure #10: 1. If operations will occur on parcels 064-270-044-000, 066-010-003-000 or 066-010-008-000,(Section 36 T23N R03E see Sensitive Areas Map) before operations can occur, a professional Archeologist shall review
the operation proximity to sites MFH1 and MFH2 and flag site boundaries for ‘No Operations’ protection if necessary to prevent disturbance.
Mitigation Measure #14 1. In the event of an inadvertent discovery of previously unidentified cultural material, archaeological
consultation shall be sought immediately.
Mitigation Measure #15 1. In the event that human remains are inadvertently encountered during trenching or other ground disturbing activity or at any time subsequently, operations shall cease, State law shall be followed, which includes, but
is not limited to, immediately contacting the County Coroner’s office upon any discovery of human remains.
4.5b Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and this is:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less
Than Significa
nt Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register
of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k) or
X
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In apply the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of the Public
Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
X
Impact Discussion:
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
20
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and this is: a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Two prehistoric sites and two historic-era sites were identified and recorded within the APE. Both prehistoric sites have been recommended potentially eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), while the remaining two historic-era sites have been
recommended not eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, under any of the relevant criteria, and specifically due to the lack of necessary integrity required to meet the threshold of a significant historical resource. An information request letter was delivered to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on January 30,
2017. The NAHC responded on February 8, 2017, indicating that, “A records search of the SLF was completed for the APE referenced above with negative results.” See Mitigation Measure #10, #14, #15.
b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. See discussion above.
4.6 Geologic Processes:
Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving: a) 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.
b) Strong seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? d) Landslides?
X
X
X X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-
B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
system where sewers are not available for the disposal or waste water?
X
Setting:
A wide variety of geologic conditions exist in the valley, foothill and mountain regions of Butte County with respect to
seismic activity and various types of soil instability (landsliding, expansion, liquefaction, erosion, etc.). Thorough
21
summaries of the geologic and soil conditions in Butte County may be found in the 2007 Settings and Trends report prepared for the Butte County General Plan 2030 and are incorporated herein by reference.
County-wide maps regarding the relative hazards due to landslides, expansive soils, liquefaction, and faults are available with County GIS data and used as general references by Development Services, the County Building Division, Public Works, and Environmental Health when reviewing construction and land disturbing proposals requiring a permit.
Impact Discussion:
The Seismic Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone but is within an
aftershock epicenter region (Butte County GIS Epicenter Regions theme). The only known active fault in Butte County is the Cleveland Hill fault zone, located approximately 30 miles southeast of the project site, where activity on August 1, 1975 resulted in the Oroville earthquake. This earthquake had a Richter magnitude of 5.7 and resulted
in approximately 2.2 miles of ground rupture along the western flank of Cleveland Hill. In the northwest corner of Butte County near Chico there are a series of short, north-northwest trending faults similar to the Cleveland Hill fault. These faults appear to be an extension of the Bear Mountain Fault or Foothills Shear Zone. Minor seismic
activity has occurred around these short faults; however, other geologic evidence indicates these faults are not active (Health and Safety Element, Butte County General Plan 2010). None of these faults have experienced any known movement during historical times. No impacts are anticipated since no rupture of a known earthquake fault exists in the project area.
Like most of central California, the site can be expected to be subjected to seismic ground shaking at some future time. Accordingly, all buildings and other improvements would be designed and installed in accordance with
California Building Code requirements.
a1) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone and is not within an aftershock epicenter region (Butte County GIS Epicenter Regions theme). The only known active fault in Butte County is the Cleveland Hill fault zone, located approximately 30 miles to the southeast of the project site, where
activity on August 1, 1975, resulted in the Oroville earthquake. This earthquake had a Richter magnitude of 5.7 and resulted in approximately 2.2 miles of ground rupture along the western flank of Cleveland Hill.
a2) Less Than Significant Impact. Like most of central California, the site can be expected to be subjected to
seismic ground shaking at some future time. However, active faults are relatively distant from the project site and
ground shaking due to a seismic event is expected to have a lower intensity at the project site.
a3) Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where loose, saturated, granular soils lose their
inherent shear strength due to excess water pressure that builds up during repeated movement from seismic activity. Factors that contribute to the potential for liquefaction include a low relative density of granular materials, a shallow groundwater table, and a long duration and high acceleration of seismic shaking. Liquefaction usually results in
horizontal and vertical movements from lateral spreading of liquefied materials and post-earthquake settlement of
liquefied materials. Liquefaction potential is greatest where the groundwater level is shallow, and submerged loose, fine sands occur within a depth of approximately 50 feet or less. The Butte County Health and Safety Element’s
Liquefaction Potential Map indicates that the site has a generally low potential for liquefaction.
a4.) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located in a low to moderate landslide potential area. Best management practices implemented during the project, such as choice of silviculture in relation to slope factors, and
lack of equipment disturbance on steep slopes would ensure a less than significant impact on potential for landslides
on the project.
b) Less than Significant Impact. There is slight potential for soil erosion on the project site according to Figure
HS-5, Erosion Potential Map of the Health and Safety Element of the County General Plan. Surface soil erosion and loss of topsoil has the potential to occur from disturbances associated with tree removal and fuel break projects, however, management practices implemented during the project, such as hand cutting and removal on slopes over 30%,and machine removal on slopes under 30% with 80% vegetative cover that is chipped and scattered would ensure the impact
for erosion on the project is less than significant.
d) No Impact. The project will not cause nor be effected by soil expansion.
e) No Impact. Not applicable.
22
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.7 Greeenhouse Gas Emissions:
Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
Section 15183.5(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations states that a GHG Reduction Plan, or a Climate Action Plan, may be used for tiering and streamlining the analysis of GHG emissions in subsequent CEQA project
evaluation provided the CAP does the following:
A. Quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from
activities within a defined geographic area;
B. Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions
from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable;
C. Identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions
anticipated within the geographic area;
D. Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence
demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level;
E. Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; and
F. Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
A 2006 baseline GHG emission inventory was prepared for unincorporated Butte County. The inventory identified the
sources and the amount of GHG emissions produced in the county. Within Butte County, the leading contributors of GHG emissions are agriculture (43%), transportation (29%), and residential energy (17%).
The Butte County Department of Development Services prepared a Climate Action Plan (CAP) for the unincorporated area of Butte County. The CAP is an implementation mechanism of the County’s General Plan
adopted in 2010 and amended in 2012, providing goals, policies, and programs to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, address climate change adaptation, and improve quality of life in the county. The CAP also supports
statewide GHG emissions reduction goals identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 375. Measures and actions identified in the CAP lay the groundwork to achieve the adopted General Plan goals related to climate
change, including reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The County needs to reduce community emissions by 24% (240,370 MTCO2e) below forecast levels to achieve a 15% reduction below baseline 2006 levels in 2020.
Similarly, to be on a trajectory toward the EO S-3-05 goal for 2050, the County would need to reduce community emissions by 52%, to achieve a 42% reduction below baseline 2006 levels in 2030. Consistent with the General
Plan, the primary focus of this CAP is to achieve a 2020 reduction goal.
Impact Discussion:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would contribute to the existing greenhouse gas inventory for Butte County. Project operation would generate direct emissions through the burning of piled fuels,
23
operation of chain saws, equipment and vehicles. Greenhouse gas emissions were modeled using Piled Fuels Biomass and Emissions Calculator to determine the emissions of CO2. However, in comparison to a catastrophic
wildfire, CO2 and CO emissions would be significantly less. (See tables below). Emissions of CO2 for the project should be approximately 2171.80 tons CO2, in comparison to a wildfire, which would emit 94,488.15 tons of CO2. Project emissions will be .02 CO2 of a wildfire. Emissions of CO for the project are expected to be 48.54 tons CO,
while a wildfire is expected to emit 5121.42 tons of CO. Project emissions will be .009 CO of a wildfire
Prescribed Fire
Total Project
Hand
Treatment
Mechanized
Treatment Wildfire
Pollutant Emissions (Tons
Emissions
(Tons) Emissions (Tons) Emissions (Tons)
CH4 Emissions 81.4 3.67 236.65
CO Emissions 1650.1 48.54 5121.42
CO2 Emissions 22344.1 2162.7 9.55 94488.15
PM Emissions 289 14.28 933.86
PM10 Emissions 212.70 10.2 660.49
PM25 Emissions 196.70 8.97 603.57
Assumptions for Prescribed Burn for fuel consumption for equipment:
9 Fire Engine days, 6 Pickup Truck days and 3 Bulldozer days.
Average 40 miles roundtrip per fire engine(360 miles), average 30 mile roundtrip per pickup truck(180 miles), average 30 miles roundtrip for bulldozer transport(90 miles).
80 gallons Drip Torch fuel (Half diesel, half gasoline)
Total CO2 emissions for one year prescribed burn of 50 acres: 2234.41 tons CO2.
Total CO2 emssions for project area (50 acres/year, 10 years to burn 500 acres): 22,344.1 tons CO2.
Total CO2 emissions for project area should a wildfire burn: 94,488.15 tons CO2.
24
b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would emit significantly less than a wildfire,(as shown above) therefore, should contribute to the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
4. 8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials:
Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environmental through the routine transport use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
X
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools? X
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where 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?
X
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
X
a) No Impact.
b) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Project operation would involve the routine transportation,
use, or disposal of gasoline, oil and diesel used in the power equipment and as a fuel for torches. Operations will follow all applicable state and federal laws. All personnel will wear the appropriate personal protection equipment.
Equipment used on this project will not be serviced in locations where grease, oil, or fuel could pass into a watercourse. (See Mitigation Measure #9) Less than significant impacts with mitigation.
c) c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Project operation would involve the routine transportation, use, or disposal of gasoline, oil and diesel used in the power equipment and as a fuel for torches.
Operations will follow all applicable state and federal laws. All personnel will wear the appropriate personal
25
protection equipment. Equipment used on this project will not be serviced in locations where grease, oil, or fuel could pass into a watercourse. (See Mitigation Measure #9) Less than significant impacts with mitigation.
d) No Impact.
e) No Impact.
f) No Impact.
g) No Impact.
h) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Project operation of the prescribed burn involves a chance of escape. Personnel carrying out the burn shall be trained with prescribed burning and shall take all safety
precautions necessary to avoid an escaped fire (see Mitigation Measure #11).
Mitigation Measure #11: 1. CALFIRE shall be responsible for overseeing burn operations, ensuring personnel are properly trained
and that adequate resources are present to prevent escaped fire.
Mitigation Measure #9:
1. Personnel shall wear appropriate personal protection equipment. Equipment used on this project shall not
be serviced in locations where grease, oil, or fuel could pass into a watercourse. Operations shall follow all applicable state and federal laws.
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? X
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere 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 land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?
X
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or 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?
X
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 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?
X
26
Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document
e. 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?
X
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
a) No Impact. b) No Impact. c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would involve mechanized treatment areas with a Skid Steer mounted Masticator that will cause some soil disturbance. None off the operations proposed will result in enough soil disturbance to alter the drainage pattern of the site. During
operations the masticator will be producing and spreading wood chips over the area on which it is operating, which will reduce the likelihood of erosion occurring. This combined with the watercourse buffers laid out in Mitigation Measure # 9 will prevent substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would involve mechanized treatment areas with a Skid Steer mounted Masticator that will cause some soil disturbance. None off the operations proposed will result in enough soil disturbance to alter the drainage pattern of the site. Water yields
may increase from the project area may increase slightly due to the removal of smaller diameter vegetation
during fuels reduction work however these increases will not be large enough to cause flooding. This combined with the watercourse buffers laid out in (Mitigation Measure # 9) will prevent the proposed project from
causing any flooding on or off site. e) No Impact.
f) No Impact. g) No Impact.
h) No Impact. i) No Impact.
j) No Impact.
4.12 Noise:
Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
X
27
Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document
agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? X
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where 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?
X
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
Impact Discussion:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Noise levels contributed by the proposed project would include chain saw
noise and machine mastication noise. The project area is next to an existing road right of way where vehicle noise is a regular and normal occurrence. Potential noise impacts are less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve temporary sources of ground borne
vibration and ground borne noise during operation from the machine mastication equipment. Operation of this
equipment would generate localized ground borne vibration and ground borne noise that could be perceptible at residences or other sensitive uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site. However, since the duration of impact
would be brief and is expected to occur during less sensitive daytime hours (i.e., between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.), the impact from machine mastication ground borne vibration and ground borne noise would be less than significant.
c) No Impact. Ambient noise will not permanently increase.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The temporary or periodic noise sources that would be introduced to the
existing noise environment by the proposed project would be noises associated with chain saws, mastication machinery and vehicles. Temporary and periodic increases in noise would be less than significant.
e) No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan.
f) No Impact. No known private airstrips have been identified within the vicinity of the project site
28
4.15 Recreation
Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
Impact Discussion:
a) No Impact. The project will not increase the use of neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational
facilities. b) No Impact. The project area is currently used for recreation by local residents, portions of the project area
will be closed to recreation while work is occurring but will be re-opened as soon as work is finished.
4.16 Transportation/Traffic:
Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
X
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
X
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X
29
Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document
f. Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
X
Impact Discussion:
a) Less than Significant Impact. The project is accessed by gated service roads. During the project the only traffic will be the crew vehicles at the beginning and end of each day. Less than significant impacts to the normal traffic
pattern will occur.
b) No Impact. The project will not conflict with an applicable congestion management program.
c) No Impact. The project is not near an airport.
d) No Impact. The project will not make any changes to roads.
e) No Impact. The project will not affect emergency access.
f) No Impact. The project will not affect transit policies, plans or programs.
4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065):
Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Reviewed Under Previous Document
a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the 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?
X
b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but 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)?
X
c. Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
30
Impact Discussion:
a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. With the implementation of mitigation measures included in the Initial Study, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the
environment; result in an adverse impact on fish, wildlife, or plant species including special status species, or prehistoric of historic cultural resources. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Individual impacts are limited with this project and cumulatively are not
considerable when viewed in connection to past or future projects. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Magalia Forest Health Project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
5. MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation Measure #1:
1. A Smoke Management Plan shall be submitted to the Butte County Air Quality Management District through Prescribed Fire Information Reporting System at least 14 days prior to ignition.
2. A Butte County Air Quality Management District Burn Permit shall be obtained prior to ignition. 3. Burns will be conducted in small units (<20 acres per day) and only on designated burn days and
within the approved prescription.
Mitigation Measure #2:
1. If operations take place during the critical period (March 15 to August 15), before operations begin a
walking raptor survey shall be conducted for Accipiter gentilis (Northern Goshawk), and Pandion haliaetus (Osprey) nests.
2. If either Acipiter gentilis or Pandion haliaetus nest are found, a 5 acre ‘no operations’ buffer shall be created around the nest.
3. Operations may take place after the critical period in the ‘no operation’ buffer.
Mitigation Measure #3:
1. Sambucas species (Elderberry) shall not be cut down or removed from project area.
Mitigation Measure #4:
1. An occupied Haliaeetus leucocuphalus nest has been located within the project area (see operations map)
2. If operations take place during Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle) critical period (Jan. 15 to Aug. 15, or four weeks after fledging), before operations may begin a survey shall be conducted for
Haliaeetus leucocuphalus nests. 3. If an Haliaeetus leucocephalus nest(s) is found a 10 acre ‘no operations’ buffer zone shall be created
around the nest. 4. Operations may take place in the ‘no operations’ buffer zone after the critical period.
Mitigation Measure #5
1. If operations are scheduled to occur during February 15 to August 30 (critical nesting period of Migratory birds), before operations may begin a walking survey shall be conducted for nests. (See
Table 4.) No operations shall take place within 250’ of any nesting migratory bird.
31
Mitigation Measure #6:
1. No operations shall take place within the federally protected wetlands, (See Operations Map).
Mitigation Measure #7:
1. Special Status plants have been found in the Serpentine outcrop and Volcanic outcrop areas, (Carex xerophila, Fritillaria eastwoodiae, and Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii see Operation Map). 2. Before operations may take place within the Serpentine or Volcanic Outcrop aereas each year, a protocol botanical survey shall be conducted in the Serpentine/Volcanic outcrop. (See Operations
Map).
3. If any special status plants are located within the project area, a 25’ equipment exclusion zone (EEZ) shall be established to protect the plants during the blooming period. No burn piles shall be located
within the EEZ.
4. Prescribed burning may occur where Fritillaria eastwoodiae has been found, in the fall.
5. Prescribed burning shall not take place where Carex xerophila or Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii have been found in the Serpentine outcrop and volcanic outcrop areas.
Mitigation Measure #8:
1. Watercourse and Lake Protection Zone widths for mechanized and prescribed fire treatment areas.
Watercourse Protection
Zone Widths (Equipment)
Slope % Class I Class II Class III
<30 75 ft. 50 ft. 25 ft.
30-50 100 ft. 75 ft. 50 ft.
>50 150 ft. 100 ft. 50 ft.
1. Watercourse and Lake Protection Zone widths for hand treatment areas.
For Class III watercourses there shall be no protection buffer for hand treatment.
For Class I and II watercourses, there shall be a 25 ft. protection zone width.
Mitigation Measure #9:
1. Personnel shall wear appropriate personal protection equipment. Equipment used on this project shall not
be serviced in locations where grease, oil, or fuel could pass into a watercourse. Operations shall follow all applicable state and federal laws.
Mitigation Measure #10: 1. If operations will occur on parcels 064-270-044-000, 066-010-003-000 or 066-010-008-000,(Section
36 T23N R03E see Sensitive Areas Map) before operations can occur, a professional Archeologist
32
shall review the operation proximity to sites MFH1 and MFH2 and flag site boundaries for ‘No Operations’ protection if necessary to prevent disturbance.
Mitigation Measure #11: 1. CALFIRE shall be responsible for overseeing burn operations, ensuring personnel are properly trained and that adequate resources are present to prevent escaped fire.
Mitigation Measure #12:
1. Prescribed burning shall take place between September 1 and February 15th.
Mitigation Measure # 13: 1. Trees of value to wildlife shall be protected by removing fuels from underneath the drip line or
other effective means during prescribed burns. Trees of value to wildlife are defined as trees exhibiting any of the following characteristics: forked tops, nests mistletoe clumps, cavities, large
oaks.
2. Firing operations shall start in one side of the prescribed burn unit and proceed at a slow enough rate that wildlife does not become trapped.
Mitigation Measure #14
1. In the event of an inadvertent discovery of previously unidentified cultural material, archaeological
consultation should be sought immediately.
Mitigation Measure #15
1. In the event that human remains are inadvertently encountered during trenching or other ground disturbing activity or at any time subsequently, operations shall cease,State law shall be followed,
which includes, but is not limited to, immediately contacting the County Coroner’s office upon any discovery of human remains.
6. CONSULTED AGENCIES:
[ ] Environmental Health [ ] Public Works [ ] Building Manager
[ ] BCAG [ ] County Counsel [ ] LAFCo [ ] Assessor [ ] Development Services [ ] Chico Unified School District
[X] Air Quality Management District [ ] City of Chico [ ] Sheriff [ ] City of Gridley [ ] City of Oroville [ ] Town of Paradise
[X] CALFIRE [ ] Caltrans (Traffic) [ ] CA Central Reg. Water Quality [ ] Department of Conservation [X] CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife [ ] Highway Patrol
[ ] Army Corps of Engineers [ ] U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service [ ] Agricultural Commissioner [ ] Butte Co. Farm Bureau [ ] Chico Unified School Dist. [ ] Chico Recreation & Park Dist.
[ ] Pacific Bell [ ] California Water Company [ ] LOAPUD [ ] PG&E [ ] [ ]
33
7. PROJECT SPONSOR(S) INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION
INTO PROPOSED PROJECT:
I/We have reviewed the Initial Study for the Magalia Forest Health Project application and particularly the mitigation measures identified herein. I/We hereby modify the applications on file with the Butte County Planning
Department to include and incorporate all mitigations set forth in this Initial Study.
____________________________________ ___________________ Sponsor/Project Agent Date
____________________________________ ___________________ Sponsor/Project Agent Date
34
Appendix A
Scoping for the Magalia Forest Health Project for the possible presence of listed and non-listed vertebrate species was done by a search of the California Natural
Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). A search of nine USGS 7.5-min quad; Paradise East (592D) 3912175m Cherokee (576A) 3912165, Hamlin Canyon (576B) 3912166, Kimshew Point (591B) 3912184, Pulga (591C) 3912174, Berry Creek (575B) 3912164, Stirling
City (592A) 3912185, Cohasset (592B) 3912186, Paradise West (592C) 3912176 revealed the following plant and animal species that have potential habitat in the project area.
Table 1.
Magalia Forest Health- CNDDB Non-Plant Species
Species with strikethrough are excluded from discussion, explanation given in Reason Species with strikethrough are excluded from discussion, explanation given in Reason column.
Scientific Name Common Name FedList CalList
Habitat in
Assessment
Area?
Exclude from
consideration? Reason Mitigation Notes
Accipiter gentilis northern goshawk None CDFW SSC Yes
Survey area
prior to ops
should they
take place
during critical
period (March
15-Aug 15th)
Create buffer
zone of 5 acres
around nest
sites.
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird None
Candidate
Threatened Yes Yes
Adequate
habitat for
feeding is
not within
5
kilometers
Nests over or near
water,wetlands.
Requires forage
within 5 kilometers
of nesting site.
35
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None CDFW SSC Yes
None
Roosts in buildings,
no abandoned
buildings in project,
traffic from fuel
break activities will
not impact.
Aplodontia rufa
californica
Sierra Nevada
mountain beaver None CDFW SSC Yes Yes
Preferred
forbs and
ferns for
food not
available in
abundance. WLPZ protects
Requires food supply
of forbes, ferns
Desmocerus
californicus dimorphus
valley elderberry
longhorn beetle Threatened None Yes
No Elderberry
shrub removal
Emys marmorata western pond turtle None CDFW SSC Yes WLPZ protects
Falco peregrinus
anatum
American peregrine
falcon Delisted Delisted No Yes
Protected
ledges and
cliffs not
present.
Protected ledges
and cliffs not
present.
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus bald eagle Delisted Endangered Yes
Buffer nest, no
operations
permitted
within buffer
zone during
critical period(
Jan. 15th to
Aug. 15th or
four weeks
after fledgling)
Lasionycteris
noctivagans silver-haired bat None None Yes
Roosts in buildings,
tree hollows, rock
crevices, will snags
be retained?
Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat None CDFW SSC Yes
Roosts in trees, will
snags be retained?
36
Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus California black rail None Threatened Yes
Look for
reeds/juncus at
least 3 feet tall
during
survey.WLPZ
protects
Steve Cordes-Reeds
or Juncus at least 3
feet tall needed for
nesting.
Lepidurus packardi
vernal pool tadpole
shrimp Endangered None No Yes
Vernal
Pools not
present
Mylopharodon
conocephalus hardhead None CDFW SSC Yes
WLPZ protects
Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis None None Yes None
Roosts in buildings
abandoned buildings
not present. Traffic
from fuel break
activities will not
impact.
Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis None None Yes
None
Roosts in buildings
abandoned buildings
not present. Traffic
from fuel break
activities will not
impact.
Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus
steelhead - Central
Valley DPS Threatened None Yes WLPZ protects
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
chinook salmon -
Central Valley spring-
run ESU Threatened Threatened Yes
WLPZ protects
Pandion haliaetus osprey None None Yes
Survey area
prior to ops
should they
take place
during critical
period (March
15-May 1 for
active nests,
March 15-Aug.
Large trees, snags,
dead topped trees,
cliffs near water for
nests.
37
15 for occupied
nests.) Create
buffer zone of
5 acres around
nest sites.
Phrynosoma blainvillii
Blainville's horned
lizard None CDFW SSC Yes
Exclude
Serpentine
outcrop.
Serpentine outcrop
is potential habitat.
Area will be
excluded from
project.
Rana boylii
foothill yellow-legged
frog None CDFW SSC Yes WLPZ protects
Closely restricted to
water.
Rana cascadae Cascades frog None CDFW SSC Yes
WLPZ protects
Closely restricted to
water.
Rana draytonii
California red-legged
frog Threatened CDFW SSC Yes See worksheet
Table 2.
Magalia Forest Health (580 m – 815 m)
Plant Species
Species with strikethrough are excluded from discussion, explanation given in Reason column.
Scientific Name Common Name
Elevation High
(meters)
Elevation
Low
(meters) Communities Exclude Reason
Plant
ranking
Agrostis hendersonii Henderson's bent grass 305 70 Valley grassland, vernal pools. Yes
Elevation,
vernal
pools 3.2
38
Allium jepsonii Jepson's onion 1320 300
Serpentinite or volcanic chaparral,
cismontane woodland, lower montane
forest.
1B.2
Cardamine pachystigma var.
dissectifolia
dissected-leaved
toothwort 2100 255
Usually serpentinite, chaparral, lower
montane coniferous forest
1B.2
Carex xerophila chaparral sedge 770 440
Serpentinite, gabbroic, chaparral,
cismontane woodland lower montane
coniferous forest.
1B.2
Castilleja rubicundula var.
rubicundula pink creamsacs 910 20
Serpentinite, chaparral, cismontane
woodland, meadows and seeps, calley,
foothill grassland.
1B.2
Clarkia gracilis ssp. albicaulis white-stemmed clarkia 1085 245
Sometimes Serpentinite, chaparral,
cismontane woodland.
1B.2
Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae Mildred's clarkia 1710 245
Sandy, usually granitic, cismontane
woodland, lower montane coniferous
forest.
1B.3
Clarkia mosquinii Mosquin's clarkia 1490 185
Rocky roadsides, cosmontane woodland,
lower montane coniferous forest.
1B.1
Eremogone cliftonii Clifton's eremogone 2080 455
Openings, usually granitic, chaparral, lower
montane coniferous forest, upper montane
coniferous forest.
1B.3
Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii Ahart's buckwheat 2000 400
Serpentinite, slopes, openings. Chaparral,
cismontane woodland.
1B.2
Euphorbia hooveri Hoover's spurge 250 25 Vernal Pools Yes Elevation 1B.2
Frangula purshiana ssp. ultramafica Caribou coffeeberry 1930 825
Sepentinite, chaparral, lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows and seeps,
upper montane coniferous forest. Yes Elevation 1B.2
Fritillaria eastwoodiae Butte County fritillary 1500 50
Sometimes sepentinite, chaparral,
cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest openings.
3.2
Fritillaria pluriflora adobe-lily 705 60
Often adobe, chaparral, cismontane
woodland, valley, foothill grassland.
1B.2
Hibiscus lasiocarpos var.
occidentalis woolly rose-mallow 120 0
Often in riprap on sides of levees, marshes
and swamps. Yes Elevation 1B.2
Imperata brevifolia California satintail 1215 0
Chaparral, meadows and seeps, riparian
scrub
2B.1
Juncus leiospermus var.
leiospermus Red Bluff dwarf rush 1250 35
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, meadows and
seeps, valley and foothill grassland vernal pools.
1B.1
39
Layia septentrionalis Colusa layia 1095 100
Sandy serpentinite, chaparral, cismontane
woodland, valley and foothill grassland.
1B.2
Lewisia cantelovii Cantelow's lewisia 1370 330
Granitic, sometimes serpentinite seeps,
broadleafed upland forest, chaparral,
cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest.
1B.2
Monardella venosa veiny monardella 410 60
Yes Elevation 1B.1
Orcuttia pilosa hairy Orcutt grass 200 46 Vernal pools Yes
Elevation,
vernal
pools 1B.1
Packera eurycephala var. lewisrosei Lewis Rose's ragwort 1890 274
Serpentinite, chaparral, cismontane
woodland, lower montane coniferous
forest.
1B.2
Penstemon personatus
closed-throated
beardtongue 2120 1065
Metavolcanic chaparral, lower montane
coniferous forest, upper montane
coniferous forest. Yes Elevation 1B.2
Poa sierrae Sierra blue grass 1500 365
Opernings, lower montane coniferous
forest.
1B.3
Rhynchospora californica California beaked-rush 1010 45
Bogs and fens, lower montane coniferous
forest, meadow and seeps, marshes and
swamps. Yes
Bogs, Fens,
marshes 1B.1
Rhynchospora capitellata brownish beaked-rush 2000 45
Lower montane coniferous forest, meadow
and seeps, marshes and swamps, upper
montane coniferous forest. Yes
Bogs Fens,
Marshes 2B.2
Rupertia hallii Hall's rupertia 2250 545
Roadsides, sometimes openings,
cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest.
1B.2
Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford's arrowhead 650 0 Marshes and swamps.
1B.2
Sedum albomarginatum Feather River stonecrop 1950 260
Serpentinite, chaparral, lower montane
coniferous forest.
1B.2
Sidalcea robusta
Butte County
checkerbloom 1600 90 Chaparral, cismontane woodland.
1B.2
Tuctoria greenei Greene's tuctoria 1070 30 Vernal Pools. Yes
Vernal
pools. 1B.1
40
Bloom Months for Special Status Plants
Table 3.
Scientific Name Common Name March April May June July August Sept.
Allium jepsonii Jepson's onion
x x x x x
Cardamine pachystigma var.
dissectifolia dissected-leaved toothwort x x x
Carex xerophila chaparral sedge x x x x
Castilleja rubicundula var. rubicundula pink creamsacs
x x x
Clarkia gracilis ssp. albicaulis white-stemmed clarkia
x x x
Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae Mildred's clarkia
x x x x
Clarkia mosquinii Mosquin's clarkia
x x x x x
Eremogone cliftonii Clifton's eremogone
x x x x x x
Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii Ahart's buckwheat
x x x x
Fritillaria eastwoodiae Butte County fritillary x x x x
Fritillaria pluriflora adobe-lily x x
Imperata brevifolia California satintail x x x
x
Juncus leiospermus var. leiospermus Red Bluff dwarf rush x x x x
Layia septentrionalis Colusa layia
x x
Lewisia cantelovii Cantelow's lewisia
x x x x x
Packera eurycephala var. lewisrosei Lewis Rose's ragwort x x x x x x x
Poa sierrae Sierra blue grass
x x x x
Rhynchospora californica California beaked-rush
x x x
Rhynchospora capitellata brownish beaked-rush
x x
Rupertia hallii Hall's rupertia
x x x x
Sedum albomarginatum Feather River stonecrop
x x
Sidalcea robusta Butte County checkerbloom
x x x
41
Magalia Forest Health Botanical Survey
Biological Setting
The project is located in portions of Sections 13, 14,23,24,25,26,35,36 Township 23N R3E MDB&M.
The project area is 1066 acres, bounded on the east by Coutolenc Road and on the west by Nimshew
Road. Elevations range from 1900-2675 feet.
On the eastern portion of the project is Magalia Reservoir with its Federally Protected Wetland and
adjacent riparian habitat fed by Little Butte Creek. East of the Reservoir, is Fir/Cedar/Oak complex that
progresses into a Mixed Conifer vegetation as you travel north. On the western side of the Reservoir is
Grey Pine/ Oak complex with Manzanita underbrush, transitioning into Mixed Conifer with Bay Laurel
underbrush as you travel north. North of the Reservoir is a Serpentine outcrop that continues into Forest
Service property that has McNabb Cypress, Carex xerophyla, Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahart,
Manzanita, some Grey Pine and Cedar. Above the Forest Service property on the east of the project are
Fir/Cedar/Oak complex on the west of Little Butte Creek and Mixed Conifer on the east of Little Butte
Creek, with Serpentine outcrops on both sides of Little Butte Creek in the northern most portion.
Below Magalia Reservoir, traveling south down Little Butte Creek just south of Skyway is Fir/Cedar/Oak
complex, and Mixed Conifer complex on the east side of Little Butte Creek. On the west side of Little
Butte Creek is Fir/Pine/Oak complex with an outcrop of Manzanita/Scrub. As you travel up Middle Butte
Creek there is Fir/Cedar/Oak complex with Riparian vegetation along the creek and Ceanothus/Scrub
openings in three locations approximately 1/3 of the way up the ravine. Continuing north, the
Fir/Cedar/Oak vegetation changes at a volcanic outcrop bordered by Manzanita. A Mixed Conifer
complex vegetation type continues north in the ravine with riparian vegetation along the Middle Butte
Creek.
Slaughterhouse Ravine has a Fir/Cedar/Oak complex on the southern side, progressing into Mixed
Conifer vegetation as you travel north. (See Vegetation Map)
Study Methods
Botanical surveys were conducted in accordance with CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines. Botanical
Surveys were conducted 3/1/2017, 4/5/2017, 4/21/2017, 6/12/2017, and 6/13/2017.
Visits were timed to match the bloom period of potential special status species.
Specifically the following CNPS protocol were implemented:
Those conducting botanical surveys must possess the following qualifications:
o Experience conducting floristic field surveys.
42
o Knowledge of plant taxonomy and plant community ecology and classification.
o Familiarity with the plants of the area, including special status and locally significant
plants.
The surveys were conducted in the field at the proper times of year when special status
and locally significant plants are both evident and identifiable.
Nearby accessible occurrences of the plants (reference sites) were be observed to
determine that the plants are identifiable at the time of survey.
The surveys were floristic in nature. A floristic survey requires that every plant observed
be identified to the extent necessary to determine its rarity and listing status. A sufficient
number of visits spaced throughout the growing season is necessary to prepare an
accurate inventory of all plants that exist on the site. A complete list of plants observed
on the site is included in this botanical survey report.
The surveys were conducted in a manner consistent with conservation ethics. Collections
of listed species, or suspected rare, threatened, or endangered species were made only
when such actions did not jeopardize the continued existence of the population and in
accordance with applicable state and federal permit requirements. Photography was used
to document plant identification and habitat whenever possible, but especially when the
listed plant population could not withstand collection of voucher specimens.
The surveys were conducted using systematic field techniques in all habitats of the site to
ensure a thorough coverage of potential impact areas.
The surveys were well documented. If a listed plant or rare plant community was located,
a California Native Species (or Community) Field Survey Form or equivalent written
form, accompanied by a copy of the appropriate portion of a 7.5-minute topographic map
with the occurrence mapped, was completed and submitted to the Natural Diversity
Database.
43
Prior to field surveys, a nine-quad search was conducted using the CNPS Rare Plant database and
CNDDB database. A list of potential special status plants and their CNPS listing status is found
below in Table 1.
Table 1.
Magalia Forest Health 580m-815m
Scientific Name Common Name Elevation
High
(meters)
Elevatio
n Low
(meters
)
Communities Excl
ude
Reason Plan
t
rank
ing
Agrostis hendersonii Henderson's
bent grass
305 70 Valley grassland,
vernal pools.
Yes Elevation,
vernal
pools
3.2
Allium jepsonii Jepson's onion 1320 300 Serpentinite or
volcanic
chaparral,
cismontane
woodland, lower
montane forest.
1B.2
Cardamine
pachystigma var.
dissectifolia
dissected-
leaved
toothwort
2100 255 Usually
serpentinite,
chaparral, lower
montane
coniferous forest
1B.2
Carex xerophila chaparral
sedge
770 440 Serpentinite,
gabbroic,
chaparral,
cismontane
woodland lower
montane
coniferous forest.
1B.2
Castilleja rubicundula
var. rubicundula
pink creamsacs 910 20 Serpentinite,
chaparral,
cismontane
woodland,
meadows and
seeps, calley,
foothill
grassland.
1B.2
Clarkia gracilis ssp.
albicaulis
white-
stemmed
clarkia
1085 245 Sometimes
Serpentinite,
chaparral,
cismontane
woodland.
1B.2
44
Clarkia mildrediae ssp.
mildrediae
Mildred's
clarkia
1710 245 Sandy, usually
granitic,
cismontane
woodland, lower
montane
coniferous forest.
1B.3
Clarkia mosquinii Mosquin's
clarkia
1490 185 Rocky roadsides,
cosmontane
woodland, lower
montane
coniferous forest.
1B.1
Eremogone cliftonii Clifton's
eremogone
2080 455 Openings, usually
granitic,
chaparral, lower
montane
coniferous forest,
upper montane
coniferous forest.
1B.3
Eriogonum
umbellatum var. ahartii
Ahart's
buckwheat
2000 400 Serpentinite,
slopes, openings.
Chaparral,
cismontane
woodland.
1B.2
Euphorbia hooveri Hoover's
spurge
250 25 Vernal Pools Yes Elevation 1B.2
Frangula purshiana ssp.
ultramafica
Caribou
coffeeberry
1930 825 Sepentinite,
chaparral, lower
montane
coniferous forest,
meadows and
seeps, upper
montane
coniferous forest.
Yes Elevation 1B.2
Fritillaria eastwoodiae Butte County
fritillary
1500 50 Sometimes
sepentinite,
chaparral,
cismontane
woodland, lower
montane
coniferous forest
openings.
3.2
Fritillaria pluriflora adobe-lily 705 60 Often adobe,
chaparral,
cismontane
woodland, valley,
foothill
grassland.
1B.2
45
Hibiscus lasiocarpos
var. occidentalis
woolly rose-
mallow
120 0 Often in riprap
on sides of
levees, marshes
and swamps.
Yes Elevation 1B.2
Imperata brevifolia California
satintail
1215 0 Chaparral,
meadows and
seeps, riparian
scrub
2B.1
Juncus leiospermus
var. leiospermus
Red Bluff dwarf
rush
1250 35 Chaparral,
cismontane
woodland,
meadows and
seeps, valley and
foothill grassland
vernal pools.
1B.1
Layia septentrionalis Colusa layia 1095 100 Sandy
serpentinite,
chaparral,
cismontane
woodland, valley
and foothill
grassland.
1B.2
Lewisia cantelovii Cantelow's
lewisia
1370 330 Granitic,
sometimes
serpentinite
seeps,
broadleafed
upland forest,
chaparral,
cismontane
woodland, lower
montane
coniferous forest.
1B.2
Monardella venosa veiny
monardella
410 60 Yes Elevation 1B.1
Orcuttia pilosa hairy Orcutt
grass
200 46 Vernal pools Yes Elevation,
vernal
pools
1B.1
Packera eurycephala
var. lewisrosei
Lewis Rose's
ragwort
1890 274 Serpentinite,
chaparral,
cismontane
woodland, lower
montane
coniferous forest.
1B.2
Penstemon personatus closed-
throated
beardtongue
2120 106
5
Metavolcanic
chaparral, lower
montane
Yes Elevation 1B.2
46
coniferous forest,
upper montane
coniferous forest.
Poa sierrae Sierra blue
grass
1500 365 Opernings, lower
montane
coniferous forest.
1B.3
Rhynchospora
californica
California
beaked-rush
1010 45 Bogs and fens,
lower montane
coniferous forest,
meadow and
seeps, marshes
and swamps.
Yes Bogs,
Fens,
marshes
1B.1
Rhynchospora
capitellata
brownish
beaked-rush
2000 45 Lower montane
coniferous forest,
meadow and
seeps, marshes
and swamps,
upper montane
coniferous forest.
Yes Bogs Fens,
Marshes
2B.2
Rupertia hallii Hall's rupertia 2250 545 Roadsides,
sometimes
openings,
cismontane
woodland, lower
montane
coniferous forest.
1B.2
Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford's
arrowhead
650 0 Marshes and
swamps.
1B.2
Sedum
albomarginatum
Feather River
stonecrop
1950 260 Serpentinite,
chaparral, lower
montane
coniferous forest.
1B.2
Sidalcea robusta Butte County
checkerbloom
1600 90 Chaparral,
cismontane
woodland.
1B.2
Tuctoria greenei Greene's
tuctoria
1070 30 Vernal Pools. Yes Vernal
pools.
1B.1
47
Results
Special Status Species
The following special status species were observed in the project area: (See Table 2
below)
Table 2.
Scientific Name Common Name CNPS
Ranking
Fritillaria eastwoodiae Butte County Fritillary 3.2
Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii Ahart's Buckwheat 1B.2
Carex xerophila Chaparral sedge 1B.2
Mimulus glaucescens Shieldbracted
Monkeyflower
4.3
Carex xerophila, Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii and Fritillaria eastwoodiae were located in the
Serpentine outcrops on the eastern side of the project. Fritillaria eastwoodiae was also located on the
volcanic outcrop located on Middle Butte Creek. For both Carex xerophila and Eriogonum umbellatum
var. ahartii, the symbology used on the map corresponds to populations of plants, while in
the case of Fritillaria eastwoodiae, the symbology used on the map correlates to individual
plants. (See Botanical Survey Map).
A substantially large population of Carex xerophila was observed on the
Serpentine outcrop growing underneath MacNabb Cypress, northwest of
Magalia Reservoir. As you travel south on the serpentine outcrop, the
population decreases as the MacNabb Cypress becomes more sporadic,
until, on the east and south edges of the outcrop, there are only some
outliers of Carex that can be found growing along a road cut and under
some Cedar and Pine. Plants have been flagged with ‘Special Treatment’
flagging and located on the Botanical Survey Map.
Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii was observed on the southern end of the same
Serpentine outcrop as the Carex just northwest of Magalia Reservoir and on the
Serpentine outcrop on the east and west side of Little Butte Creek in the northern portion
of the project. In all areas, Eriogonum was observed growing in full sun, in an area of
Manzanita, Ceanothus and Grey Pine. Plants were flagged with ‘Special Treatment’
flagging and located on the Botanical Survey Map.
48
Fritillaria eastwoodiae was observed on the Serpentine outcrop on the eastern side of
Little Butte Creek and also on the volcanic outcrop on Middle Butte Creek. Plants were
observed to grow under or near Manzanita in the volcanic outcrop, and near Ceanothus or
Manzanita on the Serpentine outcrop. Plants have been flagged with ‘Special Treatment’
flagging and located on the Botanical Survey Map.
All of the above special status plants have been flagged with ‘Special
Treatment’ and operations will not occur near them, therefore, no additional
evaluation of impacts is needed.
Mimulus glaucescens was observed in the Serpentine outcrop on the
east and west side of Little Butte Creek, the Serpentine outcrop
located northwest of Magalia Reservoir, and the Serpentine outcrop
just east of Magalia Reservoir. Mimulus was observed growing in
Class III streams, and in moist swales or depressions on both sides of
Little Butte Creek. (See Botanical Survey Map). Mimulus glaucescens
is ranked 4.3 by CNPS (Limited Distribution, not very threatened in
California). Approximately 400 + plants were observed in the four
locations, areas that have been flagged as ‘Special Treatment’ due to
the special status plants found in these locations. (See above table 1).
CNPS recommends that California Rare Plant Rank 4 plants be evaluated for impact significance
during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA. Since these have been found
in areas of special status plants and are flagged as ‘Special Treatment’, non- operation, no
additional evaluation of impact is needed.
Sighted Species
Magalia Forest Health
Scientific Name Common Name
Acer macrophyllum Big Leafed Maple
Adenocaulon bicolor Trail Plant
Arctostaphylos mewukka Indian manzanita
Asarum hartwegii Wild Ginger
Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar
Calochortus monophyllus Yellow Star Tulip
Ceanothus cordulatus Mountain Whitethorn
Ceanothus cuneatus Buck Brush
Chlorogalum
pomeridianum
Soap Plant
Cornus nuttalii Pacific dogwood
Cynoglossum grande Houndstongue
Cytisus scoparius Scotch Broom
49
Dicentra formosa Bleeding Heart
Eriodictyon californicum California yerba santa
Erythronium
multiscapideum
Sierra fawn lily
Hesperocyparis
macnabiana
MacNab Cypress
Mimulus kelloggii Kellogg's Monkeyflower
Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa Pine
Pinus sabiana Grey Pine
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir
Pyrola picta White veined wintergreen
Quercus kelloggii California Black Oak
Ribes sp. Gooseberry
Rubrus laciniatus Cut-leaved blackberry
Rubus ursinus California blackberry
Sympohoricarpos mollis Snowberry
Torreya californica California Nutmeg
Toxidendron diversilobum Poison Oak
Umbellularia claifornica California Bay
Botanical Survey conducted by:
Cheryl Ballantyne, Bachelors of Science in Plant Science, UC Davis 1989. 32 years’ experience keying plant species in Butte, Lassen and Plumas Counties.
Seasonal volunteer Chico State Herbarium, database, annotation of species. Reference
California Native Plant Society (CNPS.org). 2017 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Version 8.
Accessed database: March 13, 2017.
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). Rarefind. Accessed database: March 13, 2017.
Reference Sight Visit:
Cardamine pachystigma var disectifolia, Carex xerophila and Fritillaria eastwoodiae: 0.1 mile north of
junction of Coutolenc Rd. and Skyway on USFS property. Visited 3/1/17, 3/14/17 and 4/1/17.
Chico State Herbarium:
Fritillaria eastwoodiae. Visited 2/10/2017
Mimulus glaucescens and Mimulus guttatus. Visited 6/2/2017.
50
Table 4.
Nesting Period and Habitat for Migratory Birds
Name of Migratory
bird species Months Habitat
Black-chinned Sparrow April-Mid-August
Concealed in dense foliage of a shrub, often Ceanothus, manzanita scrub.
Brewer's Sparrow May- August Concealed in shrubs.
Burrowing Owl March-August Old burrow of squirrel or other mammal.
California Spotted Owl March-June
Tree or snag cavity from 30-
180 ft. above ground.
Calliope Hummingbird May- August
Nests in Pine or montane
riparian tree.
Costa's Hummingbird April-July
Concealed in shrub of trees
about 5 ft. above ground.
Flammulated Owl May-August
Nests in cavity or woodpecker
hole in oak or pine.
Fox Sparrow Mid-May-August Ground or dense shrub.
Green-tailed Towhee April-August
Concealed in low shrub within
28" of ground.
Lewis's Woodpecker May-July Snag/dead part of live tree.
Loggerhead Shrike March-May Branches of tree/shrub
Long Billed Curlew April-August Wet meadow
Nuttall's Woodpecker March-July Dead tree, alder (Riparian)
Oak Titmouse March-July
Nests in woodpecker hole,
cavity or nest box.
Olive Sided Flycatcher June
Nest in confer 5-70 ft. above
ground
Rufous Crowned Sparrow
Mid-March-Mid-
June.
Concealed on ground at base
of shrub.
Short Eared Owl March-July Dry ground in vegetation
Snowy Plover April-August Shallow depressions in soil.
Swainson's Hawk March-August
Nests on a platform of sticks and bark in a tree bush or
utility pole 4-100 ft. above ground.
Western Grebe April-August Tules or cattails near open water.
White-Headed Woodpecker Mid-April-August
Open conifer habitats, cavity in large snag or stump 6-50 ft. above ground.
Williamson's Sapsucker May-July Trees
Willow Flycatcher June Fork of Willow or shrub
Yellow-billed Magpie
Late Feb to Mid-
July
Nest 30-80 ft. above ground,
bulky nest of twigs.
51
Table 5.
California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) Habitat
Assessment Worksheet
Watercourse Type All Streams Calm Waterbodies
Water
Course Segment
*
Range (Current) (Historic) (Outside)
Stream
Clasification
<4,200’
elevation
Non-
native predator
s present
Stream
gradients >4%
Slack
water areas
>20”
in depth
during high
water
Impacted
by spring snow melt
Greater
than 20” in depth
At
least 500sq ft in
size
# 1 Current Class 1 Yes Yes
# 2 Current Class 1 Yes Yes
# 3 Current Class 1 Yes Yes
# 4 Current Class 1 Yes Yes
# 5 Current Class 3 Yes Yes
# 6 Current Class 3 Yes Yes
# 7 Current Class 3 Yes Yes
# 8 Current Class 3 Yes Yes
# 9 Current Class 3 Yes Yes
# 10 Current Class 3 Yes Yes
# 11 Current Class 3 Yes Yes
# 12 Current Class 1 Yes Yes
# 13 Current Class 1 Yes Yes
# 14 Current Class 1 Yes Yes
# 15 Current Class 3 Yes Yes
# 16 Current Class 3 Yes Yes
Rock Substrate Present
Emergent Vegetation Present
Scrub-Shrub Present
Submerged Vegetation Present
Dense Shrubby Riparian Vegetation
Non-Native Predators Present
Possible Habitat for RLF
Greater than 20” in depth
At least 500 sq. ft. in size P1 Yes Some No No No No No Yes Yes
P2 No No No No No No No Yes Yes
P3 No No No No No No No Yes Yes
P4 No No No No No No No Yes Yes
Magalia
Reservoir
No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
(See Operations Map for stream segments and ponds)
52
Essential Aquatic Habitat Elements for California Red-legged Frog:
Range: Within the Current or Historic Range as mapped by Cal-Fire. Stream Classification: Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3a. Class 3a watercourses may have intermittent water
past late July, Class 3b watercourses do not. Less than 4,200 feet elevation: Only two occurrences of the CRF in the Sierras are above 3,500 ft. Of these two only one occurrences is within the last 50 years. This site is at about 4,200 ft and is at an old mill pond at least 1.25 acres in size. Of the 980 occurrences state wide listed in the California Natural
Diversity Database only 5(0.5%) are above 3,500 feet. No Non-Native Predators Present: The presence of non-native predators in smaller water bodies often
leads to extirpations of CRLF and make the habitat unsuitable. CRLF larvae are especially vulnerable to
fish predation immediately after hatching when the non-feeding larvae are relatively immobile. Bull frogs, mosquito fish and bass are common non-native predators of CRF. (USFWS 2002).
Stream Gradients less than 4%: Steams with less than 4% gradient are considered to provide suitable
breeding habitat.( US Forest Service, 2002) Slack Water Areas Present: Calm slack water areas in streams that are at least 20” in depth are part
CRLF habitat. During high flow events CRLF typically need quiet water refugia within a ¼ mile.
(USFWS 2002). Greater than 20” in depth during High Water: Stream with less than 20” in depth during high water
typical will not have sufficient slack water areas during high flow events and may not have sufficient water depth for breeding habitat later in the spring. Not Impacted by Spring Snow Melt: Streams that increase in flow from snow melts in late spring do
not provide breeding habitat because they lack slack water and maintain stream temperatures that are to cold for successful CRLF reproduction. Early Northern red-legged frog embryos require water temperatures between 48 and 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Study plots in the Pescadero Marsh showed the
CRLF tadpoles preferred water temperatures between 60 and 75 degrees Fahrenheit. Egg masses are attached to braces such as twigs or reeds where they float on the water. High flows during snow melt may detach the egg masses or the eggs may desiccate as receding levels leave them out of the water. (USFWS
2002) Calm Water Bodies that are greater than 20 inches in depth: Breeding habitat is typically greater than
2 feet in depth, still or slow moving water, and has dense shrubby riparian vegetation. (USFWS 2002). Calm Water bodies that are over 500sq. feet in size: Pond areas in the Sierras that are known to support breeding populations of CLRF range from 500sq. feet to 16,000 sq. feet.
53
CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines
CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
December 9, 1983 Revised June 2, 2001
The following recommendations are intended to help those who prepare and review environmental
documents determine when a botanical survey is needed, who should be considered qualified to conduct such surveys, how surveys should be conducted, and what information should be contained in the survey
report. The California Native Plant Society recommends that lead agencies not accept the results of
surveys unless they are conducted and reported according to these guidelines.
1. Botanical surveys are conducted in order to determine the environmental effects of proposed projects on all botanical resources, including special status plants (rare, threatened, and endangered plants) and plant (vegetation) communities. Special status plants are not limited to those that have been listed by state
and federal agencies but include any plants that, based on all available data, can be shown to be rare, threatened, or endangered under the following definitions: A species, subspecies, or variety of plant is “endangered” when the prospects of its survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy from one or
more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition, or disease. A plant is "threatened" when it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future in the absence of protection measures. A plant is "rare" when, although not presently threatened with extinction,
the species, subspecies, or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens. Rare plant (vegetation) communities are those communities that are of highly limited distribution.
These communities may or may not contain special status plants. The most current version of the California Natural Diversity Database's List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities should be
used as a guide to the names and status of communities. Consistent with the California Native Plant
Society’s goal of preserving plant biodiversity on a regional and local scale, and with California Environmental Quality Act environmental impact assessment criteria, surveys should also assess impacts
to locally significant plants. Both plants and plant communities can be considered significant if their local
occurrence is on the outer limits of known distribution, a range extension, a rediscovery, or rare or uncommon in a local context (such as within a county or region). Lead agencies should address impacts to
these locally unique botanical resources regardless of their status elsewhere in the state. 2. Botanical surveys must be conducted to determine if, or to the extent that, special status or locally
significant plants and plant communities will be affected by a proposed project when any natural
vegetation occurs on the site and the project has the potential for direct or indirect effects on vegetation.
3. Those conducting botanical surveys must possess the following qualifications: a. Experience conducting floristic field surveys; b. Knowledge of plant taxonomy and plant community ecology and classification;
c. Familiarity with the plants of the area, including special status and locally significant plants;
d. Familiarity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to plants and plant collecting; and, e. Experience with analyzing impacts of a project on native plants and communities.
4. Botanical surveys should be conducted in a manner that will locate any special status or locally
significant plants or plant communities that may be present. Specifically, botanical surveys should be:
a. Conducted in the field at the proper times of year when special status and locally significant plants are both evident and identifiable. When special status plants are known to occur in the type(s) of habitat
54
present in the project area, nearby accessible occurrences of the plants (reference sites) should be
observed to determine that the plants are identifiable at the time of survey.
b. Floristic in nature. A floristic survey requires that every plant observed be identified to species, subspecies, or variety as applicable. In order to properly characterize the site, a complete list of plants
observed on the site shall be included in every botanical survey report. In addition, a sufficient number of
visits spaced throughout the growing season is necessary to prepare an accurate inventory of all plants that exist on the site. The number of visits and the timing between visits must be determined by
geographic location, the plant communities present, and the weather patterns of the year(s) in which the
surveys are conducted. c. Conducted in a manner that is consistent with conservation ethics and accepted plant collection and
documentation techniques4,5. Collections (voucher specimens) of special status and locally significant plants should be made, unless such actions would jeopardize the continued existence of the population. A single sheet should be collected and deposited at a recognized public herbarium for future reference. All
collections shall be made in accordance with applicable state and federal permit requirements.
Photography may be used to document plant identification only when the population cannot withstand collection of voucher specimens.
d. Conducted using systematic field techniques in all habitats of the site to ensure a thorough coverage of potential impact areas. All habitats within the project site must be surveyed thoroughly in order to properly inventory and document the plants present. The level of effort required per given area and
habitat is dependent upon the vegetation and its overall diversity and structural complexity. e. Well documented. When a special status plant (or rare plant community) is located, a
California Native Species (or Community) Field Survey Form or equivalent written form, accompanied
by a copy of the appropriate portion of a 7.5-minute topographic map with the occurrence mapped, shall be completed, included within the survey report, and separately submitted to the California Natural
Diversity Database. Population boundaries should be mapped as accurately as possible. The number of
individuals in each population should be counted or estimated, as appropriate.
5. Complete reports of botanical surveys shall be included with all environmental assessment documents,
including Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declarations, Timber Harvesting Plans, Environmental Impact Reports, and Environmental Impact Statements. Survey reports shall contain the
following information:
a. Project location and description, including: 1) A detailed map of the location and footprint of the proposed project.
2) A detailed description of the proposed project, including one-time activities and ongoing activities that may affect botanical resources. 3) A description of the general biological setting of the project area.
b. Methods, including: 1) Survey methods for each of the habitats present, and rationale for the methods used. 2) Description of reference site(s) visited and phenological development of the target special status plants,
with an assessment of any conditions differing from the project site that may affect their identification. 3) Dates of surveys and rationale for timing and intervals; names of personnel conducting the surveys;
and total hours spent in the field for each surveyor on each date.
4) Location of deposited voucher specimens and herbaria visited. c. Results, including: 1) A description and map of the vegetation communities on the project site. The current standard for
vegetation classification, A Manual of California Vegetation6, should be used as a basis for the habitat descriptions and the vegetation map. If another vegetation classification system is used, the report must
reference the system and provide the reason for its use.
2) A description of the phenology of each of the plant communities at the time of each survey date. 3) A list of all plants observed on the project site using accepted scientific nomenclature, along with any
special status designation. The reference(s) used for scientific nomenclature shall be cited.
55
4) Written description and detailed map(s) showing the location of each special status or locally
significant plant found, the size of each population, and method used to estimate or census the population.
5) Copies of all California Native Species Field Survey Forms or Natural Community Field Survey Forms and accompanying maps.
d. Discussion, including:
1) Any factors that may have affected the results of the surveys (e.g., drought, human disturbance, recent fire).
2) Discussion of any special local or range-wide significance of any plant population or community on the
site. 3) An assessment of potential impacts. This shall include a map showing the distribution of special status
and locally significant plants and communities on the site in relation to the proposed activities. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the plants and communities shall be discussed. 4) Recommended measures to avoid and/or minimize direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.
e. References cited and persons contacted.
f. Qualifications of field personnel including any special experience with the habitats and special status plants present on the site.
56
ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL
1. Butte County. General Plan 2030 Draft Environmental Impact Report.
2. Butte County. General Plan.2030 Environmental Impact Report. Oroville, CA. April 8, 2010.
3. Butte County. General Plan 2030. Oroville, CA. October 26, 2010.
4. Butte County Regional Conservation Plan. Available at https://nrn.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline. March 14,2017.
5. Butte County. Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission. Adopted on December 20, 2000.
6. California Forest Practice Rules 2016.Title 14, California Code of Regulations, pg. 110, Peregrine Falcon.
7. Ecological Reserves. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?Document ID=123969&inline. Accessed #/9/2017
8. Butte County Noise Control Ordinance (Ordinance No. 4053). Adopted on March 26, 2013. Available at http://www.municode.com/library/ca/butte_county/codes
9. Butte County. Zoning Ordinance. Adopted November 6, 2012. Available at http://www.buttegeneralplan.net/
10. Expansive Soils. Butte County. General Plan 2030. Oroville, Ca. Accessed 3/9/2017.
11. California Scenic Highways. Available at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways. Accessed March 7, 2017.
12. California Department of Conservation. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California. Altquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. Special Publication 42. Interim Revision. 2007.
13. California Department of Conservation. Fault Activity Map of California. Available at maps.conservation.cgs/fam/
14. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. 2004. A Guide to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
15. California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at maps. Conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html
16. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. California Natural Diversity Database. Accessed via RareFind 5.
17. California Native Plant Society. Rare Plant Program. 2016. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02) Sacramento, CA. Available at http://www.rareplants.cnps.org
18. California Dept. Fish and Wildlife. Tricolored Blackbird Nesting Requirements. https:/nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=10506.Accessed 3/14/2017.
19. California Herps. Blaineville’s Lizard. http://www.californiaherps.com/lizards/pages/p.blainvillii.html. Accessed 3/14/2017.
20. California Dept. Fish and Wildlife. Cascade Frog. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=1498&inline=1. Accessed 3/14/2017.
21. Canadian Journal of Zoology. Aplodontia rufu. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/Z07-007#.WMgnlvJSJ4Q. Accessed 3/14/2017.
22. Butte Regional Conservation Plan. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentdID=68626&imline. Accessed 3/14/2017.
57
23. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Piled Fuels Calculator. https://depts.washington.edu/nwfire/piles/index.php? Accessed 3/22/2017.
24. Burn pile CO2 Emissions. https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera/research/smoke/piles.shtml. Accessed 3/24/2017.
25. Estimating Carbon Stocks. https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pub/2394. Accessed 3/27/2017.
26. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Federally protected wetlands. Accessed 3/9/2017.Available at https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data /Mapper.html.
27. Migratory Bird Species. IPAC, accessed 4/3/2017. Available
at:https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ASVKXM5YOFFTHAQR2TRSTJ5EMY/resources#migratory-birds.
28. Migratory bird monitoring histogram. Accessed 4/3/2017, available at:
http://data.prbo.org/cadc2/index.php?page=142.
29. Spotted owl overwintering area. Accessed 4/3/2017 available at:
https://map.dfg.ca.gov/bios/?bookmark=327.
30. Definition of Water course class. California Forest Practice Rules 2016, Title 14, California Code of
Regulations, pg 74.
31. Butte County Air Quality, Air Quality Standards Butte County Attainment Status. Available at:
https://bcaqmd.org/planning/air-quality-standards-air-pollutants/. Accessed on 4/17/2017.
32. California Native Plant Society, Botanical Survey Guidelines. Available at:
http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/pdf/cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf. Accessed on 5/16/2017.
33. Butte County Fritillary Slapjack DFPZ Prescribed Fire Study, Feather River Ranger District, Plumas
National Forest. Lawrence Janeway and Chris Christofferson. 2009.
34. Carex xerophila, A New Sedge from Chaparral of Northern California. Madrono. Vol. 61 No. 3, pg
302. Peter Zika, Lawrence Janeway, Barbara Wilson.
Appendix B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 58
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Appendix B
Magalia Forest Health
CEQA Lead Agency:
Butte County
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, Ca 95965
Prepared by
Sierra Timber Services
1600 Feather River Blvd. Ste. B
Oroville, Ca
530-534-5229
Appendix B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 59
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) has been prepared in
conformance with Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines. The MMRP ensures implementation of the measures being
imposed to mitigate or avoid potentially significant impacts identified in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
As discussed in the MND, impact areas requiring mitigation are:
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following table list impacts, mitigation measures, responsible and monitoring
parties, and the timing the measures are to be implemented.
Appendix B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 60
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible/
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring Action
or Implementation
Stage
Air Quality
4.3(d) Exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations may occur while pile
burning is being done.
(Mitigation Measure #1) A
smoke management plan shall be
submitted to the Butte County
Air Quality Management District
through Prescribed Fire
Information Reporting System
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
14 days prior to
ignition of piles.
A Butte County Air Quality
Management District Burn
Permit shall be obtained.
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
14 days prior to
ignition of piles.
Burns will be conducted in small
units (<20 acres per day)
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
During operations
Biological Resources
4.4(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Mitigation Measure #2) If
operations take place during the
critical period (March 15 to August
15), before operations begin a
walking raptor survey shall be
conducted for Accipiter gentilis
(Northern Goshawk), and Pandion
haliaetus (Osprey) nests. If either
Acipiter gentilis or Pandion
haliaetus nest are found, a 5 acre ‘no
operations’ buffer shall be created
around the nest.
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
Prior to the
beginning of
operations each
season
Appendix B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 61
4.4(g) A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range, or an impact to
the critical habitat of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of
animals?
( Mitigation Measure #3)
Sambucas species (Elderberry)
shall not be cut down or
removed from project area.
Sambucas species (Elderberry)
has not been found to date in
project area, however potential
habitat exists. Any Sambucas sp.
(Elderberry) within treatment
area shall be protected during
operations.
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
Prior to the
beginning of
operations each
season
(Mitigation Measure #4) If
operations take place during
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ( Bald
Eagle) critical period (Jan. 15 to
Aug. 15, or 4 weeks after
fledgling), if the Bald Eagle nest
is occupied, a ‘no operations’
buffer zone of 10 acres shall be
created around the Bald Eagle
nest. (see Operation Map). If
operations are scheduled to
occur during Haliaeetus
leucocephalus (Bald Eagle)
critical period (January 15 until
August 15 or four weeks after
fledging), before operations may
begin a survey shall be
conducted for Haliaeetus
leucocephalus (Bald Eagle)
nest(s). If a Haliaeetus
leucocephalus (Bald eagle)
nest(s) is found a 10 acre ‘no
operations’ buffer zone shall be
created around the nest.
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
Prior to the
beginning of
operations each
season
Appendix B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 62
(Mitigation Measure #7)
Special Status plants (Carex
xerophila, Fritillaria
eastwoodiae, and Eriogonum
umbellatum var. ahartii) have
been found in the Serpentine
outcrop and volcanic outcrop
areas, (see Operation Map).
Before operations may begin
within these areas on any given
year, a protocol botanical survey
shall be conducted. If any special
status plants are located within
the project area, a 25’ equipment
exclusion zone (EEZ) shall be
established to protect the plants
during the blooming period. No
burn piles shall be located within
the EEZ. Prescribed burning
may occur where Fritillaria
eastwoodiae has been found, in
the fall. Prescribed burning shall
not take place where Carex
xerophila or Eriogonum
umbellatum var. ahartii have
been found in the Serpentine
outcrop and volcanic outcrop
areas.
(Mitigation Measure #12) Prescribed burning shall take
place between September 1 and February 15th.
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
Prior to the
beginning of
operations each
season
During Operations
Appendix B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 63
4.4(h) A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite (including
mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish or invertebrates)? (Mitigation Measure # 13)
Trees of value to wildlife shall be protected by removing fuels
from underneath the drip line or other effective means during prescribed burns. Trees of value
to wildlife are defined as trees
exhibiting any of the following characteristics: forked tops,
nests mistletoe clumps, cavities, large oaks. Firing operations shall start in
one side of the prescribed burn unit and proceed at a slow
enough rate that wildlife does not become trapped.
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
During Operations
4.4(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
(Mitigation Measure #6) The
federally protected wetlands,
(See Operation Map), shall not
be in the project area
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
Area excluded, no
monitoring needed.
4.4(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 or the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means)?
(Mitigation Measure #6) The
federally protected wetlands,
(See Operation Map), shall not
be in the project area
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
Area excluded, no
monitoring needed.
4.4 (d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish and wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
(Mitigation Measure #5) If
operations are scheduled to occur
during critical nesting period of
Migratory birds, before operations
may begin a walking survey shall be
conducted for nests. (See Table 4.)
No operations shall take place
within 250’ of any nesting migratory
bird.
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
Prior to the
beginning of
operations each
season
Appendix B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 64
4.4 (i) A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for foraging,
breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)?
(Mitigation Measure #8) Hand
Treatment Areas. For Class I and
II Watercourses there shall be a
25 ft. protection zone width.
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
Prior to the
beginning of
operations
(Mitigation Measure#8)
Mechanized Treatment Areas
and Prescribed Burn area.
For < 30% Slope; Class I - 75 ft.
Class II - 50 ft. Class III - 25 ft.
For 30-50 % slope; Class I - 100
ft, Class II - 75 ft., Class III - 50
ft. For > 50% Slope; Class I -
150 ft., Class II - 100 ft. Class III
- 50 ft.
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
Prior to the
beginning of operations
Cultural Resources
4.5(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
(Mitigation Measure #10) If
operations will occur on parcels
064-270-044-000, 066-010-003-000
or 066-010-008-000, (Section 36
T23N R03E.)
(Mitigation Measure #14) In the
event of an inadvertent discovery of
preciously unidentified cultural
material, archaeological consultation
should be sought immediately.
(Mitigation #15) In the event that
human remains are inadvertently
encountered during trenching or
other ground disturbing activity or at
any time subsequently, operations
shall cease, State law shall be
followed, which includes, but is not
limited to, immediately contacting
the County Coroner’s office upon
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
Prior to operations
occurring in these
parcels.
During Operations
During Operations
Appendix B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 65
any discovery of human remains.
4.5(c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature?
(Mitigation Measure #10) If
operations will occur on parcels
064-270-044-000, 066-010-003-
000 or 066-010-008-
000,(Section 36 T23N R03E.)
before operations can occur, a
professional Archeologist shall
review site boundaries and flag
MFH 1 and MFH 2 for ‘No
Operations’ protection.
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
Prior to operations
occurring in these
parcels.
Hazard and Hazardous Material
4.8(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
(Mitigation Measure #9)
Equipment used on this project
shall not be serviced in locations
where grease, oil, or fuel could
pass into a watercourse.
Operations shall follow all
applicable state and federal laws.
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
Prior to the
beginning of
operations.
(h.)Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(Mitigation Measure #11) CALFIRE shall be responsible for overseeing burn operations,
ensuring personnel are properly trained and that adequate
resources are present to prevent escaped fire.
Butte County
Fire Safe
Council
During operations.
.CAtIFORNIA.
Bffirill.{rt¡tlt
BUTTE COUNTY FEDERAL/STATE IAND USE
COORDINATING COMMITTEE
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE
OROVIILE, CA 95965
August 25,2017
Pete Calarco, Assistant Director
Butte County Development Services, Planning Division
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Subject: Letter of Support in Response to CEQA-17-0004: Magalia Forest Health Project
The Butte County Federal State Land Use Coordinating Committee ("Committee") is writing in support of the
Magalia Forest Health Project, for which the above referenced CEQA document has been prepared. The
Committee fully supports fuels reduction projects in and around Butte County communities vulnerable to
wildfire, and this project is deemedessential to the welfare of the Magalia and Paradise Pines communities. lhe
project fallswithin theguidelinesestabl'shedinthe Butte UnitStrategicFirePlan, generallyknown asthe
CWPP (Community Wildfire Protection Plan, developed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte,
Cal-Fire,Butte County Fire and the Butte County FireSafeCouncil(BCFSC).
The Magalia Forest Health Plan ("Plan") and the CEQA document have been presented to the Forest Advisory
and Coordinating Committees and demonstrates to our full satisfaction that this project is imperative to the
safety and welfare of the community, an excellent example of collaborative planning and stakeholder readiness,
and a conscientious approach to necessary mitigation measures to ensure protection of resources and the
environment.
The Coordinating Committee has reviewed the CEQA document and finds that the mitigation measures outlined
to protect airquality, waterquality, fish and wildlife, plants and other biological resources, cultural resources,
and persons or resources exposed to potential hazards are satisfactory.
ln summary, the Federal/State Land Use Coordinating Committee supports the Mitigated Negative Declaration
proposed by Development Services Planning Division. Accordingly, we urge timely approval to facilitate
effective implementation of the Magalia Forest Health Plan.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Resp
aDennis S
Butte County Federal/State Land Use Committee
Butte County Fire Safe Council
Butte County Forest Advisory Committee
Cc:
.cAtttoRNtA.
lÊtltltil-orÍilft
BUTTE COUNTY FEDERAL/STATE LAND USE
COORDINATING COMMITTEE
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE
OROVILLE, CA 95965
August 25,2OL7
Calli-Jane De Anda, Executive Director
Butte County Fire Safe Council
56L9 Black Olive Drive
Paradise, CA 95969
Subject: Letter of Support in Response to Magal¡a Forest Health Plan
Dear Ms. DeAnda:
The Butte County Federal State Land Use Coordinating Committee ("Coordinating Committee") is writing in
support of the Magalia Forest Health Plan. The County fully supports fuels reduction projects in and around
Butte County communities vulnerable to wildfire, and this project is deemedessential to the welfare of the
MagaliaandParadisePinescommunities. lheprojectfallswithintheguidelinesestablishedintheButte Unit
Strategic Fire Plan, generally known asthe CWPP (Community Wildfire Protection Plan, developed by the
Boa rd of Sr pervisors of t h e Co u n ty of Butte, Ca l-Fire, Butte County Fire and the Butte Cou nty Fire Safe Council
(BCFSC).
The Magalia Forest Health Plan ("Plan") has been presented to the Forest Advisory Committee and
demonstrates to our full satisfaction that this project is imperative to the safety and welfare of the community,
and an excellent example of collaborative planning and stakeholder readiness, We commend the Butte County
Fire Safe Council fortheiroutreach efforts to localorganizations, government agencies and community
members in order to undeftake the landscape level fuels reduction planning. We understand that the project is
planned for implementation over the next decade, and will involve collaboration with the California
Conservation Corps, CalFire, the US Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and private property
owners in the designated areas identified as being overstocked with trees and brush, experiencing tree mortality
and being hazardous to the public due to dead and dying trees or due to the potential for crowning behavior in
the event of a wildfire.
The Coordinating Committee has reviewed and supports the Silvicultural Recommendations, which include
provisionsforleavinganumberofyoungtreestoregeneratetheoverstoryoncematuretreesstartdying. The
plan includes thinner fuels with sharply reduced ladder fuels, which would provide a defensible fire protection
zone along the roads, greater visibility through the forest, and enhanced safety near infrastructure, with an
emphasis on treating the most critical areas early in the implementation of the plan. This project will
complement fuels reduction projects that have already been completed by the BCFSC, private lumber
companies and community members, and demonstrates the commitment of the BCFSC to help protect the
communities of Magalia and Paradise Pines from the effects of devastating wildfires. We agree that effective
partnership amongst stakeholders is necessary and critical to help protect communities from wildfires.
It is requested that implementation of the final Proposed Action include provisions that are viable alternatives to
biomass removal, due to short supply of biomass plants and the cost of delivery, such as: piling timber/brush in
small piles that may be burned safely and allowing local woodcutters to have access to firewood piles under
specified times and conditions. We would also like to see additional outreach for use of wood chips elsewhere
in the area, i.e. erosion control, community members' personal use, local garden supply firms, etc.
We understand the pros and cons of vegetation prescribed burning and underburning and the potentialfor
damaging root systems of trees, resulting in weakened trees and potential tree die off and blow downs in future
years. This is especially pertinent since the project area has not burned in decades, and the duff on the ground
is very thick and tends to burn more hotly. Another concern is the likelihood of losing control of a prescribed
burn, so we believe small acreage fires after rains and in calm conditions are most prudent if prescribed burns
are implemented. The County supports ongoing maintenance of fuels reduction projects, and believes that the
assessment surrounding The70% canopy recommendation to reduce the frequency of maintenance is likely a
cost effective approach to reducing the re-growth of brush.
The Coordinating Committee strongly supports implementation of this Project, and other similar projects
throughout the wildland urban interface zones, and agrees that action needs to be taken sooner rather than
later; that "the next one to three decades are a critical period in mixed-use conifer forest management and
conservation in the Sierra Nevada" (USDA Forest Service, 2Ot2). We request periodic progress updates made
available to the public, so that stakeholders and other interested parties continue to be informed and involved
in this important fuels reduction project.
ln summary, we stand united with the citizens of the Magalia/Paradise Pines, the Butte County Fire Safe Council,
Cal-Fire and other stakeholders in support of thinning projects to create WUI safety zones that are critical for the
welfare of the community and in the best interest of the forest. Accordingly, we urge timely approval and
effective implementation of the Magalia Forest Health Plan.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
ly,
Butte County Federal/State Land Use Committee