HomeMy WebLinkAbout028-190-042t
y y/n''►� 67 7 V i 1w1 L 1}"lA .;Yi l .i i:i� - , .v...-.... >,. »±wr« a ,•
88-09-16-0 .,_ ..
Wr.Iwgw .Y iN
James Arnold
Ap?T,ZGANT>ti" ~
9-6 6
600 NpRd.,Cl rov7� l
ham
_.
OWNER
Same ,... ..
O NER r
Tentative Parcel Map to divide 1l0'i-- acre.----�-o± create 3
VR03ECT DBSCRIPTXON_—.:�'-------
Via` cel s:
l @ 22 acres_l C.�9 aca.es - ,�� 50� Port;
at the southwest ce Road
m
orner of the e sects on o ��
Mill Road,Bangor o
& Robinson
,�,�.., rr..,..�. .. ..... r.
..... ----.------__ 28-19-42,45
A85ES, SOR' pARC?,L NtJMT3 ,R {5) «- ---rr
A`5 G ;bTF,R711+ 1? A1V� Ag-Res,i 'VROjECT CON -_
SON ING�„�....;._......_.......d..,«. -
8-22«-88 � .�.Yr�
C ,NERAL t?LAN CONFORMANCE REPORT
-�T3ATr Off' �,T�� CANS' SIC�NA'T~CTT�t�
No
LAND CONSERVATION ACT CON'T,'RAC'Y"5�.�,, _
.September 15 � 1988
DATr!, APPLICA"TOl
Barnhart -Brown & Associ�i�e5�
CIVIL ENGINEER'..
AG8NT/SURV'EYOR/ A 95965 Oxoville, C
PO. .Box 7.576,
PLAN NING 01 REC'i'C) [t 0 8
REPl71',T
Dt.rot
CATnGORxcAL EXEMPTION " HATE
.�:.:.
i�zl'S't7 r1 C��A7' Ct�1V
NEGATIVE 05CLARA'XION _ OATt
AbC) ?'k'E:O.,r. ;.._.....AN
D D ATE
MITIGATED NEG. tai'*C LARATION
DATE,A00VTZ17— .« ..
w
I+N`V . REi`'f Rq' -- nATE CEIt '7 3 i 1 a�� ' :, �. _-.d_ •- . ,., �
w ...
8011, (.0*111P"rrX
1!T)V I'�txT1' AGENCY JC.
'4 0 1.'.Il ACTION
.4wr/4+. YwJ.•n+ira�wYw.x +i'-+..Mwi.z 1a,r..l+,wN .�. `�'^^ ji1
y}�j j' y. N U
'��/
qq�� TT��yy�� 5j�,��y, •
�,E',I�.�R PLA4Vi IAG
V x�''���r�Rr �r���oRm ��. `'x • ��
`�`-
? �
11 Ii dk �
n �<<�, r'''�.:..;.,.�,W.Y: �s �. d ..,
�/Q'” �
( K„ �, ?° ?,l"� �t /E �' i�d �`f�''t�
{°"`�' � d.'t �" d".tr (� �r�i�",•�"'' Il ! � , ,.r.., ...w:+:.+�
..:::iyyir....i+u:.+-irr....:..•.+.u+...,..+..w«rl:Yi'•r"'"w'Y':i:..+..+.0 .+w,+W..
y
Office of Planning andeseach " F
1401) ,Tenth Street, Roo , 121 ,,, ,rkr Butto County
Sacramento, CA 95811 ,4 Planning Department
or MAR '110 1,999 7 County Center Drive
Oroville CA 95965
X County Clerk CANDACE J GHUK'S', !;wile Go. Glerl(
County of Butte
SC1�3-TEC' Filing of Notice of Determination in complia►lce with Section 21108
or 21152 of the Public Resources Code,
Project Title
AP ii '
Tentative Parcel Map
Naiiui
State C earinghouse Number 28-19-42,45 James Arnold
(if submitted to Clearinghouse) Contact Pelson Telephone Ntunber
Public Works_ John Mendonsa
Project Location Tentative Parcel Map to divide llgi ac38-7266
threes res into
�" parcels of 22, 29 and 60 acres.
Project Description p At the southwest corner of the intersection of La
Porte Road and Robinson Mill Road, Bangor area.
This is to advise that the Butte County Advisory A` gency
has ap�;roved the above-described (Lead Agency or Res.Pon8.,ble Agency)project on Manch 6 1989
and has made
the following determinations regarding the above-described) project:
1• The project Wi11
environment, X Will not, have a signifiCant effect ori the
2 -An p
Bnvironmental impact
act Re ort was prepared for this project.
pursuant to the provisions of CEQA,
�.'i. A Negative Declaration Was prepared for this project pursuant to the
Provisions of CEOA,
I. Mitigation measures
` It were) _—Were riot, made a condition of the
approval of the project.
a
4. A statement of overriding considerations teas.
For th:s project, -- X_ Mas not, adopted
This is to certify that the final UR with comments and res onSeS
project approval Is available to the general public atn p and record of
Butte County Planning Departiiient
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Date Received for Vilil%g and ,
Posting at OPP
S�gnatur
)Bill TurPir,
&It 8 sensor Planner__ _
_T xtle
11
James Arnold
AP#08-22-88
Tentative Parcel Map
MITIGATION MEASURES:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL v1ITIGATIONS
I. Designate on the final map archaeological coilsarvat on zones
1, 2, and 3 as per the revised tentative parcel. map.
2• Designative with notes on the final map restrictions and
recommendations affecting each respective archaeological
conservation zone as follows:
ZONE 1; No development of any kind includncg, but not
limited to, construction
disturbing activities, shall gbedi?ermitted within
the zone without compliance with the
recommendations and alternative
measures outlined in -the mitigation
ofessiona
archaeological services report dsxted December 1988
authored by Alfred Farber, and the Butte County
Planning Director's approval.
ZONE 2'c No development of any kind including, but not
limited to, construction, grading or an
round
disturbing activities, shall be permitted within
the zone without co;npliance with the
recommendations and alternative
measure-8mitigation
outlined ir.the professional
archaeological services report dated December 1988
authored by Alfred Farber, and the Butte County
Planning Directoros approval,
ZONE 3. It is recommended that the landowner voluntarily
avoid future r construction within the
zone, grading o
I£ County approval is required for
additional subdivision or zone changes, a
qualified archaeologj„st shall be consulted for
evaluation of the propo8al and the impacts to the
zone, and appropriate m tigation measures
incorporated into project approval
beede. Analysts Biological Report recommends a no building z
gnated on the final map. This and additional mitigationsne
are proposed as fol.l.owc
BIOLOGICAL, MITIGATIONS
3, Designate on the final map a no devOldbMen:L wildlife
easement area as per the revised tentative map,
6
4. Designate with notes on the final map the following
restrictions and affecting these parcels:
(A') No brush clearing and removal shall be permitted within
the no development wildlife easement area.
(B) Any replacement fencing around the parcels or, between
the parcels shall be limited to s or fewer strands of
barbed wire, with the bottom strands at leas-- 18 inches
above ground Level. The top strand or barbed wire
should be no higher than 48 inches above ground level.
(C) Owner agrees to pay deer mitigation fees required by
County Ordinance for issuance of building permit(s) at.
the time such use permit(s) are issued.
to
tl
CERTIFIED [`JAIL:
Co. Planning cftm
Ills, CaltfiarnEs
LAND aF
N A T 0 R A L WIAITI-I AND BEAU''Y
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC woRKS
WILLIAM (Bill) CJJErl', �]Ir�cCor
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE- OROVILI.te, CALIFORNIA 95965
Tolcphonc• (916) 5538-7266
RONALD D, McELRoY
Deputy Director
March 6, 1939
James Arnold RBi AP 28=18-42 mid 45
600 Ophem Road TPM
Bangor, CA 95914
Dear Mr. Arnold:
At the regular meeting of the Butte County Advisory Agency held on
March 6, 1989, the Agency adopted a negative declaration with
environmental mitigations and approved the tentative parcel map on
the above==referenced property subject to the conditions listed on
the attached sheet.
If no appeals are timely filed—within ten (10) days of tht� date of
the Advisory Agency's approval --with the Clerk of the Boaxd of
Supervisors, this action will be final.
When the conditions of approval are complied with, it will be in order
for you to file your "final map" with the Butte County Department
of Public `orks for recordation within twenty -.Lour (24) months of
the date of approval by the Advisory Agency,
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this
office,
VerY truly yours,
William Chef
Director of public tJoll<s
ohn Mendonse
ssistant Director
JM/ds
attachment
cc; 'Pl.anrring Departmert
Environmental 14e610 Department
Barnhart/BrOWn
James Arnold, TPM, AP 28-18-42 and 45, 3 parcels located Ott tho
;southwest corner of the intersection of La Porte Road and Rol)1,11son
Mill Road. Bangor area. Engineer: Barnhart/Brown
T'Llblie Works condition—t:
l: Deed to the County of Butte 30 ft. right-of-way from t-ho Oonterline
of Upham Road, Robinson Mill 'Road and La Porte Road.
2 Indicate a 50 ft. building setback from the centerline cal' Upham
Road, Robinson Mill Road, and Le Porte Road.
3 Show all easements of record on the final man.
4 Obtain encroachment permit for all driveways, new or eix3tltig, and
construct to county standards.
5 Pay any delinquent taxes or current taxes as required,
G Meet the requirements of the Butte County Fire Department,
Health Department conditions:
7 Provide a 100 ft. leachfield free setback around existing wells
either within the property or within 100 ft, of the property boundaries
on parcels 1, 2 and 3.
8 Show a 50 ft. leachfield setback from the drainage way on parcels
1, 2 and 3.
9 Show a 103 ft,leachfield setback from the highwater line of the
creek on parcel S.
10 Show a 200 £t. leachfield setback from 010 highwater line of the
lake on parcels 2 and 3.
11 Indicate on the map the meas with slopes in excess of 30 percent
are unsuitable .for sewage disposal.
12 Show with. soil depth that the usable sewage disposal area
proven to meet the roquirements of the Subdivision Ordinance exists on
parcel one,
13 Prove that the veq°aired quantities of domestic water are available to
parcels 1, e and 3„
14 Usable P4wage disposal area as shown shall not conflict with wildlife
easd'n,-')ts or archaeological conservation zones as shown on final map
Planning �eptt. condition;
15 ".11 near structural siting is to be located in the northern half
of the RTPM and within 500 ft, of Upham or La Porte Toads, Show
above on final map,
0
01
JAMES ARNOLD, TPM
ARCHAEOLOGICAL MITIGATIONS
0
2. Designate on the final man archaeological conservation zones
1, 2, and 5 as per the revised tentative parcel map.
3. Designative with notes on the final map restrictions and
recommendations affecting each respective archaeological
conservation tone as follows:
ZONE #1: No development of any kind including, but not
limited to, construction, grading or any ground
L
disturbing activities, shall be permitted within
the zone without compliance with the
recommendations and alternative mitigation
Measures outlined in the professional
archaeological services report dated December 1988
authored by Alfred Farber, and the Butte County
Planning Director's approval.
ZONE 424 No development of any kind including, but not
limited to, construction, grading or any ground
disturbing activities, shall be permitted within
the . zone without compliance with the
recommendations and alt;tnative mit--gation
measures outlined in the professional
archaeological services report dated December 1988
authored by Alfred Farber, and the Butte County
Planning Director's approval.
ZONE 'Am 8: It is recommended that the landowner Voluntarily
avoid future grading or construction within the
zone. If County approval is required for
additional subdivision or zone thanges, a
qualified archaeologist shall be consulted Ebt
evaluation of the ptupo8al and the impacts to the
zone, and appropriate mitigation measures
incorporated into project approval.
BIOLbG!(-'U MITIGATIONS
4. Designate on the final map a no development wildlife
easement area as per the revised tentative map:
'
JAMES ARNOLD, TPM
S. Designate with notes on the final map this Following
restrictions and affecting these parcels:
(A) No brush clearing and removal shall: be perma.tted within
the no development wildlife easement area.
(B) Any replacement fencing around the parcel^ or between
the parcels shall be limited to S or fewO r strands of
barbed wire, with the bottom strands at least 18 inches
above ground level. The top strand of barbed wire
should be no higher than 48 inches above ground level
(C) owner agrees to pay deer mitigation fees required by
County Ordinance for issuance of building permit(5) at
the time such use permit(s) are issued.
F
INTER -DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
TO: Butte County Advisory Agency
FROM
SUBJECT:
DATE
Planning Director
Report on Tentative Marcel Map of James Arnold,
AP#08-22--88
February 22,, 1989
This is a proposal for a Tentative Parcel Map to divide 110+ -
acres to create 3 parcels, l at 22 acres, l at 29 acres, and 1 at
60 acres. The present zoning is A-5. The Land Use Plan Map of
the Butte County General Plan designates this area as
Agricultural -Residential
The Proposal does not conflict with County zoning nor any adopted
or proposed element of the Butte County General Plan nor any
county; specific or community plan.
Recommend approval subject to the following condition and
Mitigation Measures.
1. All new :3tructural'siting is to by located in the northern
half of the RTPM and within 500 feet of Upham or La Porte.
Roads. show above on final map,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL MITIGATIONS
2. Designate on the Final map archaeological conservation zones
1 2, and 3 as per the revised tentative parcel: map;
3. Designative with notes on the final map restrictions and
recommendationsaffecting each respective archaeological
conservation zone as follows
2014E 41! No development of any kind including, but not
Limited to, construction, grading or any ground
disturbing activities, shall be permitted within
the zone without compliance with the
recommendations and al.ternatvo mitigation
measures outlined in the professional
archaeological services report dated December 1988
authored by Alfred Farber, and the Butte County
Planning DIreCtor, s approval,
ZONE#2: No development of any kind including, but not
limited to, construction, grading or any ground
disturbing activities, shall be permitted within
the zone without compliance with the
recommendations and alternative mitigation
measures outlined in the professional
archaeological services report dated December 1988
authored by Alfred Farber, and the Butte County
Planning Director's approval.
ZONE #3: it is recommended that the landowner voluntarily
avoid future grading or construction within the
zone If County approval is required for
additional subdivision or zone changes, a
qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for
evaluation of the proposal and the impacts to the
zone, and appropriate mitigation measures
incorporated into project approval.
The Eco --Analysts Biological Report recommends a no building zone
be designated on the final map. This and additional mitigations
are proposed as follows:
BIOLOGICAL MITIGATIONS
4. Designate on the final, map a no development wilda ife
easement area as per the revised tentative map.
S. Designate with notes on the final map the following
restrictions and affecting these parcels:
(A) No brush clearing and removal shall be permitted within
the no development wildlife easement area.
(B) Any replacement fencing around the parcels or between
It --he parcels shall, be limited to 5 Or feVOr strands of
barbed wire, With the bottom strands at least 18 inche
above ground level, °The,s
-r p strand off' bark;^d wire
should be no higher than 48 inches above
ground level,
(C) Owner agrees to pay deer mitigation fees required by
the time such use permits are building permits) at
Count Ordinance for issuance of }guild
permit(8) issued,
Dli ., f cu
CC James Arnold
Barnhart -grown and Associates
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED
ARNOLD TENTATIVE PARCELMAP AREA (.A.P. #28-18-112,45)
BUTTE COUNTI, CALIFORNIA
by Alfred Farber
P A 5 PWESSIONAt ArtCNfE0[0GICA1 SERI+ICES
=_ 6635 Ouall Way • Paradise, -CA 95969 • 9161072.3164
prepared for
BARNH;ART - B!�OWK 4 LSSOCIBTE
1881 A Pobinscin 6treet
P:O. Box 157G
Orov llej Californ.a 95965
DECEMBER, 1088
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
CULTUTIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT . . . • .
. . . 2
Geographic and Environmental Setting •
• • • • • • • '
. . 2
Ethnographic Background . .
5
Archaeological. Background . • •
6
Areal Uistory . . . . . . . . .
r
RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION . • • . • • • • `
. . g
'Methods
Field Survey
' ' 9
.
Survey . . • . •
Results
.
9
Site Descriptions . . . . . . .
. . 9
ARNOLD SITE 01 . . .
. . 10
ARNOLD SITE 412 . .
. 11
ARN0LD SITE fa • • • • .
.
. . . 12
RECOMMENDATIONS . • • • • • • • .
.
12
Parcel 1 . . . .• . . . . . .
12
parcel 2 . . . . . . .
13
Parcel 3 . .
. . . . 15
REFERENCES CITED • . . ' ' . "
MAP 1 Project 'vicinity avid Location
• . • . . 19
FIGURE 1z Artifact filustrations . • ..
. • . .
FIGURE 2: Artifact Illustration
.
SITE RECORDS~ SITE MAPS, SITE LOCtTION MAP
(Separately 'Submitted)
i
INTRODUCTION
A Tentative Parcel Map (Arnold TPN; AP#28-18-42,45) has been.
submitted to the Butte County Planning Department for the purpose
of depicting the configuration of a proposed land -s
Rackerby, southeastern Butte County, California (Map 1 .. near
Pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (C`EQA), an environmental review of
tile
undertaking was initiated to determine the effects proposed
Split might have on natural and cultural that the landd
(.e, archaeological and
historical) resources. Under the county's review pracedures, the
Project was reviewed by the California Arab aeol.ogic,4 Inventory,
Northeast Information Center,, California State University, Chico:
Archaeologists of the Information Center conducted a records
search, upon which it was determined that, due to ,he
presence of
a perennial water source
(Robinson Ravine), expanses of flatland.
near water, and south and east facing slopes on the property, as
well as a number of previously recorded dies in the
vicinity, the project
J, project area was -considered to be archaeologically
sensitive. Consequently, the information Center strongly
recommended that an archaeological reconnaissance of the project
area should be conducted- by a qualified arehaeolOgist and
approptliate mitigation measures implemented.
Acting on behalf of the landowner, Barnhart Brown &
Associates, Oroville, California, contractedwith Professional
Archaeological Services
investigation and (PAS) to conduct the .archaeological
Prepare this report summarizing the results:.
The field reconnaissance etas undertaken on December 2 and ,
1988 by archaeologist Neal Neuenschwander under the direction of
the author who commends Neal for a job well done. Maps and
artifact illustrations Frere prepared by graphic artist Carol
Farber, whose contribution the author greatly appreciates.
Three prehistoric archaeological sites were identified and
recorded as a result of the survey. Site records; site mapsy and
the site location map were not bound into this report, since each
of these documents contain clues to the specific locations of" the
site. All specific references to site locations were avoided
within `:hi report in order to protect the sites from
vandalisiti. ial
Copies of the site records, site maps, and entate
Location map, along tirith this report, have been submitted to�tile
California Archaeological this,
Northeast Informw'tion
Center, Ca,ifornia State University; Chico, in order to meet
requirements of the State of California,
CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
Geographic and Environmental Setting/Project Area Dencript on
The project area comprises approximately 111 nacres, which
the landowner proposes to split into three parcels of 22, 60, and
29 acres. Parcel 1 (22 acres) would be the easternillost parcel.
A dairy occupies its northern extremity, and the dairy operation
would continue under new own-ership. Parcel 2 (60 acres') in the
middle of the TPM contains two houses, a barn, and Wo artificial
ponds. This parcel constitutes the residence of the Ian?owner,
and is not expected tr I -,old in the near future, Land -use in
this parcel would continue: as at present. Parcel. 3 (29 acres)
occupies the western portion of the project area.. There is a
pond in the extreme north, and Robinson Ravine, a perennial
stream that flows southward to eventually drain into Honcut
Creek, runs along the eastern boundary of Parcel 3. Oldham
Cemetery is adjacent to the southwestern boundary of Parcel 3.
The property is now nearly treeless, and consists of gently
rolling hills. An extremely thick ground coder of thistle and
grasses severely restricted ground visibility in some areas of
the project area; making the archaeological reconnaissance
difficult (and raising the possibility that other, undiscovered
cultural sites might still exist on the property). Along with
Robinson Ravine, several ephemeral drainages but across the
project area. At least one spring occupies the property near the
center of Parcel 2. The reddish -brown soils are typical of the
Sierran foothills.A. former dense growth of oafs was removed
from the land beginning in the early 19708. The structures that
now exist are between 10 and 15 years old. Along with the
clearing of trees and the construction of buildings and roads,
there has been extensive grading, the construction of at least
three small ponds or reservoirs, and the installation of an
underground 'irrigation system,
'The project area 1'i es in southeastern Butte Co`anty,
California, approximately one mile southwest of the village of
Rackerby and nearly four miles northeast of Bangor within
Portions of the northwest quarteP of Section 7 and the northeast
quarter of Section 12, Township 18 North, Ranges 5 and r `:,ast
(RackerbY 7.51 USGS [1948, 19693 Topographic Quadrangle, Mount
Diablo Base and Meridian).
The project vicinity is encompassed bl the western foothills
of the northern Sierra 'Nevada Mountains. It occupies the divide
between the South Fork of Feather River and the North Fork of
Yuba River, roughly uquidistant between Lake Oroville and New
Bull.ards Bar Reservoiri, Robinson Ravine and Honcut Creelt drain
the immediate vicinity, Elevations within the project area vary
Prom approXimately 1,175 to 1,1400 feet (356 to 427 meters) above
mean sea level. This foothill belt lies below the montane yellow
2
ine forest belt of the western Sierran slope (Storer and Us:nger
1963:23-27). A woodland vegetation community characteristically
grows in the foothill belt. Additionally, a narrow strip of
riparian forest would have formerly lined the banks of Robinson
Ravine.
The woodland community of the western Sierra Nevada
foothills is, variouWly termed the Foothill Oak Woodland (Burcham
1981:76), the Foothill or Digger Pine -Chaparral Belt (Storer and
Usinger 1963;23-27), or the Blue Oak -Digger Pine Forest (Ktichier
1977)• Dominant tree species include digger pine (Pinus
sabiniana) and blue oak(Quereu douglasii). Such r*oodands
seldom comprise continuous � homogeneous vegetation ccliers, but
rather occur in mosaic patterns of woodland and grass]a,,• (often
called woodland savannas) or woodland and chaparral. In the
present case, the trees are widely spaced and interspersed with
islands of grassland and thistle. However, prior to clearing in
the early 1970s, most of the project area was covered by a
relatively dense growth of oaks, This particular biotic
community in California has been favored by ranchers, and most of
Californiats oak woodlands and woodland savannas have been
utilized for ranching for over a century (Griffin 1988:384-399)•
Riparian forest communities in California have not been well
described, in part because many such communities were largely
destroyed by agricultural clearing and flood control activities
before they could be systematically studied. Strips of fores`;
that grow along foothill streams are generally characterized by
great species diversity. Among the common gree species found
along stream margins are cot},onwood (P,opulus fremontii), willows
(Salix spp,), sycamore Olatanus racemosa), and alder's (Alnus
spp.) (Griffin 1988114o81 P.Uchler 1977, Sudworth, 1967). Many
other tree, shrub, and chaparral Species thrive above stream
margins on the canyon walls including poison oak (Rhus
diversiloba), California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica)
blackberry (Rubu's ursinus), and manzanita (Aretosta h lo's sp.).
Vegetation specifically observed within the project az'ea
includes digger ;pine, yellow pine (Pinus ponderosa), blue oak,
black oak
(Quereus. ealifornica), canyon live oak (Q.
chrysolepis), annual grasses (presumably including introduced
species), thistle, poison oak, forbs, and California wild grape
(Vitis californica).
The Sierra Nevada range is an immense uplifted, westward -
tilted block fault system, and consequentlyi the western slope
grades gently to the west from the Sierran crest to the
California Central Valley where it disappears beneath deep
alluvia (Bateman and Wahrhaftig 1966:107). Much of the western
slope of the northern Sierra consists of flat-topped or, gently
rolling table lands with truncated sides, The table lands are
bordered by V-shaped river cahYons several hundred feet to 3,000
3
feet deep which generally align to a southwesterly trend (Bateman
anO. Wahrhaftig 1966:147; Durrell 1966:188). The uplifting and
wet,tward tilting of the Sierra Nevada, caused by tremendous
te,cLonic forces, greatly accelerated the flow of the streams,
uhioh in turn enabled the streams to out channels of great depth.
It,e table lands are often locally int-erspersed with systems of
rigged peaks.
'+Mhnographie Backgrou.nc.
The project area lies, most likely, within the territory
formerly held Ly a division of the Northwestern Maidu or Konkow
Ir.d,ians, who-.,nhabited much of what is now Butte County within
the Butte C%eek and lower Fec,ther River drainage basins. The
popple w;ho lived along Honclt Creek, probably including the
people who exploited or inhabited the project area, may have been
dial.ecti,;aIly transitional between the r.onkow and the southern
tiaidu or Nisenan (Kroeber 1925:393; R.Edd+e:tl 1978:370-372).
The northwestern Maidli were cult.ura"ly and linguistically
riE. g ,ed t,a the Northeastern or Mountaitn Vaidu, who inhabited the
upper Feather River drainage basin in much of what is now Plumas
C.ouw,t-;y ar "ar east as the Sierran crest,, and the southern Maidu
toVr Ninei:rtr., who occupied portions of the mountains and the
t;�,ntral v*,%.JIcy to the south within th« Bear, Yuba, and American
Paver or,a;ttlage basins (Riddell 1978:370-372; Wilson and Towne
1978'387-388)e Collectively, these three Maiduan-speaking
dlivAs"ons comprised one of five linguistic families within the
California Pe,iutian linguistic stock (Riddell 1978:370; Shipley
Kroobor ( 1932) and Mur riam ( 1966) furt be^ divide the
Nox,,14hw,0ster'n Mak du into local "tribelets". A i t.elet, also
call.j d a "Yil cage .ommunityn i can be ,, wfinez t as consi •', ,ng of the
iniae,h�.iants o,f two or raare politically confec.e^ate,� villages
unit e„ under :.•ne ".•ea ership of the head man of the most 4,-ominent
villa,,,e; Ea :.ln tribele't acted as a. homogeneou,, sociopolitical
ung:,. in watl%evz of land ownerships reaction to trbepass, war, a1.;t.
c^�ro". es ""dye head man was of ten assisted in .his c1i'fic a by
e.i
lehs6z' 'Jf.tOJOs and a council of elders, Most tribelet leaders
L.y virtue of their wisdom, experience; and acquired.
i -et 'k3ot rather than through any real allthority. TribeletS were
dist ing»lashed on the basis of 1.c)tation, minor variations in
dia�ect, and i ternally perceived sociopo''litical differentiation
Mroober 193,2-2,158),
Thv; N6:rtltWVStern Maidu preferred to looate their mnjor
v$Ijag,s ::.top the crests of ridges high above the rivers, or part
of the way down the walls of the canyons on mid -slope benches;
parl,iculurly wheni• there were springs (Dixon 1905'175; Kroeber
192$t395)= Le11rl clearings with southwestern exposures were
f av tared fox setl.l.ements (Kroeber 1925: 395-396 ) • Prom these
M
M
vil_lages or base camps, they exploited virtually every
environmental niche within their territories.
Even before the arrival of large numbers of Euro -American
settlers and miners, the Indians felt the effects of the presence
of white civilization, In 183,3, aJti epidemic of what is believed
to have been malaria was brought into the California Central
Valley and lower foothills from Oregon by fur trapping parties.
The pestilence killed as many as 75% of the native people in its
path (Cook 1955:322). The Indians never recovered from this
catastrophe sufficiently to effectively resist the invasion of
their homeland during and after the Gold Rush.
The initial hostility between whites and the Northwestern
Maidu probably occurred well before the gold rush in 1843, when a
party of travelers fired on the Indians (Bidwell 1906:75-79 [as
cited by Riddell 1970:385]). Hostilitieo intensified during the
,early years of the gold rush.
Along with Epidemics, armed attacks, and forced removal, the
Indians had to contend with the destruction of the fisheries and
other resources by gold miners and the exclusion oi' Indians from
prime hunting and food gathering lands claimed by white settlers.
They were soon reduced to poverty, and many became homeless
refugees in their own country. During the late 1850s and 1860s,
Glost of the surviving Maidu were removed to the Round Valley
Indian Reservation, and the county's t'ndian troubles'' eventually
ceased (Wells and Chambers 1973:221-222).
A few Maidu Indians reside in Butte and plumas Counties
today; and many of them are involved in efforts to rtvive their
nat-i, -, language and culture.
Archaeological Background
A cultural sequence that ostensibly represents Maiduan
pre-iistory has been inferred from excavations in two localitics
in the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada; On the basis of
archaeological investigations within the Oroville Locality, which
includes nearby Messilla Valley, a five -phase sequence was
indicated (Olsen and Riddell. 1963; Ritter 1970). The most recent
phase is represented by the Historic Complex that clearly
exemplifies the material culture of the ethnographic Northwestern
Maidu., The Orovi.11e Complex occupied the protohistoric period
from about A.r1500 to 1830. The Sweetwater Complex predates
the Oroville Complex from about A.b. 800 to 1500. The Bidwell
Complex dates from about A.D. 1 to 800-+ Predoding the Bidwell
Complex is the somewhat enigmatic Mlesilla Complex (Ritter
1970:113-174)1
The Meslla Complex has been compared to the contemporaneous
Martis Complex of the Sierra Nevada Mountains oa'i the basis of
5
although Olsen
similara;tes in lithic technologY'ifferences
52) still found sufficient resent tine of
(1963:11, lexes to be rep
Mesilla and Martis ComP
and Riddell
consider the
two distinct
culture°s ears to
agree that. there app 2y000
M�Mt;:1ey (197$) and Ritter (1970) agr least the last the
sequence for at
suggesting that all four of
be an �A".. brokers oultural tj,e Maidu
years a,ti the Oroville Locality,
e.,'lla Complex expressions might be ancestral to
post -M related d cultural g
or a closely uence for the
base SeG the
described a three-phase southeast of
Humphreys (1969) area located to the ory. As
Reservoir Nisenan territory -
New
New Bul.lards Bar in what was formgrlapproxiuiatelY equidistant
Oroville Locality Pr
area lieu
noted above, the P J' and the New Bollards Ear Reserythe
oir
the earliest cultural phase in
between the Orov"irelpres°entsty e and character to the Martis
Bollards Bar I equivalent in age dated roughly bc6ween
sequence, and seems eq Bullards Bar L7, equivalent to the
and Mesilla, Complexes. seems to be somewhat eq III is
and 1400-15 00 Bullards Bar to
A.D. 500 Complex of the Orovil e Locality' and is presumed
,weetwater archaeological expressions his Nisenan
the most recent
re resent the material remains of the ethnographic d what he be ieved
P resents
82a,
198P -b) P was confined
Recently, Farber (19 COmplex culture and that
;be be evidence that the Maloperticultures that
to the eastern e of the Sierra Nevada,
Bathe »er od of prehistory, those closely
exclus-l�rrl* slopes
were more the
during; this than
occupied the western 8y�=r'ra heVada pr�ville Locality �i
of {,h that the Me.
allied to the Mesilla Complex
x hypothesized �aiduan culture
Martis Complex. of ancestral spoke a per►utian
Complex might represent the remains roup that p Elston et.
related cultural g $
or that of a closelj of. . CI et al • 19 r
other researchers � have reported the results. of
language' tha Sierra Nevada that
a1 19$4; Peak and Associates 1983) have
of of Farber's
the western evdeneb for some
site excavations on supporting
generated ap"Parent
hypotheses.
Areal nistory the upper Sacraimento
enetrations of Spanish explorer
Among the initial P as that of th`�
1;,�.er reaches Of
region by Europeans w explored the � '
Valley who in 1$0$' as Sutter Buttes. T,n 1 aS
GabrIe1 Morasa, far north the foothills 6;ast
Feather' RJVer; perhaps as expedition into and
cello led an River its name �Fariss
Captain Luis Agri gave the Feather throughout the next two
of prov'i s By 162$, and Company trapper's
Smith j882 -i44-145). an and American Fur i2$}.
decades, Hudson' the xe8 y Chambers 1973•
were aa'tive 'within
i.on (wells and
9
In 1844, Mexican Governor Manuel Micheltorena issued several
land grants within northern California. Peter Lassen was awarded_
a grant on Deer Creek, part of which extended into northern Butte
County. That same year, Edward A. Farwell and Thomas Fallon
settled on the Farwell grant, the eastern boundary of which cuts
through present-day Chico. In 1847, grantee Jo.n Bidwell settled
on his famous estate in Chico (Wells and Chambers 1973t128-129).
Butte County was incorporated on February 18, 1850 by an act
of the newly commissioned state legislature. The original Butte
County embraced all of present-day Butte and Plumas Counties
along with portions of Lassen, Tehama, Sutter, and Colusa
Counties (Wells and Chambers 1973:1-31); By 1858, when farms and
settlements began to appear in some of the county's more remote
regions, it became evident that the area was too large for the
Butte County government to meet growing demands for roads,
schools, law and order. Thus, beginning with PlUmas County on
March 18, 1854, areas within the original Butte County
configuration began to be incorporated as separate counties
(Fari;ss and Smith 1882•.156-157),4
By the end of 1850, 214 gold camps had been established in
what would become southeastern Butte County. Among them was
Swede's Flat, located about one-half mile northwest of the
project area. The name probably refers to the ethnic identity of
one of its founders (Talbitter 1987:29).
The town of Bangor, sttuated about three or four miles
southwest of the project area, was founded in 1855 by the Lumbert
brother's of Bangor, Maine, who opened a store there. Another
store: had been built nearby by L. C. Hyland. Gold was discovered
in the immediate vicinity at the "Blue Lead Mine,„, and Bangor
soon had several hundred residents, saloons, hotels, restaurants
and other bus=ines"ses. The Forbestown Ditch provided water, and
by 1856, the town had ,several blacksmith shops and a Wells Fargo
Express office to provide banking services and transportation to
oroville and 'Marysville (McGie 1982[1]:58-59 Talbitzer 1987:47).
A school district was established in Bangor in 1857; and in
1858, W. Ai Jones was hired for a three-month term to teae.h in
the new Bangor School. Jones was discovered dead drunk and
unconscious at his desk) while the children played outside. He
Was immediately fired. After a half-hearted suicide attempt,
Jones disappeared forever (MeGie '1982[11:81.82; Talbitzer
1987:61): The Upham School Distriet, named for its first
teacher', Isaac Upham, was formed in 1861, and was later
incorporated into the Bangor
Ur" Elementary District (McGie
1982[I]s106)
Bangor
suffered major f ire in 1860 that burned most of the
businessestothe ground Awoman was suspected of arson. In
18690 an eight -stamp mill was erected to crush o"r"e from the Blue
Lead Mine (McGie 198?[17:96;
Talbitzer 1987:67) • By the 1870s,
ed In Bangor (TalbtzPr+ 1987:63)i3}�
churches were establishmining
business and commerce from this rich �
Prior to 1865, Marysville via i3oodleaf and Ns
district had been connected to which
Ranch. Upon completion of Forbemin miningFork
ntounoro i le,t year,
R erred from this
her
traffic was oP seat
diverted business from the mines
Porte toSthe hButte Cc
River
div upper Yuba around
River and the in existence since at 1e
(McGie 19x2[13:97). An earlier road, gorbegtown to the
1853, had I'un from Robinson's Rancho through and
Yuba County Line (McGie 1982[13:72)' the haunts of the infamous
Marysville -La Porte Roads were among 3
2 u -236)i
stage robber Black Bart (McGie 1982[17;128,
RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
Field Survey Methods
subjected to a complete archaeological.
The project area was entails the on -
As complete survey The survey was
survey. As its name implies, ro ect area. s aced
foot examination of the entire meed s def parallel, evenly- p
conducted systematically by
property. Traverses were: walked in zig-zag
of
The intensity
traverses across the Prop e. logical.
patterns to maximize ground surface iheepaB
erceived archaeo
was adjusted according project area by increasing.or
the survey of each portion of the P J
sensitivity meter's. The most
the distance between traverors�25 This distance varied
decreasing a maximum flat
from about 10 meters toof
intensive treatment was given to then margins Were hecl�edi fore bedrock
terraces, and knobs. flock outeropp g
mortars6
reject area ground surface had been impacted by
Much of thep or cons ruction, and a thick growth of
tree clearing, grading, round dstu:^bance.
survey a of g and
grasses and thistle now covers ateat
as systematically
Although the Property was in visibility
as possible, the ground cover cultural
intensive lY and it is possible. that
and access in some places:;
resources occupy
the property in addition to those observed and
recorded as described below. encounterh. prof
o ea.teca Record
t
�; rd
Each cultural resource
CaliforniaeArchaeologGal recssely
wa's recorded on a Statef to-sc"alei photographed, and p
g the
form. Sites were mappedSite maps were drawn usnnfytie
iodated on USGS topographic maps. The mag
and are oriented to True North. The
(as shown
metra system, the situ. maps The
eelination used in o SGSif+g9693 topographic qu"Pangle)•
on the Raalterby 7.5' and site iodation map were deleted freta
site 'records, site m"ap's, + of site locations. I
this report to maintain confidentialatY
8
survey ReDults uof
The ourvey reslted in the identification and deo igrn ted as
three prehistoric archaeological. sites x he Ps tps lwil,l eventually
Arnold 1 , Arnold #2, a,ld Arnold #3 • tho California
be assigned California trinomial
ons by tnfor atiOn Center,
Arr.haeoloEical Lnventory'Chico.
California State 'University`,
Site Descriptions below. The
Each of the three sites io described briefly
significance in relation to.
en
descriptions 3nelude an evaluation of
criteria for important arebaeolbgi
nmen as Well as
talc Qualitysites Act as s(C QA) tated in Appendix
Historic
K to the California Enviro
in terms of eligibility to the National Register of 1s
Places (NRHP) as stated in 36 GFR 60.4.
ARN01.D SITE l'1
This site consists of a relatively diffuse scatter of lithic
sof 0.2ivel flakes/m2) associated with
chipping Waste (approximatelyin a terrace above a perennial
a bedrock mortar station occupying over
iu covers an area estimated at 14$844m2 (slightly
drainage, de and a
3.5 acres). Artifacts observed on the a
scraper (Al), a bagalt scraper �,A2)� see Figure 1A) that would
large,
basalt projectile point (Au
ett
robabl.y not seem oUt of placein
resembles
site
oseveral ��tYPe plof.
P and Elko
site artifact assemblage. Martis, Rose Spring,
contracting -stem points including points, which are the most
stem points. Rose Spring P made
contracting -stem generally smaller, and more finely
recent of the three, are found
n. Elko SerieSPsinrthe Martis Complexthe of
than this
specimen. Martis
Basin, and they have close counterparts
the Sierra Nevada, The point might derive from the Early
between about 2000 and 15o0 B.C, (Elston et al. 1977:64
phase.Several t, arrowheads"
were
Markley 1980:1114; Thomas 1981)'revously.
reportedly removed from The bedrock mortar
t,le site P single small.
station consists of three shallow mortaltered s il; anthrosol)
outcropping. No midden (i.e. culturally
was observed. rading,j and
the site had been impacted by tree clearing, gMuch of the
stem,
installation of an underground irrigation system. and the precise
site is eon Of an h a thick growth of thistle, to
extent of the site are
and impacts o its ed surf aincl.ude unknowns t e greatest
boundaries Were arbitrarily PP
extent of the surface artifact distribution. hat the it site
observablepossible if not probable,
considered to be p
continues southward beyond the boundaries 01' the Projee area,
R1
It is not known whether the site includes a buried,
subsurface component, nor is the extent of subsurface impact
presently known. Based on the facts that the site contains time
sensitiv3 a.nd functionally 'significant artifacts, and its age can
be inferred from A4 as being perhaps 2,000 years old or more, it
is poosible that the site possesses information important in
prehistory. It is therefore judged to be a potentially important
and significant site. Its actual significance can be determined
only by means of a systematic, controlled archaeological test
excavation.
II'RNOLD SITE P2
v
1.�i,.. site oo'nsists of an extensive prehistoric midden
deposit kith locally dense concentrations of lithic
chipping waste and c. tl f'ac` s. Observations of a soil profile
exposed in a cut-ban1 ix. ;.r, -ate w minimum depth of 30cm for the
midden Artifa-ts include! an u�i--.h- ped mann (Al), a Fray chert
projectile point (A'2 Figure i ), a b•=:%alt leaf -shaped blade or
projectile point (A3 Figure 1f,), a Cint'Di.c r", -rear (A4 - Figure
2), a piece of worked steatite or soapstone (45 - figure 1D), and
1000+ pieces of basalt and cheat chipping wasve � ven bedrock
mortar stations are also associated with the site. ,:,td ochre
(hematite), which was used for several thousand years a a
pigment, was observed on the site. Also noted were numerous
fire -cracked rocks; which are common in midden sites. Many
archaeologists presume that fire -cracked cobbles represent
cooking stones that were heated in fires and then placed into
watertight cooking baskets to heat water and cook food. The site
occupies a knoll close to a perennial stream, and it covers an
estimated' 10,308m2 (approximately 2.5 acres).
It is possible that the site once spanned a larger area than
it now covers. One indication of this possibility is that a bowl
mortar was excavated from beneath the present site of a nearby_
house. it is possible that Arnold Sites P2 and #3 are loci of
What once constituted a single contiguous cultural deposit.
Projectile point A4 is of a form that would easily fit into
the Gunther Series of projectile points, Which consists of
several morphologically and temporally related projectile point
forms common in northern California: Gunther series points are
considered to be excellent time --markers for the Late Prehistoric
period, roughly from A.D. 500 to 1850, but they are especially
prevalent during the most recont periods of prehistory. Artifact
A'3: the basalt blade or projectile point is a form that might be
described as a Martis leaf -shaped point (Markley 1980 -.Figure 36).
This specimen is primarily unifacially flaked, and no unequivocal
evidence of use -wear a,ppoared on its margins, Martis leaf -shaped
points are thought to date to the Middle Martis phase from about
1500 to 500 B.C. ( lston et al. 1577:651P Markley 1980;,109-111).
10
The mano
grinding
Lxtensive grading and tree removal have
The extent of the impacts is no.
or hands'tone is a hand-held
slab or metate to produce flour
tool utilized With a
from grain seeds..
resulted in impacts
t presently known.
to the site. high
The dark and apP
arently deep midden, the relatively of
the time -sensitive
concentration of lithic waste meirepresentedkeb7 the number
and diversi
artifacts, and the span of time be capable of providing
r Depending on its
artifacts all indicate that the site may and
important information aband othe.l f, torssuchas age, depth,
stratigraphic integrity
potentially great significance. heThbasisr of of
content; ee
it has
only be ascertained on
significance systematic archaeological test
scientifically controlled,
excavation.
ARNOLD SITE d"
relatively small, but concentrated
This site consists of -� in waste
is on a ridge adjacent to a seasonal
hidden deposit within a larger scatter of lithic co a g
projectile point (A1 Figure 1E)
and artifacts: The site a ma
(A2);
drainage. Artifacts include a p J
that was actually found north of the site Trieare an estimated
and a scraper (A4)• basalt
a chert core (A8)� In the darkest
1000+ lithic waste flakes on
an (5 ) flakes• including es and
chert (35�); and Obsidian
the concentration of flakes the
midden, shown on the site map,
more per square meter.
artifacts averages about 20
he
medium dark midden, the concenteatio a t fa t coneentratioritis
m mean flak the
lightest midden area, scatter surrounding
Within the diffuse flake about 0.'I-" Im2. Quartz
about i-2/M2.reviously- As`
c�iddc n; the concentrations emo�ed varies frommthe site p
crrst�ls were reportedly
Site. in its present
noL•d above; this site and Arnold Site �i2, might once have
been
conn ectea portions of a single larger estimated 1 0, 1 3 °m
configurations the site. covers an
(approximate Y pour acres)•
ectile Point Al most closely resembles the Elko corner-
Froj e several, examples of whish were Pound
the
several
notched types Markley 196G;�igure 35)� fi0t10.8:-
in plumas county ( 0. and A.D. 600 (Markley 19
period between about 1500 E.
109). eears to have been
the ntire site surface app nading; and 'the
Virtually ; by tree clearing, g
affected, to varying degree1. s
construction of a barn and livestock pens. midden; the numbers
The presence of a dart:; possibly deep
and the apparent age represented by
and diversity of artifacts) is potentially significant.
artifact A! suggest that the site
11
In summary, three prehistoric archaeological sites occupy
the project area including two sites with midden deposits. Time
-
sensitive projectile points observed on the surface indicate that
the sites were occupied over a period of several thousand years.
Also, red ochre and quartz crystals are among the traits that
first appeared in this region during the Mesilla Complex period
(Farber 1982a). The project area was intensively occupied to
produce both dark middens and relatively dense concentrations of
lithie waste flakes and artifacts-. It is possible that housepits
were formerly visible on the site surfaces prior to impacts of
recent years, and it is also possible that there are human
remains buried in the deposits, while each of the three sites is
considered to be potentially important in relation to criteria of
Appendix Y. of CEQA and potentially eligible to the NHHP based on
their potential to rrnder important information concerning local
prehistory, the exact degree and nature of the significance of
the sites can be determined only by means of scientifictest
excavations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Parcel 1
Given the apparent absence of cultural resources within the
area designated on the TPM as Parcel 1, it is concluded that the
proposed lard -use will have no effect on significant cultural
resources; Accordingly, archaeological ntearanue is recommended
for the proposed Parcel 1 with the Poll, ing stipulation As a.
standard precaution, it is further rt�aommeraded that in the
unlikely event that the proposed Undertaking subsequently reveals
the presence of cultural resources (i.e. artifact concentrations,
midden, structural remnants, human skeletal remains) that Were
not observed, during the surface survey, work on that locus should
cease immediately until a qualified archaeologist can be
consulted to evaluate the remains and offer appropf,i.ate
recommendations for mitigative treatment.
Parcel 2
One pot-�ntian y significant prehistoric archaeological site
(AP nbid Site 4':') lies within the proposed Parcel 2. Since land -
use on this parcel has long been established, and the currently
Proposed land -use wall not represent a departure from this
precedent, it Must be recommended that the site requires no.
additional treatment at this time, However,, it is hoped that
future impacts to the site from grading or eonstruotion would be
voluntscientificaril Y and cultu alavoided y the landowner so that the Temai.nir;^
Posterity. r values of the site can be preserved for
12
If a land -split, subdivision, or any other land -use or
zoning change is subsequently proposed for Parcel 2, a qualified
archaeologists should be consulted at that time to evUluate the
condition of the site and the potential for impacts, and to make
appropriate recommendations for the mitigation of impacts.
Presumably, if the site will be impacted by some future land -use
proposal, a scientific test excavation would be conducted prior
to impacts in order to evaluate the significance of the site in
terms of its size, depth, age, content, state of preservation,
and research potential in relation to substantive questions
concerning areal prehistory. Appropriate mitigation measures
would re.ult from the test excavation program.
Parcel 3
Two potentially "significant prehistoric orchaeological sites
occupy the area depicted on the TPM as Parcel 3. They include
Arnold Sites 01 and #2. The recommendation of first choice is
that the proposed land -split creating Parcel 3 should be given
archaeological clearance on the condition that the Final Parcel
Map clearly demarcates the areas occupied by the two sites as
building exclusion areas; No development of any kind must be
permitted within the site boundaries. All construction, grading,
and any other ground -disturbing activities shall be prohibited
Within the site 'boLndaries.
Given the current zLning of the parcel (A-5), it is
conceivable that the parcel could be further subdivided into five
acre plots, or that some other land -use proposal might be
considered in the future. The present and potential future
owners of this property are entitled to alternative mitigative
Options in the event that perpetual avoidance of impacts to the
two sites is unfeasible. For example, the land on which. the
archaeological sites lie might represent the most optimal
building locations within the proposed Parcel 3: it is
recommended, therefore, that development of the land occupied by
either or both of the archaeological sites could proceed after
the following conditions have, been met:
1) The site to be affected should be subjected
to a controlled, scientific test excavation
by a qualified professional archaeologist in
order to evaluate in detail the significanee-
the sites in relation to CEQA (Appendix K)
and AR
HP eligibility criteria. In either
ab 11t;ysignificance should be based on the
of the site to provide data with
which to address specific substantive
questions about areal prehistory, If human
skeletal remains are encountered,then
additional cultural or religious signiicance
(i.e, to the local Native American community)
13
can be assumed. Mir. imally s the test
excavation should be designed to determine
the depth,, areal extent, age, content, and
character of the site, its function in
relation to prehistoric settlement and
adaptive patterns, and the relevance of data
from the site to important question's about
prehistory. Native American participation
should be considered, particularly if hGman
remains are encountered, in which case Indian
participation might become mandatory.
Arrangements should also be made for obsidian
source and rim hydration analysis,
radiocarbon analysis, and other standard
analytical procedures designed to date the
deposit and provide other crucial.
information. All artifacts recovered from
the site(s) should be properly cataloged and
accessioned into a proper facility for
permanent curation or display. A technical
report of professional quality presenting the
results of the excavation should be prepared
and properly distributed within the academic
community.
2') upon completion of the excavation and
analysis of its result's, the archaeologist
should recommend appropriate mitigative
measures based on the signif9icance of the
resources. If a site is found to lack
significance as defined by CEQA and NRUP
criteria,, then no further treatment is
warranted, and archaeological clearance
should be recommended. If' a site possessed
l.ow to moderate research potential, and if
that potential appeared to have been fully
exploited during the test excavation, then
archaeological: clearance could again be
recommendedi if a site is found tip be highly
significant by virtue of extraordinary
scientific and/;or cultural values, t�en
appropriate mitigation might entail
addit16ha1 archaeological data recovery
within the limits allowed by California law;
exhumation, analysis, and re -burial in a safe
place of human remains by Local Native
Ameridtb 'representatiVes; and/or preservation
of all or parts of the site. The latter
could be accomplished in several Ways—for
exaimple; by capping the site with clean fill
or pavement --that would not necessarily
preclude development.
14
REFERENCES CITED
Bateman, Paul C. and Clyde Wahrhaf'tig
1966 Geology of the ,Sierra 'Nevada. In Geology of northern
California, edited by Edgar H. ,Bailey; pp. 107-172.
California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 19`0.
San Francisco.
Burcham, L. T.
1981 California range land. Center for Archaeological
Research at Davis Publication '7. (First published in
1957 by California Division of Forestry).
Clowlow, C. W., Jr;., R. D: Ambro, A. G. Paslaron, S. 0. Botkin,
and M. R. Walsh
1984 Stage II final report for CA-Nev-407 archaeological
data recovery program. Report vn file, California
Department of Transportation, 'M�►rysville.
Cook, Sherburne F.
1955 The epidemic of 1830-1833 in California and Oregon.
University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology 43(3):303--326 Berkeley.
Dixon, Roland B.
1905 The Northern Maidu, American Museum of Natural
History Bulletin XVIIr119-,316. New York.
Durrell., Cordell
1966 Tertiary and Quaternary geology of the northern Sierra
Nevada. in Geology of nortbern California, edited by
Edgar H. Bailey, pp. 185-1a7. California Division of
Mines and Geology Bulletin 190; San Francisco.
Elst-on, Robert, J. 0. Davis, A: Leventhal., and C. Covingtoii
1977 The archaeology of'the Tahoe Reach of the Truckee
Fiver. Nevada Archaeological SurVr:y, University of
Nevada, Reno.
Elstont Robert,
C. D. Zeier, S. Storne.tta, L: Crittenden, and B.
Brow1984 An analysis of certain lithic specimens from CA-Nev-
407i Nevada County, CalifornJa In Stage 11 final report
for CA-Nev-,407 archaeologica.1 data recovery program;,
edited by C. W. Clewlbu,, 'Volume 11 Appendix 12.. Report
on file, California Dep artment of Transport-0,io
Marysville.
1' a
Farber, Alfred
1982a Archaeological excavations at Chalk Bluff Ridge,
Nevada County, California, with a new interpretation of
the Martis and Mesilla Complexes. Publications of the
Research ,Archaeology Program, Anthropological Papers 3.
California State University, Chico.
Farber, Alfred
1982b The Martis and Mesilla complexes: an, alternative
explanation. Paper presented at the Northern California
Archaeology Symposium, California State University,
Chico.
Fariss, and Clarence L. Smith
1882 History of Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra Counties,
California. Reprinted in 1971 by Howell -North Books,
Berkeley.
Griffin, James R.
1988 Oak woodland. 7,_n Terrestrial vegetation of
California, edited by M. G. Barbour and J. Major, pp.
383-416. California Native Plant Society, Special
Publication 9. Sacramento. (expanded edition,
originally rublished in 1977 by John Wiley and Sons., New
York),
Humphreys, Stephen E.
196`9 The archaeology of New Bullards Bar, Report on file,
California Department of Parks and Recreation;
Sacramento,
Rroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of
ricin 'Ethnology Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington,
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1932 The I-ttwin and their neighbors. University of
California Publications in American Archaeology and
Ethnology 29(4):253-1123. Berkeley.
Kddhler, A. W,
1977 Natural Vegetation of California (map) In
Terrestrial Vegetation of California, edited by Michael
G. Barbour and Jack Major, John Wiley and Sons, New
York,
Markley, Richard E.
1978 Archaeological excavations in the Croville Locality,
Butte County, California, 1975. Unpublished M.A. thesis,
Department of tinthropology, California State University,
Chico,
16
Markley, Richard E
1980 Praject11e points. In Rainbow Point revisitedc
archaeological investigations at Bucks Lake, Plumas
County, California, edited by R. L. Johnson, pp. 102-111•
Report on file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San
Francisco.
McGie, Joseph F.
1982 History of Butte County, Volume. I. Butt,d County Board
of Education, Oroville (Revised edition, first
published in 1956).
Merriam, C. Hart
1966-1967 Ethnographic notes on California Indian tribes.
In University of 1 ;.I ifornia Archaeological Survey Reports
68, edited by Robert Fi Heizer; Berkeley.
Olsen, William H and F. A. Riddell.
1963 The archaeology of the Western Pacific Railroad
relocation, Oroville Project, Butte County, California.
California Department of Parks and Recreation, Division
of Beaches and Parks Archaeological Reports 7.
Sacramento.
Peak and Associates, Inc.
1983 Archaeological investigationsatCA-Plu-115, Boathouse
Point on Bucks Lake, P'ltimas County, California. Report
on file, Pacific Gas and Eleetri.. Company, San Franoisco.
Riddell, Francis A.
1978 Maidu and Konkow In Handbook of 4or American
Indians, Volume 8, California, edited by Robert F.
Heizer, pp. 370-386. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Ritter, Eric W.
1970 Northern Sierra foothill archaeology! culture history
and culture prone s. Center for Archaeological ResZarch
at Davis Publication 2:173-184. University of
California, Davis.
Shipley, William F.
1.963 Maidu texts and dictionary. University of California
Publications in Linguistics 33. Berkeley.
Storer, Tracy and Robert Usinger
1968 Sierra Nevada natural history. University of
California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
17
Sudwrrth, George B.
1967 Forest trees Of the
Publications, Inc. Pacific Slope.
New York. (First Dover
by N,S. Department of Agriculture U.S. published in 1908
Talbtzer, Bill
' Forest Service?),
1987 Butte County: an illustrated
Publications, Inc., Northridge. history, Windsor
Thomas, David H.
1981 How to classify the projectile point: from
Valley, Nevada. Journal of Ca�fornia N,ontor
and .Great Basin
Anthropology 3(1):7-43,
Wells, Harry L. and W. L. Chambers
1973 History of Butte Count
BooksBerkele Y
BO Y• (First publ
California. Howell-North.
Wilson, Norman L. and Arlean
H• Towne ished in 1882),
1978 Nisenan.
In Handbook cf North American
Volume 8, California, edited by. Robert F, Indians,
Heizer, gip,
387-397. Smithsonian Institution
Washington, b. C.
18
MAP 1; PROJECT LOCAT3ON
RAGKERHY; CA 1451 OSCS (1948, `9969) TOPQG iAPHIC QbADIRAXGLE
�r
A. SrM 01 /A4
�F ss
0 1 2 3 CM
D: S"r OVA6
FIGURE z
SITE +621A4
y'
APPENDIX F
COUNTY C 'r :BUXXE
ENVZ72ONMENIrAlC CHECXT.xS'T 1+ tJE M
(To be cbmplat�jd by Lead Agency)
LOG No. 88-09-16-01
AP N0. 28-19-42i45
1. :t;.ACI�G�iC`JUI�17
i;. NaniiI of proponent JAMES ARNOI,D
---------------
:. Address of proponent and representative (if anPli.cable)e
-.ivy iL:TlpE3on: Tentative Parcel Ma
T:I= MANTJA�''c7R3C F�NT3Y1V'C�S Or S2GN:�:F'�CANCE
YES
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of
MAYBE NO
wildlife populata fish or wildlife skacir, cause a fish a1
ion td drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten
a plant nr animal
to eliminate
community, reduce the number or restrict the rangy of a to
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of major periods
aE California }tistory or prehistory?
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term benefits to the
detriment of long»term environmental goals? (A -term
_~
short: impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief period of time while
long-term impacts will endure into the
future.)
1. Net the project have impacts which are indivi,duzlly limited but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where
L110, impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the
environment is s 4nifi.cant,)
�
if. Does � the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
tI1" I7I "egvt�' `ArT'TA ZOIV (To be completed by the Lead" A enc
this initial evaluation; g y) . on tkte basis of
i/WE find the proposed project COULD N;T have A significant effect on the
envirOnm8nt and a NEGATIVE bECLARAtiTIUN
will be prepared.
k T/WE rind that although the proposed project COULD have a significant -effect
On the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this case because
the MITIGATION NEASURES described on the attached sheet have
project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION been added to the
will be prepared,
r/WE find the proposed project MY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
:required.
COUNTY OF BUTTE, PLANNING DPI)MIXENT
DAM, Oeirober .27 1988 C.-�'
�y; ,
David Re HionitnuS, ASsociae
Planner
Reviewed byt .
IV, ENVY120NME1�TTA TMACTS
(Explanations of all "YES" and "MAYBE" answers are required on attached sheet(s),
1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant;
YESifiAYHf:
a. Unstable earth conditions, or changes in geologic substructures'?
_N0
�(
b, Disruption, displacement, compaction or overcovering of the soil?
`
ci change in topography or ground surface relief features?
d. Destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical
features?
Y
e. Increase in wind or Water erosion of soils, either on or off site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation ,
deposition or erosion which may modify the channel
of a river or stream
or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
g. Loss of prime agriculturally productive soils outside designated urban
areas7
k
h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudslides) failure
ground or similar hazards?
,(
1.. AIR: Will the proposal result in substantial:
n. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b, The creation of objectionable odors, smoke or fumes?
`
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in
climate) locally or regionally?
3 WATER., Will the proposal result in substantial,
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in
either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount
of surface runoff?
C. Need for off-site surface drainage imr,* 'jments, including vegetation
removal, channelization or culvert
ins�..A-iation?
d. Alterations to the course or flow of .flood waters?
e, Change in the amount of surface water in any Water body?
f. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surfane water
quality) including but not limited
to temperature) dissolved oxygen or
turbidity?
P. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
rt. Change irr the quantity or quality of ground waters) either through
direct additiorks or wi.thdrawal:s,
or througl..interception of an equlfer
by cutis or excavations?
L, eft Lion in tho amount of Water otherwise 4va,ilable ,for public water
supplies?
~
�G
J' t:xpasurn of people or property to water-eelated hazards such as flooding?
4, IyLAN_ T LihE, Will elle proposal result in substantial.-
ubstantial.e
4.
in
he
a. (including,trees) nhrubsj
of ass,ecrops,nand aquaticypitultm)? of plants
gr
Reduction o
b, f the numbers of any uhiquej rare or endangered species of
plants?
c, Introduction✓�
of new species of plants
tinto an area), or in a barrier to
he normal replenishment of
existing species?
d, Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crape
.1-
5; P.NIMAI, LIFE.Will the proposal result in substantial:
a. Chang
(be in the diversity of species, or numbirs of any species of animals
irds, land animals including reptiles, fish
YES t1A _151+; UO
or insects)? and shellfish, organisms
b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of
animals?
c. Introduction of new Species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals?
d. tletorioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat?
6, gISE, Will the proposal result in substantial:
0- Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. C,,Tt,
„�„'[T AND G
EDARE, Will the proposal product significant light and glare?_
�...�..
8. f ND USE, Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the
Present or planned land use of an area?
x
9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will tle proposal result in Substantial:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural, resources?
10, RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of explosion; or release of hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicLis
or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
b, Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergeha,
evacuation plan?
x
Il. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter location, distribution, density or
growth rate of the human population?
12. HOUSING, Will the proposal affect existing housing) or create A demand
for additional housing?
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUTATIgN. Will the proposal result int
a, Generation of substantial additional vehicle movement?
b. Effects on existing parking fapilities, or demand for new parking?'
C. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems?
-
d. Significant alterations to present patteros of circulation or
mavement of people and/or goods?
o, Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
l.b. PU9LIC SERVICES. Will the Proposal osal have
for new or altered govertune►it services: effect upon, or result in a need
•---_
a. Fire protectiuit?
b• Police protection?
C. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other got)ernmental servi:ces?
.1-
15. grij,(:Y. Will the proposal result in:
a, Use of substantial amounts of fuel. or energy?
b, Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources of energy?
UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to the following:
a, power or natural gas!
b. Communications systems?
c, Water availability?
d. Sewer cr septic systems?
e, Storm Water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17 pN� HEALTH. Will the proposal result In
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential hazard (excluding mental.
health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health. hazards?
18, AECjnMICS, Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic
vista iew open to the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
19. RECCRREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or,
quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
20, CULTURAL RESOURCES.
3. i4ill the proposal result in the alteration or destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
b, Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic ef#'ects
to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object?
e; Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within.
the potential impact area?
T7,LSCUSS CaT7 0'F ENVYI .0NMV-NnCAI., _ EVA -
see attached.
YI;,S 14AYBP
TAL EVALUATION
AP# 28-19-42,4-5
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRQNMEN eVt property. one
Two homes already exist on the subj roi6ct. The
lb ,c,e,f,3bf� ed as a result of this p
ro osed Parcel 1 could result in some
additional homesite Wossibledonep developed
oL the soil, or
additional hdispyte P compac�ion and overcovering which could
, lacement h
disruptionof ground surface relief features,
and the rate
change in topography bion rates, drainagePthe
lead to changes in absorp. parcel 1 is the site of some of sites and
and amount of surface runtheoproperty, and locations of buil.cingould lead
steeper topography otential. These changes
could aggravate erosion p e into surface waters both
is an
of the size of the properties; these imp"
r increased erosion on site and discharg
and off site. Because
should not be significant" Zone
�.s wi�:nin a Moderate Earthquake Intensity
1h: All of But County roximately three miles
P subject property is located app
VIII• The
of faults associated with " ee FC�nstrucch
tior�thiji Lof homeszone and
northeas
supported the 1975 Oroville eaCode�standards for seismically
ly active
buildings to Uniform Building snto occupants
areas should provide adequate protection
seismic activity. The pond on proposed
ponds on the property` andotte
31: There are several p the Orto users
pa,ecel. 3 impounds water from a stream used by must meet both )Jstrict
3.strict (OW to transport their water to users in the
Irrigation . oundift5 or use of that water
Bangor area: Imp
and ;State stat "gee the attached letters from OWID and.. the state
Resources Control Board. Department of Fish � Came.
Wateree the attached letter from the Dep
5d: S parcels
oras could create a demand for similar'
2; Ee�dvision of these twoa50+-acre parcels into three
with
Parcel of 20
20 -acre divisions 3.n the area. homesro erty vei
c f Development
lopment of an additiona+rafficiand associte on 'the ated traftie
13a,
represent an incretal increase in
hazards in the aremen
'ect will represent an incremental in craw already for
14 This prod
public services in a rural. area where such
marginal
t Property is located in an area where checkethroughl
20`a: The sub] A p ry to perform Chico]
ec
sites may occur. It h necegsa
e Department of Anthropology at California StbPeloc�tedsonythe
the p nificant sites may. ro erj, may be
in order tolesormanearchaeoogica� Su�,vey of the, p p
property,
necessary
5"
Suggested Mitigation Measures:
1. Re-design to yield 40-acre minimum parcel sizes (Item 5d).
2. No mitigation measure is .recommended at this 'ime regarding`
archaeological impacts. in order to assess t e potential for
adverse impacts and 'to determine what, if any, mitigation measures
would be appropriate, the applicant should contact the Northeast
Information Center at California State University, Chico, for a
records search and sensitivity evaluation. Should the center
recommend that '4n archaeological survey be conducted, it will then
be necessary for a qualified archaeologist to perfozm an
archaeological survey Of the property.
Applicant James Arnold
DATA SHEET
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AP #28-19-42,45`
Log 4188-09-16-01
1• Type of Project: Tentative Parcel Map.
2• Brief Description Dividing approximately 110 acres i.nt
Parcels, one of 22 acres, one of 29 acres, and one of 60oacres.
3. three
Location; At the southwest corner of the intersection of La
Porte Road and Robinson Mill Road, in the Bangor area,
4-• Proposed Density of Developments As high. as 22 acres per
dwelling unit.
5. Amount Of Impervious Surfacing:
6, Access and Nearest Public Roads;Property fronts on La Po
and Robinson Mill Roads, rte
7. Method of Sewage Disposal: Individual septic systems,
8. Source of Water Supply; Individual wells,
9• Proximity of Power Lines:
To 10 Potential for Further Land Di,
zoning Development; Th
zoning would allow down to t;_vi e
General Plan indicate 40 acre minimumsels. Policies Of the
B. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Ph�,sical. Environment
1 Terrain
a, General Topographic Character: Rolling foothill
lands. valley
b Slopes: Generally .0-2slopes with a
and several areas off; Steeper
per slopes, few flatter areas
c•
Elevation! 1175 foot above Sea
above Sea Level, Level, ' u
p to 1400 feet
:Limiting
S
2• Soils Factors; Areas of steep slopes.
a. T, 'd With
wap Sdra
lad Sierra Soil Series
y generally
slow in moderately slow permeability on
sails of from 40 to 80 inches deep,.
Natural of s.
b,Limiting Areas "'f -'slow permeability,
3i ds of the •,and
a, Earthquake zont;:
A joderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII
b, Erosion Pvtenti,al Vere high.
LandslidY, Pot'en.tia � tow.
d, Fire H6tard; R h
e. Expansive Soil ,ag' .:,.,
4 Hyd rol bqv b o ,. s�: al. LOW,
a• Sixr:�ace Water R'!vine and its tz3,butar�.es,
several ponds exist 011 #.he property;
7
b. Groundwater: Unknown, potentially limited.
c. Drainage. CharacteCestThe
and and drains to to -Site
drainageways then generally south
Robinson Ravine.
d. Annual Rainfall (normal): Approximately 35"
e. Limiting Factors: Setbacks from drainageways.
5. Visual/Scenic Quality: Good.
6. Acoustic Quality Good.
7. Aix Quality Good.
Biological Environment
8. Vegetation: Open grasslands. Interior Live Oa} and Blue Oak
with some California Black Oak on the easterly portion of the
property.
9. wildlife Habitat: Critical winter habitat for the Mooretown
Deer Herd.
Cultural Environmen}-
1.0. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the Area; High
sensitivity area,
11. Butte County General Plan Designation: Agricultural=
Residential.
12. Existing Zoning: A-5.
Two single-family dwellings and
134 Existing Land Use on Site:
associated outbuildings, barn and dairy,
14. Surrounding Area: dwellin s at rural.
a. Land Uses: Scattered single-family 9`
densities, and agricultural and open land,
b. Zoning: A-5.
0- to 15 -acre paesidential.
c General Plan Designations. Agricultural-Rrcels to the
d. Parcel Sizes. Generally
north; with 30- to 200+ -acre parcels to the east, west and
south.
e. Population: Sparse,
15. Character of Site and Area: Rural foothill area.
16. Nearest Urban Area: Oroville, 20+ miles.
114 Relevant spheres of influence:
18• Improvement Standards Urban Area. No.
19, Fire Protection Service: year-round Station
a Nearest County (State) Fire Station:
455 in Bangor and seasonal Station #54 at Robrson',Mill
approximately 5 miles each.
Water Availability ct and
Fire tankers and on ponds.
24, schools in Area: Bangor Union Elementary School Distri
b.
Oroville Union High School District,
DRH/sj s el, ;
µ$r
p44 N
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCE' AhGEORGE DEUKEJIAN, Gavyrdor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAMEG°mm'
REGION z Butte CO. punning
1701 NIMBUS ROAD; SUITE A {�n ` a$
RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95670 V t i
( X916) 355-7020Galitor
Oro',
SEP 2 8 1988
Mr. John Mendons'a.
Department,. of Public Works
County of Butte
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Dear Mr. Me'ndonsa
The Department of Fish and Came (DFG) has reviewed the Jaynes
Arnold Tentative Parcel Map (TPM), a proposal to create parcels of
22+, 29+j and 60+ acres from parcels of 57.77 and 51.65 acres.
Located east of Bangor, the TPM lies in the critical winter range
of the Mooretown deer herd'.
Subdivision of land into small parcels has an adverse impact on
itigratory deer. As lands within critical winter range are divided
into parcels smaller than 40 acres, deer use becomes impaired,
migratory movement affected, and forage and space needs drop below
the level to sustain herd numbers.
Subdivisions have adversely affected more than 40 percent of the
winter range (i.e., critical and designated Hinter ranges) in
Butte County. in an effort to resolve the subdivision/deer
conflict in Butte County, the DFG has recuimnended a series of
actions for the Board of Supervisors (Board) to implement, The
DPG also identified a "Designated Development Zone" where
development may occur, provided certain mitigation measures are
adopted and implemented by the Board.
Several factors were used in determining which lands should be
excluded from a nearby "Designated Development Zone" (DDZ). Land
Use was not a 'factor if human impacts on the land are reversible
as is the case at the TPht site and in addition; deer will use
pasture land. The adjacent residential density does not surround
the TPM site to the extent of forming an untraversable barrier for
deer. Further residential encroachment into the 'larger parcels of
tho immediate area can create a barrier to those migratory deet
wintering further west.
The TPM lies outside of a bDZ and is in an area where the
DVG has recommended minimum, parcel sizes of 40 acres. Since two
of the parcels are under 40 acres, the DFG t'ecommends that the TPM'
be denied.
-2-.
J
If we can be of further assistance, please contact
Patricia Perkins, Wildlife Management Supervisor, or Jim Bowo'r,
Associate Wildlife Biologist, at (916) '355-7010.
M
Sincerely,
`JV
am Messersmith
Regional Manager
0R0P1Ltd'-wy4##orrE IRRICAl r00N Parver
WATER and 'HY'DHOaELECTRIC
2310 Old Quincy Rond
P 0. Box 581
Oroville CA 95965 0"U1
October 19, 1988 (916) 533.4578 a
Mr, John Mendonsa , Assistant Director
Butte County Department of Public Works
Land Division Review
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
RE; Tentative Parcel Map for James Arnold
A.P. 28-18-42, & 45
Dear Mr, Mendonsa;
On proposed parcel number 3, Mr, Arnold has constructed a dam and pond. This pond impounds
water belonging to the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District. The pond has been considered as
an unauthorized storage of water by the State Water Resources Control Board, Mr, Arnold has
never been granted permission by OALD, to divert District water into this pond, The District has
in tact request several times, that Mr. Arnold construct a pipe or channel so that District water
could by-pass this pond,
OXI.D. would request as a condition of approval, that -a full ehuironmental impact report be
filed, assessing the impact of impounding District water on OXI,D.'s ability to serve Members
In the Bangor area,
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter,
Very truly yours,
OROVILLE—MOANOOTTR IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Michael Messina, As Engineer
I -TATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
THE pAUt- R. BONDERSON BUILDING
901 P Street, Sacramento, CA
(91E) 324-5699
JUL 2 9 1987
0
GEORGE Ot-: 1CME11AN, G0Vd1 11111
DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS �.
p.0, BOX 2000, Sacramento, CA 95BIO
In Reply Refer
to: 343;EM262-0(04-23)
Mr. James Arnold
Star Route
Bangor, CA 95914
Dear Mr. Arnold:
UNAUTHORIZED STORAGE OF WATER IN BUTTE COUNTY
This letter concerns the matter of OC v ocatedainoRobinsongRavine. Thectls
complaint against your storage prod
District principally alleged that your dam and reservoir have resulted in an
interference with the free flow of water in Robinson Ravine.
a
An inspection of your project was conducted on July 22, 1987. The -results of
the inspection can be found in the enclosed Report
lnvestigation.prs noteect d
in the report, the physical evidence did hot Showthat Y
interfering with the
free flow of water under existing flow conditions.
However, your initial storage of Water is nevertheless considered as an
unauthorized storage of water which is subject to compliance with the State
Water Code.
The Water Code required anyone who intends to divert water to the State Water Resources storage Resources
a
Board as
reservoir to apply for a permit from h
the first step toward securing a water right, To initite thin is first stepi
you
must file an application: The purpose of filing an app
secure a right for the use of unappropriated water (i.e.; water that is
to
available and not already in use uncle prior or eapslicationhso)and that its status
establish a record of the right sought, under the app
in relation to other rights may be more readily determined. I have enclosed an
Application Packet for your use6
9-A
JOL 8 0 1987
Por. James Arnold -2-
Please submit your application within 30 days from the date that you receive
this letter. failure to adequately respond within the specified time period
will result in the initiation of formal enforcement action pursuant to Section
1052 of the Water Code. IF you have any questions concerning the filing of
your application, please call the Division's Application Section at '(916),324-
5748. If you have any other quest ons, please call me at (916) 324-5699.
Sincerely,
O Ic31i `.' SIGNED rel t.
Ernest Mona
Sanitary Engineering Associate,
Investigation and Surveillance Unit
i
Enclosures
cc F. C. Steppatj General Manager (w/enclosure) V'
Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District
P. 0. Box 581
Oroville, CA 95965-0581
CERTIFIED