Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-26A SOUTH CHICO AREA GPA (5)o' ?� ,} '.e s -�, ... .. 1� a. �r ?�' 'rte• I a � � � ' ` `,s �.�� �".._ lWFocky-, swampy ground Id Sh low (less than I .ft szndy loam with so,•ie. roc d Shallow tlF s4stnan. 7 ft s in' sandy loam wafh moderat r; umber of, `rocks •� ery rocky soi 1, with � large amounts of sand -' , U caravel F v elands of soil surrou: �Q �3 ' ed by shallow gravel ` S Rock. Ta l .ngs lay _ : G .. Less than '11 ft;. of so Swampy ground oO.Cokrting gravelledsaand oam(as describ Y l £nv romental Review n a knc�.m _ 2i EXRIBIT 5 - DERAILED -SOI MAP AND DISEASE Z-IDWA-f ORCHARDS • . a +-. n a s ` a r 4 ~ yc a r _ - - ,. t - _ �' � ��� "_'sem".'` i' 'x;: j. r C;� y - ? Ll LOAM'= j e ' 3 SANDY' L©a1Vt o�� , t +7 i S c, ;cEET �.' ` ,�£OB$ Y SLAY LOAM, _ a, 't - is s i Y �! X alms- Il/l Ms t t t i •`'' eMto Its X F. t e' r .+int• t t of Ioil �e•t t �u � r'f f ii' `° a :•3` ' ,. _/ Lx' MIDWAY ORCIIARhS IVRELS , LOST 2'ROM DISEASE Y1;AR NUMBER OP TREES , WST AISEA99 1975 i' • z�i L •_ • Y • f Oak Raaf Vuhyus 5 0 gees "." . Oaks ;Root % h109 197,'lr , 100 Trees �: • Oa. , Rout unqUg x.978 � � �. �_� �� � .' 125 Trees . Oak,, Root P.uncius x'279 f. 1,100 Trees �06dteria.Cenke�r •* 125 Trees . '; Oak` Rdo,t; rttnoa 1,900 . 14 "Trees y Bacteria'�Cari�Cer Total : 2,647 Trees ?�* Abo6t 1.25 trees are currently very x.11 wit;li oak root fUnii. St +� is expoctPd that these 'trees will da.e_ duriiyg ].9$0 f y r. 7 Ili i t APPENDIX $, EXH1lil'f 8' Frw i+N}! xtiYt+�' tviillrli�l+ T hr#' t!I FAOMI)O n! ow% WS10 OMOnvilek 11 hn�n+ln •n( 14 AhAnclf+Na and Gniwriley ri CallloYnle ra+pivnlinR C06PIOR,ATIVU PXT ?3NSION ' UNIVEREATX Otr CAL'IFOIRNIA DAVIS, dAtiPOIINiA 95616` �y REPLY TO, Dept. Of Plant PAthO169y:,, c y August 22, 1979 �j ZI k V. UBill .Co'ttitigh+om Mr. > I Bol u130 Chico California 95926 y You asked £ or cuuogent About replanting on land where. oak root tungus ' (Armillaria Mellen) had been a persistent roblem, UnEortunatel th""ere p y are -:no easy answers in the northern Sacramento Valley, Coinonl.y oc6itting « Y in land where 'water courses have been iiv'the past, and also %there oaf tree's have 'grown, the fungus can often be recovered from cansiderai?le "depths long after the beiginal•hogt plant hds,goh ' pe I have'edeh active Armillaria r;tcovered from roots left by an oak tree removed tatenty years. s pearlier, for\�Iexample fumigatifS with methyl bromide is of limited values Success dapende Ott treating w,entthe soil is extremely dr (sometimes hard to attain) and Y y ... 9 y also on achie��ing good enetrat, on of the cheiuical,. W1iat fre' uentl p happens is that the grower is very happy for five years or so following jumi gationj but then the trees start coming down again with Atmillat':ia, Considering the $1500%ac treatment costif that is glestioncible value. Northern California black walnut rootstock offers 60106 tolerance to+'the dise=ase, if you wish to grow Oa.!M'63, but even this rootstock I would use// only in better -drained areas; the toleranc6 may break down ander Ctinditios of poor soil drainage: {I $o, all of this is not very encouraging as far ns tree crops .are ,;- Via, el. p ooncerned. If you could use the lhhd for a field cro sueh as alfal you would robabl be better off in the long run. y p �' +x' Z hope these comments are helpful: Sincerely yours }} _ William J:! Dialler �j I Extension Pisa Iiritliofogist' '4 t�Jti em j - EXH1lil'f 8' Frw i+N}! xtiYt+�' tviillrli�l+ T hr#' t!I FAOMI)O n! ow% WS10 OMOnvilek 11 hn�n+ln •n( 14 AhAnclf+Na and Gniwriley ri CallloYnle ra+pivnlinR i• F :a� fA 1," (�nrilir i t l�l;lii�iy Isii a t lilfiailtir lili;: '1'uhtt (611 Y, 0111foriliii 0111111 To liyllrunr 1111111 1174 l;:Gf ' April -�24'; 1979 A TO: ° Mr. n1,11 Cottingham - (!wn¢t'-Oparntntc'.:oE Miclwny OrrCharcllt a „ y rROM:," 0. R. Pc�At,, PomologiAt = AQrictiltucicd, Adv4Roreii Ince 1. Sl11iJFC'llt Midway Orchards 11 rtic' torill` nb>neivAtionn` At your request; k ,inspeq ed en� rlppro iimata 110 Acris almond ,orcliic d`' on several, occasions during the month tVipxil; 1979. Thin property fir lorute'd nn tlje,?ttdwny apprnximnte),y two'mi'sa sourltep• Park. Ave., Chico, 'Ca1,4fairnia, +tests ::'i ;N ser bad an a port ton „of.,;SOnttorl `rr x .�2t „N. , R� x` 1". !mn A g6irerali -sipprpisal tray i"Odf, of tie tiycticii,],turs! 'cap4hilittes ` of this almond oroharclr Ind'!64inl; rurrenit:4culCura t p�oklleiirr an Artie Jong- term effect of thesea " pr .b1PmRr, �F �xn�. ilrnh antarin ' 't r eb err y a !i i Y trees witj good color And f'nir c a' . `'e a H x;,�p• ;VO,6n, e v�1 o0 r,ns orchard R' h • P (r 5rr j . R irHar �t`t<ami•nr%t n^s }toiv'ewer, a' ` x numhi~r of aeripua kioxCicul tura] ptobi�rni` 6aceme 'ilvidtvnt t kr, w -'i',1Cluile a nnh ii'nlformity to tree afae, hulk nf tra`i't"vigor and a 9 tionia j of the ot•ehard, nbvicrua ttiRna 'of nbc�=�i oxous ti�ur'� trunk infestation of Oh Hole Ildxer'Scni' tt�s 't?ut;Iniic iat lienNonded er.ttousrlluitRl'nrot lZuta m, ,i�;dl4k 3Zoot:`Ft►tigufi, nc.cg tl&,• rr m�,�. X. WfI> ,1, a, and :, w..W...- x.n ` o n 3e, a discurision`,�r. :lt�tic,r�rnt4ntis and genevil infnrniat'ion i tpre Apptoot, A a3 11 -y y 'l't•eh tuiSfarmit"v ands viae An obvious di 2' arenco,' in tree 'eizn exists between r ' the orcl►ard pai+cel hartll" of Mar dill, Ranch Rd. and that` on tha south` to } � gon6thl;, sitd ol" Aoy'of the trees on tlia'ilorth Ys adetlu'� to Pots "nets in then• „ sZvGnth; LeaF .(19jS` rplinti"ng), altltbu��h a number of imeon `thiloughout this Anrkictn l.bg E e i;�unted er4ea and there are afte scattered site:` with dead ' ,lttcl tr3zi,�inR treat`►; the south blocks as A vhoxe is cempeised of a 'Very hon -Uniform dtantl� � t`e mh much :df whici;" cju ,tte stunned as coripared,�to nothial six y0a old trees, Vir- tually tio. 'ureas we ',Ojaserved it tttiei *tOA .iohich ccittld be Ons'sifted an nhtimuro 'sii:q, for tl .Aa t t�Na'and mt�;n •at.O,•extremely ldruntad and -cannot be consicle'rol An qbnotn'`cntiCy fc_rr tsbe r'aRa,'dt this i.ltnn, Arida from the, emnll iti'm and non-uniedemity, home trees on the north and On midolty of rho t'rctan in the ndoth:biock have inferirr Vit;ox, t;itat in n lack pf norinaj ctirroht>;tnsonra'Rroath. Thead teces have bite Ut�vtously ue.7kenod In 'the tinct by s'omn factornig factors; and nrr liavitig n diffieult tmo ri!'�uVcinrihtn>t than` rigor►� ° brXH XT 9 lh,r.�r b4lth;riitr� w1'tllilt (11ty iI issue ehowa further,t ll hoalth �f�tirunk to; tomn and wu burh atitev trunk t _ eympeomm ar stunt and ,lack of visor, This t�ronk, m felt is evident on mangy G Cresta throughii►�,t Moth rho nor end sa�uch' btoaks j ,but i`s cent indd to the irtwr llar or recanted ,treaa;;� Tine argar; ntor_a hno,],tly tr gn an� Che n%kth Fab, nok this trunkY symptom,. r Yom`,F. ..'m..i Y Y ...'� The affected trees show ebildhnrk gpi,ai<t" being ati.:unttenl'thy bLac with abnormal hnrk cracking and, trunk punbUti lett avidance, F exhibiting these severri trunk. symptomd n be dii�fictilt. to re�uvenatm► it.. appanr.4 that thcoe trees have bettn'i1pCtCitncAtA Y ilii"�?tstad by���eet I. conditions Possibly either z oil or venter pr'ab7.emsi%,.'-if R t Rorer.:infedtation 6 There has been acUsl 'popmt�iitiot► of .itot^atF % t a ets infe�i'einR ! �� �' ,. �� geoi �tuarudiscustl d ;eba3�e► Primary o e Bare sY ik trunks, and limbs of ihe�`tettinted`Yand' uhhee �! inf enation id from , the , �uhot ifole r, a 1hRUa+ tYi't:h rile Western Flat Ileaded Rorer., ChrYhbbothy4 m�i,taidaao it:'dvildet►ca. Those borer. itset:tf ' da itlt� et itt +�ttlty trees,; but 'tcather seek out weak or dying tt`eea to Camp]aCn tltei>c xilra aye,lew Many trey s throu9he" t this otchitr.d have been henviil inteotod� 4th,rhese'"two borer species+ ns evidenced . d by them entrance and g3gt Iinlee;,xnJ thaw -dit'ee, 'tills boxet f�►rrr�hc>1, evldtsncc of weak and ui'ltenithy infestation �, i'i t^aot`' ills pfi 1` _ Oak float Fun ria, Armll�iaria ins, _lisp h. eafte A ears to, o scnttared': titrouE,hout the acraa} o, Although at pt;egient 1p motet parlous aC. the north ensC area: F An aerial ,photo ofth4 previoite,orehurd shows a 000 Of greag with missing trees' which" Could be Oak 'hoot r'ungus infested arcAsF I undaYatand' this tirchar4 with leveled pteviaus; to pinhtiitg,, which:. is a derioua tni.aEAke in Oak 'Fuhnus '} ails , as it.sp,rct� Js the di.scaso i ikoughou't the nreA, When this. 40050'.e a prob�,etn;°teras 'arc (3) apfiroaclee orae to tate r orclthrdist' 6. 1) �ai1 furEtlgatlon Ch a ufiptrpoch "ia V, l expattaive acid not totbll�►;: effetive. COWOf �tbtW d'rom�,do,ot,"Catton bisui-e a flf ►l.gation,runs $806- $ICOQ per Fctie. Adddr ekpnnea d`c ltdee nte>it `fCr r`etnoval of, infected raota Oh, harbnx �><h�. all c+asire �'tltau j� t� l.�tAwJc*peat:,!�'pgrd� wmphrctnnt with Cartion , bisul'Ciao`;�khnytY'>;i 2) RdAiettftnl: itpecitzs "� i tzar on Orenth #eax raofrAtock 11Rd 1dC11itllt 'on 5 Narthtrn CulifOMIA puck Walnut > oot, at^' " highly 103-istant to teak t Oted: Thry„Are not immune, hovever, land 'Can .cbnCatt this disaaad -if other pradilsposing , tractors stich fta toot borers 'or '0 ytoi#. Oro sn. (Crown Rat) occur, +�hirh oliens d phthway for bok Fuhni ut !Worttori, Y y Yt Would nbt P'Adcido to ropihnt waitrut or lib# trees ' tis. die ft 4. Oak Vdngud; Appends art :•,not compatible With i~itliiiraofArhaaeoc opo” Xk lh obvious that 0eara arty trt illy incoh►patible p with Almondti due, tri on;Ot,dly da;i'ie hitt ileac oontrol ne�nde:; d0foranc66 in irrl ration kaiiul.retaao a unci " g' Attht InebtnpaCibilitiao Xntet"filattted waXnuts 1 . would also have some of the acme probl6MC including: 5 ra incom itLit)ilit Cd er pray � Y 1 , id et nacatraapry for tiralnttt til Mit control arc h cetoxte to almonds end ,�il,l defalie3ti aittiond treelH, h Y r: F _ F Oil sprays naceaaary �Vn nlrnondpu; citq but`ti Wnitiut 4}1 'E�• , t« llar`lest dates .for each !O�f CiO!l,;1i►O111�,,1ff qct,. CCisAt�Qfl' Aaki bleb i i'arm.in twd intar tlailkad o 3 , ' i r g _ 'ii'11ifi''icitlt in relotion, to other, . . «kopeCr normal ell itlira il' practices., 'il b�`• ', �, • r. The total 'almond Qrchnitd caAt'ic1 ttpy ,ralovQd and replanted vith ablaut oil black root but tilin would be uet+k ,. bnabl�i'ti6t�t ecoiiomIC;'x^1y an4.. }'hysidaiiy,� s p ,parinnnant cat sprinklers note In t a� t�x;rht� d.': lhkon -re I kd;!xemaval dist tc:ttlt without d.aniage to the spifi:nklat' syAtdAi� Thaeoe•t" fcir' orchard, removal ba'at least $2QQ/acxe;' prottab y more,�bnd a coxdink t&t,the University" of C�alifarnig cost ptu�y: leaf cw �4b (1978�thg Bost of establishi'ag a tialiiUt k orch'ata thrqup,It the sixth year Y $:."x-220 dip :: an"re " With this kind of capital r investendnt; it woti'ld' bo. a liefi.c' hta {tge ini dtl,cision, to removek a nJinohd 1 orchard and repince it witti ws, n tfh; 0100ti 11 �hxg is a :pgasibility . 3AlmMt ki�tt+0ar �2b�� dim' rootstock are ttUo eedisk ant' ; 4~ to Oak 1:ungiashor"raver,tnhinny�+limottnnted on thi,a- rootstock have tiot baan able to withtltatttl, tltik tlisaaxw, 111'11i'it; apparent in Di.dway Orcliurd� ; where 1tim rootstock ; . latascont'rolamu on .° each rootstock. 'charoforttl�i0' 9-* i 1 o�vieift�lfenoroji'm A itq nsure h � s r � Y, ob this ftoporty'• { Ilon"Ynfdctioiis Aud yailure nV) Tharp is Ia i`nirly high incidence of this j genetic (liilordTT- thinughaut Wdwty circil�wrds� , bV is carr ed in the bud%4600 and originates in tho parent alone from wtbich the'budwoc is takatia The highest inci'detca Of .pg is rlbe'cx.%red in the Moviced viiriety; which } i' is n l aridwith kntlwn high fiP rptunCial. ' ,� lcas.t;er° an�aunC of 111' wan, obselty til in tha Corm ,aild 'Harvey vitrietl . Since this ilisordei iq abvibiisly iii s frlirly large numbee ;of Merged traea� ,slid sinal: rite+bi�clusti d uf'4t�I ito� 'dri :ira. this drt:i{era py'ohnh):y came fro 1 ' i i a s sMmccadurebi't;ric �o,�khei��fot.�+,,nlsb prab�l',liY that hinny or ill l the trc+m�ini,� *M0, �egli ioikantiar ,�aHI will tilt, at`ely is•hoa ul " ? ttymptofiq• .° a r v" �a�Ae � ; �"o ,. •r 'a,. This ixdbltAtn taoduens .a cloilth ,if tt:►'iniioal' bailie; causing g l p " anet,' lntat`a1 hud;l to Y6-, ,olid ti► roby' � erratic growth with much beard e .tliot�ing ltn� wood, lotted in ati, c>.ag'y '�'op elisease; tlta trcios do trot dip but d'dcrdare in pkndudti.on rivet' the �Ohrs .a:na iaay htia`omd ugticntlOiLa tet ! litl• 5Owd tri�utt 'Tn the MI'dway nrch'aled aii itit�tiutly tsovato Enough` to be t 1litlaiEiwa Ali tinncouomi't, Titt:i4 dihoirtler r0duceg' yield. ns,.ip' b'"t, 'a tkord aevereo as shove by tilt, ancidded 11iMbrslty of C,h,lif,66ta rrise�4c'�I1`�lu,ktk by W,, Oartltu, tit 'al, With this dlsottle doohteitt in subbict orChdrd'i Old" iltdo'd variety wi'Ll lilobtthly de4r.aaitu iii ecgnaaiic Itotdotiit1 ti�Or the truitiiiiinl life of tlici iii+rllitrii, � 9 ,r -4- P Soll Study - A-ccording to tha raeent sl' it •ttrveyconducted onthis' proparty i by Dr,, John H. Ifartj the nail ie guitp�Itvnriabla in tetteura and thus in venter %t hoiding capacity, permeabllityq,in& nUtritionAl va`}ua. Ai no"tact„ip ar. llart s repor't� n "�;., vnriabllity makes p�ope�r �raeter`mar�dse�aant difficult', Jr �� kith lack of au.f Fftiont anter in ,Some are�a►;a'. Kteile'�'�uddl'itig and possible i results t}t root And crown rot in Other arena? try $U111maty.'Afid, CbncXU'ion!! it ;a Midway Oichhtd ig beeet with n OMbet Ot cultotil prouldh • ,weA And stunted tt,'eca0 lack of vijare° bordt,' Oi.i atietion,, Ndn-°ititCeGtiow; Hud' Failure, Oak Boot Fungus, and° variehiltt rC,,� 'salol. r Thema facCore maker chid axr ” a ha1ta»ant'ly tieloie its' eicono►nic cnpubiJ�'= ` ' ty as compared to ;other ,orchiftdadf ;the bate ake.' .Extremely good irian;tkement n� And ipereueed capicti] investment for f.4 get ion#- tree replacement ar orC`hard tembval and replacemont with hngther .d chaird *pecten to control Oak Root: w Fingus, and e'llminatian•og dF�°wilx ate neatset► y to bring this ctrcliard property to its uitimht`e potential, tho probloirdi inherent ,in this orchard are difficult• to rectify] ehpecially OAk liopt„F(InguaDFji, and soil vat+iability. , , t Y 4 „ s' Note: NO to the time a idmenic , tits above report is. of n general nature`s'Ul„} tJt;;th mar£oCuric, obckCAnt of zdasddh tir�lnnflf sd ptoma by a radihg actoalotriseedit®sr dire unfit tyr p g+ � Y 9 8 Ym r �. M dh(win oak Root Van uS root, dtem bbaervatians relative to so.w1, structure; s td otheir data teluted to orch;i �4 tiwdtha; tf” ou halts que'sti.on s in thiet report•lor ret i.ite moitc detailed ififdeia matiocl on any aspect; plearte let me k0644 Geek'. at ,�� _ •;Pomplogist � ( e t Ehclosure a , Y M]A Yn w, a s, S59 EAST UNDO' hVENl1E ;A : PHONE (916) .343.5818, CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95926 Midwa- Orchards x •. Route 3, Hog 130 _ s r�, Chico, Cal 95 326 Dear Mr., Cottingham; On March 27th, 1,980,' :C made 'horticultural obsert►utions on the Midway Orchards' property located on the Midway;, south of Chico. It was quite evident from my inspection that'the Midway Orchard suffers from many serious problems. Oak root fungus,,' bacteria canlenro and stunted and weak trees, particularly on the southern sec tion of the orchard. I would like to address each of these serious problems aindf give you My expert opinion as 'to the outlook and future of the orchard. ; OAK ROOT VbNG1JS (ARMLLARth ROOT ROT) • Y This fungus is wides ' preach throughout the Northern Y,. Sacramento Valley. In some arras it causes extensive tree �i10 losses. Affected trees are usually in groups, And, the , tend to enlarging areas and kill. more treew' y^ eachblcare Oak root fungus is favored by�high soil moisture y and can survive on old wood disease below, the ground for as many years. nr. Bill Moller, an expert in this field, has f� informed Vs that the diseased roots can be found as deep as 5d ideto and is more fre e,t� seen where oak trees have c,rnwn.. along wp te,r curses, etc, 1�he sya�pttlril� yn ,�� r �iw.�,n the Midway Orchard: The trees become weakened aria can be kille3'at any" tkiheti 'fo find this ev3.dence o f fungus and act"vitt' in the ground, it can be lgcated by cutting off the outer bark with a hatchet or strong knife. A cream-colored or white mycelial fails, between they bark and the wood, not on the outside of th�.•bark: the result, a firm, Wet "rot which has a Strang mushrooim-Uke odor, The bark �.�ove t'he ground udually appears. tthe�2 normal.plthou h, u, g 1 be a slight amount of gumming, r 559 EAST LIN66 AVENUE PHONE (916)43.5818 CNIGO; CALIFORN)A 93926 .,.. (2) Black s bestring-like structures may be found on the out�icle of large, iisea�ed routs, and after fall or spring rains c, theca, alto may be a '?Honey-colored mushroom .,aroiiind thery`base;' of the, ttee . CO LgROL• In a , •,when 1 i , s n older, established orchard •°° ,t disease is first discovered, the only control method that a seems to be satisfactory is to remove all t*6 diseased troes and then healthy ad-jacent trees around the diseased trees to prevent the disease from spteading, then dig up and des;;oy, all the roots of both the healthy trees and the diseased treed larger than;one an a half inches in diameter. Then, let that area dry c+ut for one or two years. Deep cultivation; and fumigatiun with appropriate chemical Yate in September Ior early October while the soil: is still dry and warm.. Then; aerate the soil one to two months before planting. A res'16tent root stock such as Mariana (Pbonetic), 26-24, offers some .. resi.atence, however, it is Obvious in the Midway Orchards this Would not be a good choice since it is evident that the Mariana 26-24 is not resistant to oak moot>fungu6 in this soil. Also, it would be'foolish to remove the dead trees a and healthy trees surrounding the dead trees;; because when this orchard was replanted fa Mare to, remove all of the orchard, ,and the raots underneath the ground have scat tered the oak,- _ root fungus over the entire area. The forecast for the MidWay Orchards With reference to oak root fungus is a serious one, :it is doubttldl that it can be controlled, its spread :should be rapid. It is my opinion it`Would be impractical to replhnt,With any 'toleraht species, such as Bnglish walhut or black walnut; because of fungus and soil types; ; a, BACTERIAL CANKER: Bacterial canke!: r also knowna`s Gitnftodi6, or sour sap: This disease is not. mah-caused. In -act, DI% .Lilly (phonetic',, at ` the tni'versi ty of California, Who h:as madd a study �cf this disease for over 30 some years; I-b.ag nof badfi able to pinpoint its eXact cause, However, the se 0 t6h is more revere on trees grown in sandy soils IVAti3t y, than hea dy soils; and, the vigorous trees are less siisc,�..� y'ie to bacteria. canker than weak or slowly growing diV : ' ifi-I I the case of the Midway, vihere the soil is r AM y ss9 EAs'f LINDO AVENUE ;.. PHONE (954) 343.59118 CHICO, CALIFORNIA, 95926 =+ (3) "t'he �j so, thallow,, ,pArticularly on the south side 'af orchardit t, is evident that the trees affected by the bacter3:e1 canker )�have''had the roots enter into the.poorer'soils which lie. only 18 to 20 ,inches below the ground surface. The ittgaction is ? usually .severe on trees from one to six to eight y( ats of ,age�a„ This disease is seldom serious in almond ; is highly serioub in nrunes;,and most other stone fruits. Because of the nature t'^ of the sail 4t,tthe Midway; being shallow, cobbly 6nd,sandy, and unable to, hold either nutrients or moisturi::; the trees )'� have been weakened and are susceptible to most dtbdaees,, tt should be also noted that the only trees that observed> With bacteAal canker were on the south side of the prgperty. You g-liitA , the symptoms, of this Abease> So tht au can reca° ymp i- p wood -,becomes a dark> x:'eddi6h-brow43, the bark and the oixter sap .. with occasional small 90 1' `'imilarly discolored bark 4 'S tissue just beyond the q( gin. symptottt: include copious product!;, 'er-Coloted gum and 6wiken areas .�� <<_ _ _ - of limbs and trunks. The eay girdle the etf;adted tree lz�l ` and cause death Cankers' N� t� most active and exp�.d pr:iazly duringthe dormant � er_i�od' and the amount of activitl+ will vary,t from ear to ear,. P', Y y C014MOt- Co'nti.ol,, •d' Hacberllhl Canker inalmond has' not been thoroughly ihvestigatedl Although the diteass " not well understood, research on other prunus specier '`y'ttdicates f that measures which encourage good plant growth also fiend to =I protect from bacterial canker. 1nalelence and'§eVekity of j {,a bacterial canker- has a..ten teen red+aced by use a � prep'.aitt 1 i and/or post-plant fumigata o-t. Especially in Sall �i w10 ls; • to �}had the ard, itorchardis southernepa�tr,of theay nbvioixs soil on �h�nde of pr,�me in hature and thio is the reason that 'the majority of stunted r and small trees, the diseasd-ridden trees and the trees that have been attacked by insects are in this particular sten.,}' y Replantini from this disease requites there1_osal' as { the tree; chise�.ing the, ;gkou+net, fum3.gation and reel, ng of "the tree. Ai d; with all these ptecautions there si+111 is'- " =11BIT 10` ,l 1 n SO 9ASTLINDO AVEN lE b S PHONO 016) 343-5814., ( a► CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95426 n rutecton from the anker on you trees that p . e k . g , you migl�it that replanng tile trees again, xt"wrould be my opinion .4 0`print in this area Wotild be an ,,effort ,in cfutility. �i ; SUMMhRY: xt is my opinion bocaUbe 'at, the Moil d1i _e a „t iaa]c root fungus) , and` mrginaZ aoZ type, sai i ``depths, . y bacterial canker, the future of the MidWa arck t pis 1 milrsd z� P tM `I E, Ron Barnes it AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION i. d UNIVE7RSITY OF CALIFORNIA I b�i�ls, ZAUF '�Hv► sa s KEpLy toy Diep`t. of Plant Pathology April 3, 1080 [fir gill Cottingham \Rt� 3, !lows 00 �ohi�,� ;, California 05926 ra ►5eur' \tL• ,ottin hsu+•, V r, In su r mniarixing what I saw at .your Durhar almohd orchard on. April.,' 1, thIL, �iiymptoms•affecting numerous trees+ we typical of bacterial canker, t' caused by the,banterium Pseudomonas syringae, This ;year seems :to 'be,, one Vf' the worst that we have seen for this disease in rsacent years, and jusC lass week Y` spent VO ;days in the n.artrhern Sen Josyuin'Velley 'viewing oktein,ive damage In young ,almonds and peaches, caused by the same organisms The.disease gobs by several common names, depending ,on the symptoms expreaas�ed , i) canker and: gui�rnosis aymptoes characteristically'•Iaffeet single scaffold a.imbs with limbs collapsing in apring and exhibiting,a profusion of gum. 2) S ulLe.p symptome ars what was commonly been in .your orchard;, very little ,'I gumming, -- And a atrong.odor of "sclulcnsap�l'idcoloration and necrosis of scaffold atiably affect 2-10 ' These two abovemOe ntioned e m tom types ins year old triae6. Nursery trees. mnd:•,fitot;year plantings are not affected. The rootstock and tiesue below ground is usually healthy, so a profugida be sucic+rwt 1 ' commiynly emerge in late sp'ri'ng. The third symptom attributed to Pa. •syriiigae is known as 3) b]Ast, This type usually affects trees,of'all ages, itnd.ia, chathtterized by killing of young ba.osaoate and leaves in ,spring but not cankering a of limbs. Occasionally more than one type of, symptom is.;seen on the ,same pais. r Tlua cdusal bacteria can be found on many different plants, inei ding weeds, and although it is suspected that they enter the tree primarily through leaf )S scars, the reasons than the disease occurs in some years but not others is 1. q entl can be avoided in orchards, sandy soils,; ,,and shallow sols, and fte gib worse in low spots still not• clear. it always y ed by careful soil preptiration such as back.6eing end fumigation prior to planting which ensured that the `trefs got a good start. 'Unfortunately, noir that MX,P, id no longer legal, there id' n6thing else that can .be done after planting., Sprays witb eoppet are of dubious v4ue. V." aecaute of the history of oak root £06gus' iHrs a �, r a meliea) in 'this brche wa knrd, yaur choice l:� `r of pootstock is still probA y advisaile, even though v that treat on ;Lovell peach root are more tolerant of bacterial clinker, W9611 is highly euacdptible to bale root fungus. Ndpefuilyj we will het tee Ouch an incidence of the disease fur a long time, which may encourage you to 'replant the vacenr 'spots again. I hopes tha"t these doiamokb are helpfult let me know (through the gutter County office) if I can be of further ass.stanie. The soil swnplss for nematode have biei forwarded to the gittension nblUtologiat at Davis and he will advise 131:11 01801i 11e "due courae 5inc6rely `i�---•�, Wk- P;106, � tK p�, _.. idilliern J. F3ol].er � gxt�i Plant ttatiloLo�;1H't cc:. �)yyyy,, � gyp. 0 , cfyoPtllill4� i!{YlNs1pN VWW/SSSSIIMMC���M11::: IN AQA AND M{1M1 ii=i.'N1.+,Ci, ,'t).pullminl 0 All#It'vllUrr ts,1J UnivenNy 0 raAlu0in 6•00t61160 �w�.r?„r.p4;.'.8:.,, .,,. .-. :,. > .. .:,.. ,—. _. ::.:. _.e,.._ V. ',,..,, ., ,.a>. 'i�:. - ..n r� *-' .sw,::;:w,'t:.»,. ...: .a.�. -.... - :-_.... ;ex4..;._. . . -•...,•.,..:«�.m..':k4ti.tx.u+•=+:a-,w,. ..,... OSA 060 RMIR�.� RIA ROOT R�T r,�, der© ( Oak Root fungus) The authors are A; H. McCaiExtension Plant Pathologist, Mf n. and A. D, Iaabe; 'Professor, Plant Pathology, Berkeley: � 1 Armlll arta root rot, also knower as oak (rhi2otnorphs) that aro found on the\ouY�- root fung2s or.mushraonr root rot,„ie ince of affected roots and growingtnto one almost widespread plant dis- the soil for short distances. Ttss _ a at d rf eases' in California, It is.,aaused by the rhixomorphe are dark smeoth, at fungus; Armillaria_mell�a; which is na- shiny ks the outolde Nben fresh, and, fire to many areas, including tho Pacific branrh in s differentm 'anner frown roato�1 Coast region It moy'occur naturally On oaks and other woody species. A wide range of plants are attacked, rnodt of r hlch aro woody, but herbaceous spe- ArMillaria me�tP is Sometimes mis- 1 cios may also be attacked, taken for other wood rotting fol* ij however, these other fungi are usually secondaiy invaders, that spread through-' out the bark and sometimes into the SYMPTOMS 'woad, causing itto crumble, easily: The woad of Armillarla-affected trees Is firm, except in very advanced466, ,- ” a. Affected trees or shrubs itsually shop a when the wood becomes wet an eolblty,6 get,eeal decline in Agert ofioia' aceo m v : paiilod by yellowing of the ges and m infected ted Toadstools of the 'fungus rna. form y sametlines loaf drop '` y at plants 'may wilt 4nd dig The the bases bf affected trued between .Oc- abovoygroutid sy'mptiim6::r'esemble those tobor and ,?ebruacy, but these; May hot - produced by a humber of other ilaot be gammon in California. Toadstools k troubles, such as gopher' Injury, sour at, the base, of a tree do not necessarily snp� tato, mean that rmiltaria Mollea is ;irdsont, y : fungi m foro since man offide adstools r there, m caused by ~ The most reliable indication that the trouble is y Armiliara id the presence of fan-ohap+id plaquoa of white ArnAllarla -root rot is spread by in: or cream coloke& `longus tissues be- footed wood car0ad by man or by flood tween the bark atMl, die wood in the rpota waters: it may r tX d be spread by trans- and the trunk beneath the soil;, planting tnfocte! ,shirts, many years after tits rleria} l:rts of the tree are i gong; the funguw s'Ctna ns alive to file Thd fungus enters the euscettdead roots It ,May otlaasionally be l;y ineons of dark rootliko 6 r1":,: found in woody °gWt erlal in loaf mold. PAOkM AOVjjdjt, NOAIa ADVIso;R 1.1+ WottV uN1Valtsirit or cALIFONIA AaaicULMAL CI `, NsiuN i 7 CON'i'WI, ArInIllarla root rot can bo avoided by planting resist' p . , our ,form a)It a eC1es, it adv apx has t. Utit of resistant and sue Ar. mtll.acla yal„ len is aenattiVe to dry centible slants �i to uKaL',T roWa. moatrapidly tinder we h yJ i; condition®; heavy watering should be Plante from the linmunc�. or ht hl re- „`' avold�d for this;" ason. The life of a sistant list may be us.d to replace vulualgo' .tree >'ij be prolonged if the, plants killed by Armillaria. 'Moderutcly dlseuae is discovered before ft has resistant plants, may be used in an arca, ;t reodhed the trunk, >rxposo the base of whore the disease occurs but caro In Uic 11"I-10 to the air for several months, watoring is oaisentio. It Is best (0`191106 a•r�;l, novi: and burn all diseased roots. a thorough soaking and then not irrigate t Trn,at wounds With a disinfoctunt, such again until noccasury. Avoid f� or�uelit- ' a.rs bordoaux pusteU.31ng fertilizers to �rlaatlanWith aural amoltnta o tenter, stiinululeA growth +i - .dsairublo. it Y01.11Even plants from the immur:o or, highly ° are usingIcitF �� ti,�'� with pleoes of resistant list may become` infected if brunches �,r :,nota �'1s :lt, dry the mar- 1-1 conditions are particularly favorublo terial thorough t6 sill the fungus b+e for the fungus and unfavorable to the forts ushig: plant; , ' 1'`t, i 1_~i �,1. 1• 111 j I I, J rrry 1 ril �,. , ' i °J�I `1 rC 1°l,� JJ 1 I OA .i � � t . Jli (A Ak t l\ ,4 While 0104uili W lunpur` ben�cih !h� JtitlLam rohr" arrotvl� browlod on ori r411604a toot, o Wit W b 1661 inlstaod 6V 4i'Milpilri t Co+igiulJ� 61oa11on wu4 In g 19llwo opd 11.I1i. IrdnoellUi 60dolit if Aili.ulfulp U810044nl Wltoo"id unci i o0j ilal•1 bipo .iM o1 A4.Ii ro f ioaguuljniii biall�ulW In IuyhiiiMy •1 114 Ali O1 tH�litY of MdO 0. ow loco J0. 1114,'stay. D, Alr01p1 01t6twti G411191610 1011wllwo) iMinnllua lOW0i 1a HX)3XT T! � as 0 •= I _a m 71 1� r �lidV {8 i�ptl�i��E1 f: �14111� iC►I IA SL:t SP' d"iSc wry � y Butte CounCy Yield: 2,000 poUlId ( of in-shell nuts. Labor rates icicluding fringe bet►efita $3:f1() nna $4.60 per hour. Hours Cash and labor cost acre ... ,. ._..�._: Operat lon per acre 'Labor ter Fuel _._MaCeriale repairs Kind and quantity „ Cost 'Cotal .Dollars Cultural. C6nts 31.20 Pri'tnG 8.0 31."20 _: Pihe bra"h .3:0' 0.3 1,.40 1.'E10 2.40 , . Buck brush fertilize (con4rf�r.C) 2x 3(i lb. N/tr.• *• $2/ad: 40:00 40.06 r Spzay 3x 1.04.60 „ a 8:90 v rious 80'.00 93 •,56 Sprinkle for frost pro- .25 Ca u--ctioft 'lox ray, 2K Strip sp' .06 0.6 .25 2.75, 2.30 'Various geed killers 10.'00 15,65` ' Row 6x a 1.5 6.90' 7.25 - 1415 4 irrigate 4x (sprinklers) 4.0 13.60' Power toIpump 24:00 39.'60 Mund 5x 2.5 11.50 in. 10.30 Propane 20 00 41.80 CgeeeBn before harvest 0.3 1.20 .20 2 hives 0 $12_ 1.40 24:Q0 00 Intereot on operating 16.00 16.00 TOOT CULTURAL COSTS 1 7.10 .. 29.95 214:00 '331.05 61 Harvest Costs Mode windfalls 1.0 3.'30 3.00 6.20 Knock.! 3.0 4.0 13.80 15.60 11.10 15.60 Pole -=. 2.30 Rake# 0.5 1.0 2.30' 3.90 3.hW 6 « 90 Sweep Pick ua 1.0, k".60 _ 7.00 ;y 6;.90 Haul to huller 1.0 3.90 3.00 `✓ 14,60 1 Hull 1:5 _ 4.60_. 10.00 = . 89.7 0 _TOTAL l(ARVEST COSTS ;_r,52 i 60 _ 37 :10 - Cash�Oyerhead Mir' 'office, Accounting, std 25;G5 85.00 waxes orchard 6 e ui merit __ __. ` TOTAL CASI(,OVERHEAD 110,45 110:45'" TOTAL CASHCOST. 139.70 67.05. 3 2-4. 24, 531,20 5% t�f 2,000 lbs « @ 45C4-5.00 .MisnaKement Annual cost ` Inrrea____:tm t, Ps. 4 acre Dep Weiation Interimx. 'Y� Land $1x500 Tzees 2,000 $5i.15 90:00 Irrigation system 350 23:23 15.75 Buildings 125 4,20, 5165 Cultural equipment 403 36:65 18.15 '13.75 18.25 NnrvesC squ$ppient 405 783 �J55.Q0 282.80 4x7:0 Total4 101.4 i 00 TOTAL, COST PER ACRS `5l_ Cont.peet._oound @ 2,Oo0 lb. field Suurcei hte'ith C1e�u, et: Ali-, Abnodd product len Costs, University of calit6NIIe Agri" 00iturai baldneion mi. ae 0 or v!ll°e. 'April 1972. L 7 tl rJUL Rob Hanford r lr 6U06 County" l: 8 � airc adian Ave. Chico, CII C> r t� Dear Mr• Neloona The dangers, inherent in our de endenc o `' p_ y n oil are only too apparents doing something about it is going to bring `r Changes to every aspect of our lives, not the Yeast be our present dyetdms Tor the production and distribUtIon of, t1 r,, foodo The amount of ever .. required td ,gr q grout, transport, processo padkaget and preserve 'the reen revolution's will �a c <�#t soon not be able p g a 'to compete With food grow-,oh a smallir f rout and simpler scale. The marketplace will see to that. Nor Will ` oc� rown ohc=r g , of the ,southwest be able to 'coinpetE with the �. imdeha rz.cultu�l"s ` „• p g ral soils of the north, Whet he best water in the world is only Fifteen feet away ('and falling) given the urgency of the denadE I think it fair-* naed to . r, say that:there is only one 101highest and best" use dt the , ' y4 agricultural lands to the south and West of Chico, and that is` for the production Of . fOOd! .On g y u2 'ge you t0 takE a S st?l ` step in the tight directlon by pr0tQCt3'.ng the lana eot of the Mi.S'way and north of the C�lICo-OrOvilleiWayj Zone 1�. .. A20e s' " . sincerely, x. .. .,, .. _r,� •.:r���..„_, : ems: r G . ' �rtvirUnnt�nfai liavi�Yf .i�t�1i. JUL 4m. Malcolm Jayrod' 8 Wt'I I idm Towne 7s 369°Pine Street; Suife 520 , Son F'renolsco, Calif 04104 „ a J u j 28 1980 yr c Mr. (Earl Nei'somlZoO ronmbnfa1 fw 1e birector " Outfe Gr aunty env I ronmenta I Rev 1 eW Dopa r'lmen i$4 County Center Drive r OroviIlp, California 9596 r Ftr:t '!,ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RrPORT FOR PROPOSM �870Nr AND GSNI RAL PLAN €' AMrNDMrtiiT OF. COUNTY _ LAND SOUTH_ Or CH I CO,1' DATED APRIL. 1980 - bear Mr. Nrs 1 Son „ u We have o'pproximatol:y 155' &Cres of land invQIved in the �ab6VA. suli�;�oc�i proloct, h O p ��, Wo hove not boon noCrivironmonn'aI hllhough orl.od oorres and l hg _ to. the Impact Report, .wteeuriderstertdV'thnt , p July 28, 1980 Is file lasf day for written response 1i0 fhe Favironmenf0 Impact Report, Therefore, on short notice we have prepoNd In th1�9, jotter our conmehts � and concbt-ns. , Xi.STIN6 LAND OB�SCRipf1ON, Wo find It approprlafo at the outsef to describe our iandv,.by Assessorrs Potols as follows f� I, Assess6H s farceI Nos, 40.04-38 and 40-36 InCiudos 20 ocros which are , slated for subdivision undor Southgate Unit No 2: Tlhis iln,nd is now In orchard oapaclty+ E 2. Assessor"s Parcel No, 40-4046 includes 16 acres being in orchard capacity, 3. Assessor rs I Not. 40-40-31 and 4b42-117 consis`hlhg of apprOXI- s a ina t a l y i` g acres hav 1 had a present Iand use of open area grid hay crop and p OnLi0prOXIMOftearea of 18 acres' res®ntly udder jease to the Chipp COMMPNT AS RtLATINc TO TH5 ENVIRONWNTAL IMPACT WORT PRIEPAREb AOR COUNTYLANbS SOUTH Or CHI CO. AND OUR LAND IN PAIRTICULAO ` " IT The' Env Ironrnental impacimt Report suggesfs a major porflOh of file project Is dompoaed of pra agrl,ru.Iturol load. Hdv'tAg viewed fhe IIf,.,-of, 'I-he projoct we fund fhis� diff=icult to understand: Our Iand certoInly dooto carry i'ho samrie chargaterls,lics ds dons rho i'a rich Rdndh The Tree I'roprovolonf Gentor, Midway Orchards or the 00611 acreages on the Chic6�0r6vil10 1.11ghWay, if is: Inconsls`I'enl• to Lump ail 04 Mr. Earl Nelson July 28,, 1980, Page TWo of these areas into one category based on the premise of the Ia'd being prime agricultural fond. We would classlfy our land for` the mostpart to be marginal agricul-turai land inct;uding_dredgeth • . to I I i ngs and therefore object to the i nc l_!.�s tong :of our land' �1 n the subject project as being prime agricultural fond. 2. The projod? would require a General Pian chanje 10r aur, lands':,; The' EnvironrhentaI lmpact'Report 4'uggests only rine reason for fhi's- �t change, that being the preservafion of prime agricultUra, 'land = as noted�.above, our land 1s not prone agr-Icu1tural land, MosT tmportoewly here, .shouldn't other factors be explored wh,IdK ore not addressed in'f(his 8hVIronmehtal Impact Report., The BUtte,, . County General Plan doesh't make the policy statement that d I U j tither land use categories and factors bocano irre.levanf when agricultural land possibly, exists within the V;jcinify. The wiiole premise of this project, although not stated, seems to be jUstthat,. U! A large portion of our land has been under the Laird Use designation of low density residential for approximately n1na years. We a'.tI( you Why this land neods to be redestgnated'to orchard and fleld crop ' after of of this• time based on an Environmental Impact Roport that only focuses on the preservation of agricultural land. We find that -H the Environmental. Impact Adp6rt should address a 'other adopted 1 k 'County policies in relation to land .use. We, therefore, must object to the eihEvjnjctbated o- n thposerveon ofa P'.1otalavoldanceof aolootherthaner {{ secondary note should be made as dith'ough the cultural land. A.es s are described with correspohdtng acreages, Gehc.ral Plan thong - s there is no map to lilu"strata suchchangoa. 3� The Soi 1s Mat Figure No: of the subject Envlr-orinental 1n act l Map ,i p epbrt maybe generally correot, 0lfhaUgh We feel a more dotal led doscrtption of sol is an aur lend is In order: We have axamined the'area by use of test holes where we have encoUhtored marginal aoi''is contalhtng a City tyOO sail containing a sightficant amount of rock to a dep''-h +f 0 to 3 feo•t rrom this elevation to the bottom of our excovat().�" 1: being, approxlmately 8 to 10 feel- In depth, we fund ar.cobbly mater Olat intermixed with some sends and cloy, This soil 5tr6tificatlan is f; cOfalhly undorstandablo Ori most of our bond has boon drodtdod on `throe adjoining sides. The 861 Is Map indicates vino loam on Assossoi"s Parcel Nos; 40-40=51 and 40-0,''.-117, We feel that this does not j'ruly depict the sot i cohd i tl ons In this creat and therefore inust ob,lec�� to the accuracy of the Soils Mop, 4, The Chvironmehtal Imppact Report lhdicotes that our .land is prlrtie agrlcultural. lend. As indicated previously, we cannot agree with .'' this. Ass essor's"Parcel Nos, 40-40-31 and 40-02-117 have occasslbrtI iy been In 'hO+ croopn o everdrat ion before our purchasd of the pr '��rty in coon and hot sihce, burl'ng ihls t1me, our oco�i-,010 ah6lysis.. has showh thot this land Is hot economically feasible in the field crop application 0-91 the revenues generated will not cover fdX and I hsura hce, We would l i ke to note that we have o•iher ogrtcu I tura l j 1 concerns i h the County i oco'1•ad west of Chico 11 y o in the form of M T Ranch. 1'n is .. .. ., :..,~....."t, a _. a,:.ia:�. .,: -- '• - ":. :, w .. .. u.,,. pl.'e• . .,Il ,:. ._s till �t IILlvlinuttvlr) You w111: utJtt!uv1, a 4 _ , y Very truly yours; y F, t OaIlag Low Agent Por Jayrod and Towne f'1 1. �ti B�'islcP vi�14'u,Az���.��.. ... itk db..,. ,,, �t .. .'�. a, .,�. &r. .., .,, ,�r�:��,a •:�•� Mr. Carl Nelson July 28, ;1980 Pago Three r - r: This land is currently in field crop and orchard opera+ion. W.e find lands west of Chico to b:e economically viable in that capedty We would consider land on the M b T Ranch: to be prime agrlcuitura( G land. We contend' that the major difference,be4We' hthe. tW`d areas x previously described is the sot makeup and depth. Thus, :we must =' }_ conclude by stating that our [arid under the resent pr is not," p p prirne 6grlcui''tural land. 5. The Envirornnehfal impact Report prosehts.an economic analysis by. which it ts,shown that 'the General Plan Amendment and Rezone 10 The " most v;Iable ecotom1c alternative. The short notice, of whi,.cii.we;are' Er 6 faced with this ` 'response does not a'1,I ow :us to +horough ry eXam i fie, `z i thu economic.aria'`iysis as presented. Basically; ove`ral`l rJ.e':flnd the gross income tor be over -rated as to an ihftatod revenue fec"M ag^r 1, cu I tura I pro"ductlon. "Second ly, we f i'lid the cc to the County' a -t veing Infilated, particularly r7 f6e road"abd drainage tmpro`vembh area. Finally, the summary of aIterhatives would have to .be. � ah,cm l Cal ,xuestioned �heavi I`y as to note Alternative No. i is the most�oc"�y r, r -b;i.e of a I I a Iternatives. l n 'cone I us t tsrr,^ ; ml subject 8nvi ronmenta 1 lmpac"i^ ,Report to be f ncemp f ete s I n- several ares a1 : , 3I t�°` ,r+ �tt-Wapt j n oi'her areas: Add i.f ioha l l"y y the would'' l i ke to be contaacted�b y� +�> l nc�2 I1�o of the future statue of the I 'n 'r; n� Tse+ +r mental Impact Report and a ,res. v�r�t i d+` 1 i k�. to be formal I y noticed as to r at) public hearings and other 11ip"6`rta'rtj rats,o!' �­c 1,1hing this�repol^t and our j . -h the-,+ r�ff`hhitir-+VU Wh hors,01 +hi+"we, HAVE h,.'e Ai'f; C�t4.a�'Y'1R4 ��f"'�lvp Jis i-sne r`r'immAtl'f'�. ant[ �t IILlvlinuttvlr) You w111: utJtt!uv1, a 4 _ , y Very truly yours; y F, t OaIlag Low Agent Por Jayrod and Towne f'1 1. �ti B�'islcP vi�14'u,Az���.��.. ... itk db..,. ,,, �t .. .'�. a, .,�. &r. .., .,, ,�r�:��,a •:�•� { July 28, 1980 .�nvironmad}del �iYd�rlW �O�i�« .`, Mr. Earl, Nelson Environmental Review Director Butte County Environmental Review Dept. wid County 18-F Oounty' Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 RE: E.I.R. FOR PROPOSED REZONE AND GENERAL PIAN AMENDMENT 'OF THE COUNTY LAND SOUTH OF CHICO DATED APRIL, _1980 Dear Mr. Nelson: The Land Use Committee of the Butte Business Alliance has reviewed the FnvironmentalImpact Report prepared bythe Bub' County r Environmental Review Department for the Proposed Rezone and General. Kan Amendment for county land south of Chico. We are quite con- cerned about this area as it proposes a project whereby th!� General: Plan designation of low density residential will be redesiyrnate& as orchard and field crop; Our first `set of comments and concerns deal with the Environmental " Impact Report itself as many statements and ideas presented are misleading and inaccurate. A letterresponding to the subj'eet Environmental Impact Report was submitted by Thomas Ei Edgar for Midway Orchards dated July 140 19.80. This document discusses at length concerns as to the Environmontal Impact Report and also to Midway Orchards in particular. We find this document thoroughly addressed our particular comments and concerns relatin, to the project. A copy of your rd§ponse to that letter written by Thomas E. Eagar would certainly be appreciated. The second basic concern clears with the initial concept of the projoct itself. Not only has the project tatCen land ih for re- designation to Orchard and Field Crop that is not prime .Agricultural z emely Land; the project has also attempted to simplify an extr camplexed area and reduce it to a inappropriate zoning bdtied on one concep'o the preservation of prime agricultural land. th` refer to the Land, Use Element of the. Butte County General Plan " ��ates that"No one decision=makers mustself consider always deter- minehridir, ,� our.d action, all adopted polidieb which are relevent.tc particular situation based on BUTt'E 6USINESSALLIANU . 'PQ Box 1979 Chico CA'95927 Mr. Earl Nelson Environmental Review Dir. July 28, 1980 Page Two n that and Crop ask you to take a look at the policies undeL Agricul'cural op Land. Policy E readse, "Encourage urban expansion toward .. tke leant productive soila." Policy F readsz "Allow'rural,,"residentia]. development aFs a buffer between urban development and intensive crap land." Under Housing Supply 6 Variety,,.Policy A,xeads; Establish approj � Aate toning to,.provide sii ,6,5 '(includ' ng various choices) to meet hotis3.ng needs,.for'Cie- ensuing ,20 years." Policy B reads: "Provide a diversity of housa'14.sites varying ,in site, density and location." These policieb\�havenot been addre aed adequately in the Environmental Impact`Report for this project. Conversely, we are unable to find under Agricultural and Cro� Land, A policy whereby General Plan changes should be implemented to pro- tect prime agricultural land. Therefore, it is difficile to under 'stand the Object and the need for this project,"'particularly for' the lands es'^t of the Midway and west of State Tiighway 99. Moreover, the Environmental Impart Report makes no r0fcrence to any landowners a within the project boundaries which have applied forat5this t•pe of action. In t�sponse to our comment on policies, we would like a detailed analysis of the land use policies which govern such action and their interested gn lista of tthe project. rurtiiermore, we would be g property -awmers in the project area whom have formally Lequest6d this action by written application. In closing, the committee woiald like to offer its assistance and, 'cooperation concerning the proposed pro,ect and the Environmental Impact Report. As indicated, there are many concerns to be 'ovaluated and possibly mitigated. At this point in time, the Land Use' ,'Committee of the Butte Business Alliance must or:'-,pse the project A based on its inadequacy to fully address the pr�,wlem at hand - We zi^?alite the-difficulty of the subject area and are equally cure that Al'desirable alternative Can be worked out satisfying hopef�clly all of i.-he major and minor concerns. Respectfully yours, LANb USE COMMITTEE' of the BUTqE BUSINESS ALLIANCE Diane Gaumerp Chdirmah BUTTE BUSINESS ALLIANC=E . Pa Box )W''V Chiv) CA 95927 r ,ww"."oGG,n }mac ArY 0im, aft 3 ;4 lA1ND OF NfATURA4 WhALiFI �4(VCi iwEA'U:i'Y� 1��" „ EfiIVIFiONAlENiALREVIEW DEPARTMENT `atl''�,���a•,x , � •'' ���� 'i,�� t.� IEA'AL W IELSON, 6)"Irkidrr 1 ` rep`tember 29'r 10,00 A1, t;oncerned Persons "� ° �� Correct 'an to EIR, "ProposedR:ezane and` Goneral , Plan AmeAdment of County Land, South of Ch%cot!, �` IBRD Log 79--09 18-01, revised August.1980 _ put#e Ca. Plareine� >~ex+r'�t; S:EP 3 Q 1§90' Please note, the EIR on South Chico inadvertently erzors from Man earlier draft. The f6ilowini correctx,ons ave been ni'"t Mage 6S Uelete Mitigation (1) to Impact 18. Mitigation (1) should read:t{ "Improve and,, extOnd Entler Avengeoa-dup, to rotew�s;ct or parallel �.,1 ' a 99, aaccess�Aped signalyandorhad�ditionallanes",� PjgeL 77` Udder 0M.ternative 1: Proposed Project", tF delete 01$1,400 per acre" and insert "$l,980 pex acre" «. gage 78 Under "Jost", toward bottom ofpage, °tNet Itevenue(i= $442,200 per year's, should read �., , "Vet Revenue $586300Lr. ears'. i'Net P` Y Revenue = $433200 per year", should read 1` "Not Revenue _ $577,300". i , t # 1l1am 'R. Sands vironmental Revie14 St)"" ist 1YRS .lkt nc' ti u� %� . N Cnij6t� Grrilpr �Srilte brrlGi►iis, Ilif3rnia SIJA�iS (Cld�ih/tlif (h�a� Jr4✓�i77� Ivry Y' i . 1 i fA CIRCULATION Based on standards shown in Takilr`} n� 1,: roads in the project area, provide,♦ an accept�:b��,or bQtterlevel of" r� servxc,e. The devellopment of _larr�, :Vita ,a density, ,of one residence per acre would reg0v,-.- r the ('cr�nstructiori. of neer 'access roads• ar;d up.g1rading af,f g�x tir? g,inimproveil roads.aLCarding, 'County t0 Butte 1m rdi, id%dnw�,-tandards� (;fsir d_ etails refer to chapter 20 of the B43%u6ut1� "�, Co dyp Section 9,O.0 W and A»pendice I o and II). �.� �lm iac_1R�1 �T �t£fic volume on I�"idway►''t�e,'Md n Hhtl r Av®nun and p } . 911 m tas"ured i. idrat l� i cChAllT Iligl' i watt t.�asi d � tential`5,350 average,_ 40G}i'5.t0 ? ' y collect traffic from r 3 re«sips ; r) t ' ,dux � rasa another `3 -006 to nc�es 5 000 vehicles pd' r�aay to exi.„htiag volumes of traffic. �C Tdtal ADT would increase to 9,,1, l(�{;350; An ADT volume (level �o'�£ service ''B1r);"�- s 'w sidered� �poor''o ha"vin"g' .10;,000 nigher accident risks and lien. y congestion. The-add3tiona`1 traffic volume would also of 6hotiall congest Midway below the orovilla- Chico Highway ,c rr nt`yastima.ted ADT e • uals• 39050) and near Park Avenue, ��hrc:� already leas record traffic vo`l`umes' in exc.,ss of b0000 ,, DT Im act 15: State highway Jn ,would?be another mayor collector or aTs project. sitEl ,;Ari e,�tmated200=400 1•esidet�cos would f - senerate an addition, 1♦2,000-4,000, ADT on this highway. ti The AbT apptdkimates 13,600 11ist s¢r.uth of the Skyway inter' change. The additional tilii`fic would increase volumes to u 16 . is considered a cb d E fngest,;+.d level of of�servicfos ',i` four -lane highway of 'design, Since, there are n�► `current plans by CALTRANt to build"'an overpass intarclango for tlao 56Utlagate Industrial mark exit, the need for left turn pockets, or new exits to - a. frontage road parallel ` to and west of 1-lighway 99 ;will b6tome'compell'ingk A Iti►paet W. It is reasonable; to assume that expected commercialand industrial ,(leveloptient along the southern easement of Mor'row Lane 14111 require a. widening of that )road Impact 17, The Butto Courtt'y Public Works Department has ,determined that Specdway and tntler Avenue are at preS'©nt substandard. Any addit orral,trriffic on these two residential streets will consido;ribAy -;0rsen their 'present level of sort, I 4- ,:• 4. . 1n" act'a 18t while traffic volumes tin the Oros pi— 4C11):'co �ig�wya �o not presently congest traff. lowsf road a j. 'tivoul& tdgvivb, substantial rep&ir,`)and "up,0dding �.£rvolUmes bu,Ido'ut, AUT woad,3ncxease Y 't' are ccreatl" increased under fulfil Uy` c2, 000=4, 000 vehicle trips 'p-,r� day. A one-: 1 ane bridge ` ' �: J over Butte% Creek Would 'also ii(-xalen ��. risks ; if grows appreciably. ID r. In general , most roads in the pro,' area• would require upgrading and additional. regular maintenance costs if developme�►t Wexe ,to a.ccur unddr Alternatives it Miti' kation (l) Improve and extend Ent 03r Avenue to thereUpOft 2) +I „ Add& fortsirnaj ande.orfiaddit addhway itional access. Anes, ( widen and :upgrade bntler Avenue and:Speedway as develop- rent occurs in this vicinity; (3) widen and: upgra#,de N. 'way. when AAT approaches 10,000 vehicle's per\day,; or earlier, (4) piovide left -turn pockets onto butler, e arovills Chico Highway fr oin Midwa as . v needed•y(5) widen and upgrade the OroVille Chico If ghw4y s . _ xnclud$n expansion, or replacement of the bUd a across g p p K . ,. Butte Creek as trafkit volumes warrant; (6) re.doslgn directional movements, and/or signalize interseaLi,on of - Midwa and bast 1Park, Avenue , i(7) widen�.� He sect Lane' 40d y •, > Brilceas tides icy;.. (8) signalize the intersectidh6 aft If creli'eve Cessna Avenue and SkywayLAvenue toane 'traffideflows' i4' on Bruce Inane; (9) signalize the intersections of Butler t. . and"speedway with Midway as cumulative intersectional trxfEiC ihcreaaers. t- 415 '. BiVBRGY CONSUMPTION ;� x; birect energgy,'usage on much of the site now derives from v gasoline /diesel consumption for cultivation, mainten,ence t irrigoti&h. and harvest op erations and electricity far tree Y he fol�oing estimates for energy consumption assume the construction of 10500 dwellingunits oidor Alternative 3 500 acres of land,•and the currFPub existence of Oft 105 r` 200 +units in that sante area; 'whith is Composed primarily u of agricultural land.. The analysis is also based.(nn data ' depleted in Table 14 foe energy Use. ,1 OAgricultural fuel consumption is based on uses nssociatea K, Frith atimond production► Using a 30 11,P gasoline tt+actor,, ddhgumins 2.sS galions of fuel par hour, 10 hours per acre: U ght;passenger vehicles Were ostimatod to use 20 m&pig+, 42.3NAT per d.u� F .dg. 5. E-ONnMIC ANALYSIS Each alternative for develop of agricuhtural land would Ment of approxi mately 3,100 acres have different economic consequences 41 for the .c'oun'ty. A brief` fiscal analysis -'=� res i:n,ues °received hnd costs i;o i�tlecauhty �- of each Alter native.pwe5e'nted below,. The at ouht of land, 1' 100 ac r it, i:,r' he cons�exit afar oath" te�`nafi've ALTERNATIVE ls' Proposed Project ` Agri ' d ,' production'an 1,iQ0 acres of tan (primarily r , . &n uts 8 alMdnds d d wale dross income agricultural production $1098Q,ger acro: Lot a1 impacts mulitplier = 2..0 'Assessed valuation aveiage/Property tax 7" , inul�tipl �:r =���.7 Property� tax rate ' $.042 ($4..20per $100 of ass©aced vale) Land market valin $8,000 acre per Assessment ratio 2.5 percent of maekdt Value ,y Land use category: Orchard and Fie.;d Crops Zone; A-20 iscuts ion, of variables: The local impact multiplji�er repe. resents the amount o ncrease in income from good+i i,,d services / that is circulated in the local market from agriculturalactivities. The property tail multiplier is an estimate of increases in property values of land uses that eldoand thei"r activities, or of new development, as aresult of the local " agricultural industry. Recent property sales of agricultural land in the Chico area indicate thit productive farm land has rket value of $8,omj per acre. The market n estimated market value Willi oa acourses ver from onah ye area to'other, depending upon productive potential,and the state of the general e'ommodities market. Ri VEMS The above factors applies yield: P , (1►9g0) (240) (2.4) eo042) + (8 000) (25) (.042) $533 peri� ac re y c � A $586; 300 riet re Venues t6 tho county per year y'1^ J A . t a The above assumes 1;100 acres in full pa�odutit fir, h The, anal Y s-` does n-+.nc.l ude ncn.=aari;� ul ti ral resi deuces of b'usi.nesses Iccr�fad Within the bound,', ` area identified ,P4 "U'rch► rd,.aefd �>>� F40 d' Crops." ��'The analys' z further assumes,%'that new a idences�,'� or businesses not directly involved in agricultu.res'1 p'oduction wool d not be developed in the project, site. �.� COSTS , Projected costs under Alternative 1 would approximate eurrent= annuroad and drainage maintenance cost's C10QQ0O»2OOQQ dollars per, mile,j, t y; The countyis responsible fo'r, live�. to six miles .of ro6d wi'thW in, and -on the periphery of the�,jproject site. If,,mnintehana:e costs avor,age $1;500 per mile '�06n total costs for main�f ta rg „ti >` project roads would range fa;om $70500-$90000 per 'anile per year in 1979 dollars. No ink reas`e in shexiff vx fire protection ac'ilitie,s gland } er.%'Onel would be needdd under thin al.to�noi:t�,�. R� ., � 5:.86 30 -�� x y8ar f Net t.e enu $ 0 0 e , Est, Net Costs. 9,U90 {� Net IteVer 'Uea $5y7 . t1n per year `<<l d f .,..-. ..... v_:a LAND OF , NATURAE H. AND TEAUTt+ F ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 69PARTMe v � y EARL D.N'E4SQNiDlrecta,r 1r« 'p^ �entein�ar,'y�1n „r CP1anposedRezone and Generale Amendme Y 1 Amendment of Count Land �, � . South o Chico �Cas<ngn. , r� Ii RD Lob 'N 79-00-18 01 r� To '{Vham It May Concern: �fOVi�l � Thbenclosed (])raft) i:nvirotimental Imjtnct :Report oit" the 'been aboVe-natned application has revised to reflect earlic'•v,,, comments: and is once again Being circulated for review. A Notice of Completion,�f the Graft C,I,R. has again heen filed with the butte County Clerk and the Resources Agez�c:y California Secretary. of Comments concerning the material :contained in the 'Draft h, i .lt �:. are solicited, Such comments can be submitted to the �biitte F County bnvironrrlentdl Review Department at the address listed ' below until the close of the 30 day period of revieW on Thursday October 2, 1980: , Should you have anj questions, please contact this departn6ibt Sincerely, -':IN .o 1, �I Carl D. Nelson rmvi'roiimdhtal Retiiew Director RbNl�a n ift 0,1('10miq 010,10 06116 Oi-mnifAh (blif opid(j 15UG1 70ephwaf (914) 534-17�#i 7 u, I Y 1 ) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT-, REPORT for Proposed Rezone andGeiaerfl n� P1 ,a Arrendme'nt of � CouitLand South of Chico Q�Y �1 iP Book NUu fibers 39 and,,, 40 `\ ; 1 r �t Prepared bye Ur; BUTTE COUNTY E;I'JIRONMENTAL _R-F.VIC`W DWATME'll #!8"F County Center D`riVe :r orovilleo CA. 95955 Agri1 198 Revisal Atigulst 1'980 1, 11OV1sea October 1980' z , FIL8C OP. GRC Ltl9 � '�9�0��J.0._01 l . 1 tisk „� ',,.....dh1?it54"IEi�.f-'�}'.w{'aull'.�:�11R''•k�:?6ci4,',.SY'�.'�W""^:'fy4;,".-. rJ"'yi: "`,'�°., d'Y�k.:""t1."Y:S:i:.'Yk' ..� ..C."".'. iAyiF'We.•..,. .'1 d leu}7i1kW�'F .'�`�:C9'":'k""f+�,"'y a,., '.k.�' fr... ...... t ,� . , _- � i �.. i TABLE, OF MITENTS i. GENERALINTRODUCTION 2. DE5CRIPT!I014 Q1+ PROdECT _ 7'. o 2.1 Laction 7 2.2: Project Objectives „a,, Z..5- , Techni cal and ,Economic Can i'der,ations of the Proposed Project 3 SETTINGx2„, -2 ,EtiVIRONMVITAL =3".1 Topography 12; 'r.2 Geology 114 Soils " 15 3.4 ilydral 9 g 3.5 egetati on ~-18 3.6 Habitat and Wildlife 19' 3.7 Aiirshed 19 t4 3.8 Acoustics 2O 3.9 Visual 22 f,s 3.10 Lend U � � r-, 2 2' w " 3.11 Arch ae01 ogy 24' 3..12 Pubi i c So"rvi ces £. 4. 'ENV'IROMIENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 28 , 4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 98 4.11 Potential Adverse -Impacts 29 4.12 Adverse I`r,'fiacts Which Camio,t- Ge i' �. Avoided It Traject Is Im lemetited p 32 r Not To Se Si ni fi Cant 4.13 Impacts Pou.n.1 32 4."14 Groytth Inducutiont 35 ,0 4.15 Cumulative Impatts 5, 4.2 ALTMIATIVE '2 3fi , 0 4.21 Potential Aclveese t,�ttp acts 3G 422 Adverse Lmpacts 41h7`clt Cannot Be Avoided IfiProject Is I.mplemcntdd ' 4;7.3 YnIRrScts Foun'cl flat Ta bu" Sigh"ificant let 4.24 Orot"ith Indutwotrtt 55 4 25 CUmu1 ati ve Impacts 55 4.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 4.31 Potential Adverse Im"ppac s 95' 4.32 Adverse',; mpacts t•Ilr 'Cannot- 80 Avci ded If Proj�Ct I5 Impleltiw fitted y1 4.33 Impacts Found Not 'To be Si giti fi cant 7 n 4,.34 G"ro,Vth Ihdudument 714 4 3s 'cumul ati vo 1r NACU 75 tisk „� ',,.....dh1?it54"IEi�.f-'�}'.w{'aull'.�:�11R''•k�:?6ci4,',.SY'�.'�W""^:'fy4;,".-. rJ"'yi: "`,'�°., d'Y�k.:""t1."Y:S:i:.'Yk' ..� ..C."".'. iAyiF'We.•..,. .'1 d leu}7i1kW�'F .'�`�:C9'":'k""f+�,"'y a,., '.k.�' fr... ...... t ,� . , _- � i �.. i Paige 4.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 76 5o ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 7?,, IRREVUS WHICH MOULD YBI;E ENVIRONhiEVTAL CHANG G' .� r tB INVOLVED IN THE- PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD; IT VOL' 91 BE IMPLEMENTED �n 7: TI{ERBLATIONGATP BETitiEEN LOCAL SHOAT TERM USE 5'' OF, , TH,UL-blAINTENA�fvCE ANDEmIANCUMENT ` , WE,gjS ENVIRONh ENT AND , 9I , ONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ERENCES: Persons Organizations and Documents t Consulted •,utARY i CONCLUSION �3 t' 10. APPENDICES f e' 6lectea, Land'itse Apliond "x Butt County S � ' Goals, Policies, Categories and-; ,' Zoning Ordinances o .. Appendix 2 An Urban Strategy for Caliio,rnia` 4 (Selected Potts Appendix .3 " plre' hide to a `Foothill Strategy (Sele,cted Portio 13 Appi d i x 4: Iileritification op Important Farriland8 -(Selecte'a, Portions from Federal Regi Appendix 5t Environmental Checklist Form Ippendix 6: Comments on t1le Environmental Impaet Report unci the Environriental AdVlew Director's Rbsponse � I 1 1t t r { .) .... ,. .. ,,,. ..,,,,_:.. ,.....,..... i+. ,...... -n,. , .., .1.r:'".: SE's ti»'i'4,�„^.:✓-lK':'-' �'� Y!f"�^ .>...,..N"i.. �i..�'nJ 'If�)llw"r�,i(� !`i°.�� � yr LIST''OF TABLES } 1 Traffic Level of Service Standards; 31 2 Composite Emission Factors41 3 Population and Building Estimates, , Alto rnat�Ve 2 r4�2 4 MobileSources Rmissions. a. -. Altemative 2 1980 .3 s S Mobile Sources Emissions, Alternative' 2, 1985 43 >> 6 Mobile Soutces Emissionsr , Alte'rnati.ve 2, 1995 43 8 School Enrollmentsi 1979-80 48 9 School Enrollments, Alternative 2 „ 10 Population .and Building Estimates, ' Altethat Ve 3 Mobile Source Eml.ssiona, Alternative 3, ��1980 6i ` 12 Mobile Source Emissions, A1t6rnative 3, 1985` r 4' 62 13 bile Source MQAlternative 6. 14 5'mi1995 s � (' Energy Constamption"under Alternative 3 66 t 1 15 School tnrollments Under Alternative 3 69. LIST` OF FIGURES 1 Regional Location g, 2 Project Site Location Proposed Zones And Land uses g Pit•oject Site Location Existing 2on'es And Land 'Uses 10 4 Former Mining Areas 13 5 Soil Map. 16 6 Chico Urban Area 116 7 Chico Urban Boundary ("Oteeit Line, In Project Site Area 24 8 Alternative 2 Site Location 37', 9 Alternative 3 Site Location S7 to fir 1. GENE RAL IT`,RODUCTI-DN This environmental icipact report addresses the proposed. '. rezone bn1 General Plan amendment for,'approximately 10600 r acres, or 2.5 square miles of land, located southeast,of 0 '° P1ann°tng Comm %thishadti'on,Bwh,ichCwould convert weveralsacresaofilandahow reserved for low densis.try. reside.ntiaY, orch:ardd .and field crops and indUttrial a;^Pas, into commercial,, ublic, Agri,- ti cultural/residential in' d industrial ,uses. Cati'fornia State Highway. 99 and Midway Road are ma3or access routes that pass" through the central sections of the project atlea. Butte Creek and -the Ortville-Chicof)Highway border the site to the east and south Basic'impac's that would result from iMplemehtation of this ' proposal relate to the tbnversioh,of agricu1t6ral Lund to residential uses, and full develn.pment of commercial and, industrial different ct �pnsed` s in the pe�pro are ala K terhatives,*aincluding th 'phoject,'analyzed, f6v- potential im acts to the environment. Each alternative p p assumes maximum deyelo,p_'ment under; the constraints of" that part:iculat, proposal. Summaries of these impacts. are prei- i', sented'below (refer to "Impacts and Mitigations" section for K a full discussion of .these alternatives and their cols;�+.quencea x for the envi rohmont), SUMMARY 0V IMPACTS The following summaries: identify impacts to project sites under three different development alternatives. ALTERNATIVE 1 PROPOSED PROJECT A) Pot0n.ti al ly . Adverse Significant Impacts that Are Mi ti,gabl e 4 1. ,aid use conflicts between resideW al� and A ihdustrial commercial or agricultural uses 3. Seismic hazards 4► Disturbaintie of archaeological -sites �, 5: poise from highway traffic and trains 6; Increased traffic on Ehtl:er Avehue, Speedway and Mdrmi Lane 7. (toad improvement to EntlerAvehue� Speedway, Morrow Lane and the Orovi1.10-Chi co Highwdy 8; i esi dentia) developmekit of foothills *AlterhatiVe 3; based on the 1511 butte County General Pl'ah, and Alternative 4, No Prbjdct, are treated as identical proposals, r i r 4')` 1dve;rse,Impacf s Which Cannot Be, Avcridod 1f,'P�ro ect is Implementeented �d. 13 antd rs'sii�ej�i��l klanc to. s Lj commehcilalen;space, uses.'... G impacts `:Fau d—� , n.P�ot T > a Q e - S i gn i f i rc a'h,t �� 1. ThNsas to. rare' an'd endahgereci plants { Hazards from landtlides, vole istfi=sof°s'tbsitlenice °Ihcreased 'demen'd on Chito'° tI'wS'ge �_Od twi.. sy,si+e n day 4. Groundwater supplies .m . 3." Sewage disposal; Electricity and niiu'raI gas 7. Telephohe service' n G. Police protection )Fi 9 reti-`Orotepti on, 10. `"Schaal 'cap'acities l,'hc Veg6tatian"° Omoi�al ,. ,i2. Reductioh"df .a,i`r quaIii;y, ra 13Adequate drainage and wager 1'* lncrea'ses of traffi c- on Hsi ghWay 99 ' a = 15,' Energy consumption 1�16. Aesthetic/'Visual' character of '' 'e project cite � .i wildlife habitat 1t7, Less r of agricultural land 19. *11fl i ct wi'th Chico 'General pl,�n a) Cumu.�ve Impacts 5 Growth induced by commercial and indust>ial development 2. es�dont�a` growth in foothills, increased retidptitih! density in urban areas gj GeoWth NAUcement 1. Ummercid'! and industrial development wAu1d induce related growth in the Chico urban area ALTERNATIVE 2., A-5 RSSIDIINTIAL ZONE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDy A) `F'o`tQWt'i`a1'1' ' Adverse' S ialf nt` Im�acii's``'Phat' Ars Id 1. Land. use conflicts between residential and, r in commercial or a'gricul,tural uses 2 3 Veggetat' an removal , Calif orni Land Conservation Act withdraWalsv) ;y 4 Sewage disposal 'in taiiing areas' 5. SQi'smic hatards " u: 6 Soil exp,anaion 7 Disturbance of archaeological sites r 8 9. Noise from highway traffic and trains' Increase` in auto emissions (thraaig"a 19g ) 10. Drainage and water qualaty °' j ll,; Traffic increases on M3,dway;, Morrow Saner .,the Orovillo-Chico kIighway, lander ,Avenue and.1Speedway 12 Rnergy cohsumption r� h) Adverse` Impacts Which 'Cariridt' Bei'; Avoid "nhe: Proyect ,s mp emen a 1. Aesthetics/Visual character of project site altexest 2. Rbduction or. elimination o1.. wi,ldlife_hab:itats Loss of priine agricultural land 4 Conflict w3. Chico General Plan ' 5. Conflict with state and county land Use-,goals forjroSer'vation of agricUltural lands Impacts Found Not Ta Be Significant , 1 Threats to rare and endangered plants c 2, s vo Hatards from landslidei 'plcanism or subsidence 3, 4. Increase of the housin su p1y Increased demand on Chfco sewage treatment system S. Groundwater supplies 6: Sewage disposal - ' I;lectriclty anu' naturdi qas service + teleph9"0,., r eduction � in 'air quality from auto emissior.:� �at`teoe�� ' 4 l+�g5ne D) Growth Inducement l: No growth inducemonL is expected From residential � devolopment. Co mer das `al and industrgial gr outside the ro ect boundaries kion Morro Labe P hoW;ever would avo some impact as development R under Altothdtive �i I, 4MWN."+1L/1hti4vIXiA#iuM9` 4zxrct� -., ., ... .. "-...,. ... a . r.wn., Vii. ..:,-- ..._ ...-.Y .,,,,,.,.. ,.. '.. •.rj . :: .y e.,,,... .....,..aau.Y4)n%4iik.l'.%*u xn. n c i x q. .r ) Cumulative Impacts A. Traffic increases on Mi dway, 'State Hi:ahway 99 sand the Oroville-Chico'Hi �ghway 2,Increase in school errro11'meh,t and; ,.demand fc►�r police and fire protection ` 3. Eacp,Ohsion of natu�^a ,'gat and 61ettri'ca1. foul.ities r, L ALTERNATIVE 3: 1911 COUNTY `GENE'RAL PLAN L14ND USE CATE6QRIE ,a SOUTH CHICO 4> A) Poten dverse Si gni fi ca' 'ti al ly' A nt Imnac That..Are Mitigable �i j ' 1. Land use confl dts between residential a'�::,l industrial', commercial car agricultural Uses, 2. Vegetation (nondagricul.tural) removal 3. WithLand �ConsdevationcActural land California c'bntractsfrom r 4. Construction in 4rea5 (eq'., drod.s tailings) Where r, soil conditions, are inadequate fow 1'eachfield,systems ' 4 .. 5. 'Seismfe hasards IV _ -& ."° Soi 1 expansi on , 7. Disturbance of archaeol ogi cal sites 8: Increased traffic on a�f-1 1�oad5 in and adjacent to 'h the project site 96 tkcessive noise levels that violate community standards,,; u Reduction in air qual'i ty 'for auto emi ssi ons -10. 11. Impairment'of Water quality. Where soils are shalloW 12. Tbatequate drainage system for storm runoff - 13. Inenergy cohtsumpt;ion - 14. Increase in demand for, public 'services: sheriff, (� I sschoo'lso and fire piioteciion D') Adverse impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided If The Project ` L Is. Implemented 1: The ctiara•,ter and visual appeara'hte of the p+roject site WouiU become more urban 2 Th•e wildlife habitat-for many ahimals Would-b# heduced or eliminated 3; hors of 1,400-1,500 acres 8f j�rims agricult� +al land 4. Conflict with Chico "Geh'era? Plan; Which ddt'ignates much of the protect site agricull:U�b 5. Loss of open space and residential land,to commercial Uses 6. Conflict with state and county land tiso goals :fox` preserv'atipii of agx'icu] turaX 1�►nds l' 1, e IM arc j` Found Not to [ie°Si�gnificunt, Y. Hje}zards from landslides, v01can! sm or subsidence .2. 1',Cossor housing, or impediments to increases of housing 'Suppl,l� Increased demand on' Ch ► co se-age `trearent sy`stetn 4. Adequate Water supplies to the projectsite ; 5. Septic leachfield s stems where soils"er p y e adoqudte ., �) Growth Induceineh.t - � 1. Industrial and commercial deveIoploen't :Would ihduce R growth of non basic ser�vfice bus'in�esse't' and'' resi'denttal buildout w; E) Cumulative Impacts. R � l development tA'�1ul d induce Commercial and induv 1 tri a • the Chico rowth i n i�urban Area 2 F Expa'nsioh of electriical and natural gas "fad.lities L Pacific Tele h;c�.ne w6old eventually hay.,' to ,expand �) p ifs facilities as d+svel'opmen:t occurtre+ SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS f: ALTERNATIVE 1 Ma or Advanta"es:� Implementation of the peopo�ed projiut" would have a expected effect of preserv, I most agricultural land within the projects boundaries. Adverse impacts tothe natural ehVironmentf social system and public services are:mihjmal or absent; ;>r - 00e"rci al and i ndus`tri al 4' areas Wol1l d A rezone to. ,C 2 and M-? of . promote morb:.,orderly growth than under the A-2 xotie, hpresent and would reduce potenti a-1 l and, use con�fl it:ts on these sites . ' The,sceMc qualities and rumtlE r'hardcter 'of the pro,iect site would remain largely inicact the proposed projett, is compatible with the Chico General, plan: and would notjVe�rsdly impact thei,fr sewer systemo or delivery of other servides. Net r, revenues(after dtducti,on Of costs) aro greatest to the county -under this alternative: c --•""� .-• Jul Ma'or.Disadvarta esd Preservation of agricultural land ;f moves a large amount of acreage from the inventory of potential residential building sites,.. 8xpans',on of the housing, supply; in , the Clieo urbaxaarea, is needed to sor've !� a growing popu atijon. In some instm�acas agricultural t�ctiii�ti�a ray cot'��i'7 ict with surrounding residen'' ial uses Resi dential growth\ would' becl directed ''into" foothills "We V, as, urba�� ureas'. f._ ALTERNATIVE 2 �1 Major Advanta qees�s: 1hd Ahousing supply in t'he Chico urban area wou dGe'-nc-;;eased." .Adverse impacts to the',nktural enviroomont,in most cases Would' bQ minimal. Oemand for � public services kkou.ld only marginally ncrease, �1aor Disadvantages,; , Ho`r,sing on ,lots having a minimuan b ae acres would iikely Op affordable only to higher income grow s. Wildlife habitaery,' would be diminished in site or, d Nei., reveniva� f to the co!a ty would completelyeliminate decrease, ApproXi.mately 956-1 100 acres of prit d agricultural, "x. land would be reYrir;veci from .pr+Sc�J:ction,, ResidefiIiial land ' isb in, the northern sections o'� they E' p oect site conflicts, r with the Chico. General Plan. Certain conflicts between M=' residential ar•�.. , d_ agricultural land "uses should remain "on the �. . periphery of the southern and eastern portions of the project site, ALTEIRNATIVE 3 r Major Advanta es : This ai ternati ve would provide afford, 61 e 'housing o an area With a geowing popuiktion4, develdpOrs sof sUbd,iVisions would contribute to road and drainaoo'improve- mer.,ts; in ,the project site and adjacent areas. • 0601U, in Ma or Dit'.1yanta es; From 950=1,x,85 acres of ori'ime agricultural. an wou "d. e�°emoved from r)duction, Present; wi,ldli'fe habitats would most likely a elimhated. Substantial alteration of vegetation and ijisual characterfstfdt of the project site Would occu04 Corside,rable impl,bVemontt' to project' -, roads and drainage uhanne,ls would be requiHd., The Chico proJdct,site as agriculttes Uhd,L ActiVe ioas in the n-,oarmWq in' areas thr, _ 9 teas ad' b�hding the 'Project si to may confl i ct� ►vi th rdfl deh.0 al uses, & for a variety of' public services ,waind generate a' n -ted j°or augmentation of present leveig of SLi-ViCe 14 2.,. OE�OT`ION OF PROJECT 2.1 The roject 'F-rea <i$ 1`ocated .a rox►mat�el ��, r Lor'atinn p. pp y two iniTes south of central Chico ( see Figure 1)., An es,tif ate d, c,6d0 acres . are contained Within . the rezone area, Wh:,V h 1 n� u ed portions of Sections 11, i, 6, 5, 8, 1�� 1p, ,; 7�19 and 32 of Tow`nship 21 N, and portion's of Range 1 EAr.�IRange 2 E" on the U.S:G.S, map, Ch°1 co Quadrangle. Assessor book- r < ` p r t numbers 39 and 49 'contain, findi�idual arce� maps of the I project area. More prscise boundaries of the area under�'consider'ation (refer to j�.Fi gure 2) are delineated below;NorthwMor,,ow Laneo Comt4'Oche Creek Speedway, and Hega.►n a �tesc y� A,nproximately 1/8 mile east of and parallel to Bru°cn I and Midway; Southwes t - an unnamed sl ouO' . mile rsouth, of F F B1 ;ace Lane; o'"u= approxi Mately , mile, south an'd par'e`l l el `the ,.-' to Orovi=e--� h'ico Highway, East - Butte Creek to just vies of State Highway 99, to,,"mi'1e west of and paalle;1 Ai to State Highway 99; Southeas t -,Southern Pac,i fi c Railroad Tracks; Northwest - Butte =reek Di Version Canal, ( t ;i The total amo►aht of land in the pxnject area is c'ampgsed. o� several Genet�al plan categories;' `These categories' delineated in Figure 2, and their corresponding acreage's (estimated) are listed laeloW: `;,.a 1� Orchard; and Field Crops$ $ 1018.5_ acres; industrial,_ 85 acres`.I Commercial, 90 acres; Agricultural -Residential , 05 ac es; and Public, 205 acre. The notal acrea, equa�Is ,'1,600 acres, or 2.5 sjUare mi les,;d. 2.2 c.; Project 6";.� detivest The applicant, Butte County Planning UOMM ss I on, as proposed a General Plan amondment and rezone �, of the project area in order to achieve the following objectives:' A) Preserve and, encourage agricultural' production oto". lands identified as best suited' to agricultural us'�� B) devise the General Plan And zoning ordinances according to state guidelines, in order 'tis comply with cohsistehcy requirelmeltts under state statute;i' govdening,formulation, and implementation of local general plans. E, bs:�+ti� ida�'�rr:�*�N^.4 n�,CN^'trsKtik'_�. The existing General Plan identifies much of the project area south of Entler Avenue and north of the Oroville-- Chico Highway: as "Low Density Residential•" (L.;D.R.); while areas "north `of En'tler Avenue"areares,e.rved `fdr. industry. 7 Lo.w dens..i iy development,al l dws one ,to ,four:., dwelling units, per 'gross acre. A large portion of.the L.D.R. area 'has received an interim A-5 zoninge- dih tion, piO'ding the establ1shment,of revisions to the, permanent zoning`6f tho,; areae t"he anti reproject a�^�a, incl u.di�n.g the land,Row und6r,-tA, interim ti. -5 zone, .has formerly zoned A-2. e Areas"'that do not lie w thin the interim A-5' zone sire still cl;a''ssif ed 4n der an A-2 zone. A-5, is an, a ric;;iltural� designation, .he uiring a -minimum' of fi es per arcel q five, acres for land. di vision in this zone. A-'2 (General) is t�e least restrictive none in the county and allows a variety of commercial, indUstriali agricultural or public uses. (see Appendix 1 fo,t^ the full test of applicable zoning ordinances.) The A-2 zone and large amounts of acreage „designated. L.D.R. in the existing General Plan are being reviewed` in fight d by the County P1ahning 'Commission forthe oars formulapos ns to the General Plan foh this area:. Proposed evisio' are desi- ned to remedy inconsistencies in ,the present Plan, and achieve 'stated land use goals for South ChM,i ` t 2.3 TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIGNS OF THE �►AOPOSED PROJECT posed project does not include The prospec fic technical information, since proposed zone changes and amendments to the General Plan pistulate only general constraints for land use. Develo"pment plans for specific_ sites, or submiision Of p. bu�ldin� i 9 desi ns g are not included, in, the project pro oral. Economic considerations pose several complex'i-ssues that affect areas within and outside the .project boundaries. Undesireable effects may include-. (1) a depreciation in market value of lands designated for less intensiVe uses ' ke .', r'eclassification of industrial to resident'i'al); 2) an increase in housing costs Within a,houflr..g market reduction in developable land; 4 s area (Hresulting csfrom to (3), anincrease government and/or users for „ public serVi ces, ;as new sites are duel oped out�si de present service areas; (4) a potential increase in fUdl costs to� i presidents Who may choose to reside in new housing located 1 aside the main service area of present commercial districts i * Although certain properties contained withija the .boundaries of the _­ ropose c! project are currently less than 20 acres in S it the ro"os. Ado tion of the proposed cLively applied 't'o tZiese parcels, p p. p, project Would] sed rezone' would not be xetroa a .e, i have trio effect of pteventing further division ,of parcels now less than 20 'acres in 81ze, tt'',. .?s'�i9+?fi4�..... -, :,:.:ixM,a z,rr.#a::.:: -:::, wN•+..«ern.n+-»u..ri..n:.r,r,.rY ;.-..,_„..... .. ....... .. ....:... ... ..._.., _.. _ _.. _ _ • r: ii - i or places of employ►rent;',,and (.5); an inci4AS6 in cost a to potential- , industrial or commercial��firms why must:compete for reduced - amounts of land r,ese'rved'"for these uses. Gonversoty, economic benefits' from the---proposed p^,oject may occur n the form of: (i) arraitabil'- ty of more affordable housing �as� off-tfte de�tisii»Res are increased; (2) retention. of Agricaulturuh hands devotedvtoy come producing crops --an industryhst hol'ps tp support the, local economy; (3) rest lential growth,airected.into areas prox'irnate ;t to existing or planned commercial districts, thereby rQducing fuel costs; (4) lower public service costs to .si�re--81'ree; " "th'e (5) an a:'arlier developRment of designated '6M "t ,And�ndOttriia X' areas as a-1. rbsuIt of limited6M, i dentified sit The Butte County General Plan states that approitima"telt' .. f" 233;268,' acres (21 percent) of the county's-.land are devoted 71 i to agriculture. .The total crop value in 1977 for the, to county amounted to $124;801,000, or $535 per acre. Fruit. � and nut .orchards produced $636348,E00 on 56,30Q aches of t 'land, an, average of $1,125 ;per.,acre. A1.most t`h"ree quarters , 9 . (1,185 acres) of the project site is `pi anted iri or+fI and r nd field crops: Based on figures, agricultutal land n the area could be e'xpect'ed to produce a total annual project crop Va1'uc that ranges from $6330975 to $1,330,125:. rr To thorbughly assess potential economic impacts of the proposed project,Ian a;xtensV�;e economic,. and fistai tudy A or all ;project components woill d be req'ui r,ed. Such a study ? would also include the Chiac urban area, and address demographic Variables as well. A brief analysis of ecornomic Issues is is doc6mint. provided in Section 5.of this (EXy"STING,.CONi�YTIONs+) ENVIRONMENTAL. SETTING ; �1To bo'gr�aph�': Most of the project site is nearly level: � La"rid w�es-t' of Highway 99 slopes less than 1.0 percent to the south and West: Portions of the site be Bu*},;,Creek and MbrroW Lari'e. slope from 2A to 8,'0, percQnt in a Viesterly direction: dger tailings extend�in at linea:r.patern yre h approxi.matel 0.75 miles north of the O0'ViITe C ico Nign� Substantial amjirhts of tailings also Occur ;;p property way. Aindustrial Park)t 3 adjacent to the project site (South (see Figure West of 11i hWay 99 and south of Entlate g er 3), Elevatioh ranges from 195 to 15 feet, over most of h e st ortions of site. In the northea' portions the>>s'ite slightly higher eleVatiohs of 215 to 225 feet occur. r '12 A/ `, •t* •`` _ • FAIR .../'�"4 tl O�.,r:`w^ ,i•^'-'':•'••`�:• a '!7yk\i a�. r a«Y.} '.. �.. P •r r,,....."`rte... �i~' P r.•. m�w:to i • I � t.t�� 1 � \ 4 r1 7aC 1 _ rte" �t 1 i i 40 01 '� •• ,I. �j:•°�' ���j` r�IY�J ; �, r i \ ,�•Y•'''';+;yy��l r• ryyxw rad la•g4Hv�,• ^,1� �,�`�r, s Won' Dnv »K r lrr, N �Cemark • JY�rtit S D 4H IMUM re JI U •� � Plant Ino ?21 f r" r" ►*+ Al ' '�� • '' . 6 '3 ►b \ 1 "rSrcfi w'+ } a a'.41sm 1 't ! � Ot•1 Ye9, � �� •'0 `+t �'fii�} lt1Sr ,l,+. r r ' , � ' �, �. c ••' . "b �`•1. , 11 f' � 4 71 i � r{� t��N�� � ,,� i� . — �, "r �\ y ♦�' � �: «~ . t I SIS++` a � «s 7,f�+a'1 Ij .. ''y '► ( '-:.-rr_-s-..., r, i J� +)�%rl`i tc�Rj 1, �+1 It �' � dy.. �. *q ►% + �ti�„ `JY �I '//7f1117,1A�ti`�1 � �*` . �.�3�n. a s j `.� Uri.+ - � If �'� I .i}l�*� M1ii• 1� li �r 11 �'•� a `. 1`� iiw of i�:.i �'•iV7i c t jV�r�U_L ,�w ': r .r . ,,,*S •��K n a I' 4• wiwwrri yw irr it �.i n r•rw�it :�` • �, t�n�! �, SSSSS �,o •p `.Q.j,.�l� w zo �� _'1 e � y� tf ���"y,Ml► vv A �' j � o� • p•p► �' a� s" \ Sys ��\ /y i.,, ff �\ I `� ', , f :Xy rf► •ye/v B� loA Z� I. • d fi �� b4rY��... ter». v....ay .��. �.+"•"Y ,t+.•._�. `- �_�«: • `` .....c ; 11 dt r � .��.� �: • 'ins �`' �• ` I f+se° !i , n 1 �,.a-• n r *` v Lp }, ra • f.4 �,r,,:.; d�tl� �� °i rrlwq y :v ......r•/ 4kr+k�� 'Y y• 'Yl \.al , ` v � 1 s rii6 Lo udv� ww� .., y6 I • d i .� \.jax���„W. ► N ggs•.t ti�rritlra�+'die / W I i " :• t � 7 •r -4 «`.,! v..»«;»,int a..�u•":S.dwu �,_....".r �,� �u..,w-.fRa.n. r:... ... �"..!._ .a+1.+•+«,.., ..� •u,l.... Ir-,... a+. .. it .+r. .w. wl..'tY r )� r • t� • , tl x ` r 1. C='IGURE 4- dol -me 1 r' = � :; a•; Mining a�teas tau,•.:��0,,i t•� ,�;• � •I a I 11e t r •, 4� 'e'��• 9 IQ:1 t I` •� ai a �y/\ I 7 �I �."wWr"rt 4. r",,.�r1i � „ . � Ddrtl'• ' b Y P-w.,�w•:—W;.... i � i �r w r r^ _ r /% r t'"''..-.,=•-W°N�r^wvrrwy,�ai��,rM ,r rwl�� �'r •`„ ~ ��,, , 0- 3.2_ Geo 1o" The proposed"`project site occupies an, area generally " con— "51,Jered a transi ti on zone between the foothills and northern float ot`"'fh.e Sacramento Valley. This zone is characterized fy',a by shallow "ta medium sort depths, and the pregi?nce .of surface .,on subsurface Cenozoic Volcanic rock, Jhe Tuscan r"ormation t` underl l'�s much;. of the fouth.i l l s and lower el evat�i"ons i.n. thus � r' region,-)`°,and �a6ances toward the project site from th�o pa`s-t,�„ 1 . , Z 1 hazards. tt the area' include subsidence. potential' evlogic ,,, g „ t � expansive soil:~ and damage f-'-^0nr seismic_acti'Vity,. Subsidence" is a pobenti'al .prb lem i�h the entire Chico-Durham r'ezL (Butte �ti 'Com ty G+aheral PlGt , flap ,IIL�I). the .cause is`��the heavy Wi4�hd,ra�a`al, of ��grovndwate betwe�p Noi^d. and Nelsonf; the „area is of heaviest Aihdrawal pintluded Chico sand about 2° miles,, n`or;th"a��d "south of Chico (.Lofgren and `Ireland, 1,973)... Cffects amage to 'W''W'01�1 casings of ,egioha1 subsidence can include�-s `naI and', gradient changes in�:roads, loptorm-dnis in lineca'S etc, It is not- possible to, predict in adVance either the amount of subsi'�ence or whether the subsidence will be ifferential (that i`., et ii one part of the, region Will Jsubside �r'as.te'r than anot er);; in'general j- the u per (eastern) '.. .. }batt of an alluva�at fan aught to subside less tail the l.oN�er part, because of 4hahges in the gravel/sand/clay °patio', ,1 i - - - he, issue is complicated however; by the fact tha); maximum`. groundwater withdrawal is occurtiAng north Olt,+hA-"sine. Swelling and shrinking `of ex'pansi'Ve soils is caused by 'meltfing .a and drying of; so'1` is that contai« certain, typer,,.;o'f expansive ' clays. The safety element in the Butte L'ol+n 3a° General P.,lan identifies the project site as an area subjet# ,,. o "moderate" *9 soil expansion. of, soil movemPrtt fro uently' This type slab's her hardened surfaces. causes cracks _tabs ah'd of ca An'property located within` the project site earlier study ofnprope " reveals°� cracks up_ to 0.2 inches wide on a concrete,,; slab, C. . appare�.Aly broken by sail expansion. Adjacent sect ons of the slab also shoWed a "slight verticaloffset (Butte tO'Jnty Environmental Review Department,, EIR Lag f There are ho known earthquake faults ori or beneath the site,,', fault is the Cleveland Hills fault 20 esoutheastiof miles the site, on which the August, 1975 Oroville earthquake oecured, The concealed Gut potentially- active Willows fault is about 20 miles southwest of 'the site,-a number of low-magnitude earthquakes have occured near it '(Butte Cowity General Pian, Map II-1),. Another , Butte Creek formerly flowed 't:hrougb) much of the land in the sotttheasteicn portions of the project site, An U►tdeterm3ned d avel may be p'resent, amount of vaXualylc metal ore, sand angr The economic Jdasibil,ity of extracting zlftorals, sand and gravel � hoWeVer liras not been demutist sated, Other mining actiVitids dU t'ently it. prug"ss, or Olanfidd fqr t �Utto Creek,_ do not lid, Within the boundaries' of the project site, " 1,4 concealed fault,,.i,s 06'urht to extend from about.Ylayton'"to `roject V , R ,chvatq_-, its northern end is about 4 'miles from the s; tP,'�uil .inasmuch as no epicenters are known to"' occur ' Kiir it, dud there is no evidence of geologically -recent aotiWty, it is assumed, to offer no risk; ' r�o,n the 31 or =more d 9 o earthquakes fe1,� in the Chico-, area,- since 1869 (counting the 1975 Oro�iille s6,wfies.as dl si,ng'le , event), the four strongest had, Modify ' i'i`4rrca1li i!ntensites- or VI or perhaps Vii in •th`e Chico ar r T€ie defintfioi�s of these i'ntencities which are based on �N•f erNed damage,. are:.: ' �� r� . i! (VI) a few instances of fallen plaster, or fallen chimneys and (VII) slight to moderate damage in ordinary, i�rell-built - buildings, considerable in €S06'r1y b"Jilt• buildings". The«" August'1975`Oroville earthquake' fAd an intensity of V ir,�" Chico -Durham area (Stover andSimon, fthe, �y3 Soils: Although there'" are at least fire known types of soil tTatoccurtithin the project area, ,shallow to deep vina loam accounts for an estimated '80 percent of all these soils. Most of the vina loam, however, primarily occurs n agri.cultura1 areas west of Midway. Much of the area south of Entlet anii._ ' the east of Midway in the projectsite contains rocky soils, tailings, swamp ground, clay, sandy vina loam, corning gravelly sand loam and soils rima til composed of sand gravel. P Y p and (Note .x�ve �'� x. d: The soil map on age 16, Figure 5, is intended to se V -:: as a general guide to soil types on the project area. Parcel, Illy -parcel soil tests have not been conducted, and soil types an'd conditions ma;Y vary in specific locations.), .�' Another area south of.�ntler Avenue known as Midway Orchards, .. ,s , which includesapproxxmately 110 acres; apparently rias poor soil` conditions deriving from a variety of causes. Privately �,. cofililxsS11 tests of Alas land. in the spread presenceoofd6dk root fafigus arid bacteriacanker ,canker in the soil the diseases that a,,,� articularl har,�,fiil to a particularly almond trees at;;an intermediate :Mage of maturity. The suitability of this,/ diseased soil for other types of commr.rc ai agricuitural`prop ductidn, or the inability of the soil for agr cultUral-,purposes ink the ,'future, �ias not been determined. i! Accord ng, mei other private reportsl; land east and ,south,.of Mi�lway..'`�Jr�°arcs ma have substantial amounts ©f cls: Y _ `y and erobI ' ,rending the soil less ': Uitabjle for intensive agricultu'r'al f > i; cultxva ion. �i 1- . oft rJ .-. Vinafine sandy loam occupies almost la percent,,bf the' pro,joct site, and ��prima rllly occurs .in the northeast and [ southeast pection of .the ,'site. To a .much des" extent Corning g�ravellyj4aridy lOAM and ,Rodding cla} .loamr V ; in southeastern v-reas of the site, while a smal1, 3 s'a�andr of °`Ford lue,m• ex sts between Midway and' Bruce, Lane. (See Figure Figure 5.) Tia Vina_ foams belong to the general cafe Q of calluiri4l "soils, which have.; been deposited in, flood r!, plains by stxoams. , Such CJiisare, al*o,., consideted tobe � • °'��'' of'.recent geological or- -, gin. They are generallywdl,t- , drained, friable and witl�,opt rest�ict14 layers .at sha7 flew' ' depths. ';na ';1oam��has' a Soil Conservation>.SeryMys:e ('SCS),,:ala+3s> r`e'ting; ar�d 'compo,si'te rating of 10�D br thre tr�x+s .1nd6k SCS Mass `I• soils, axe nearly levet „/'aa'i'1 drama soaks with little ar no erosion problems „'� '� ey 'are consii4er�d •,.� good cultivable land with eXGell,en,t�icultural`poteaz'tial, Soils with a Stoxie Index range of X4,0-100 have a grade 1 " ,iietiftg; and considered well suited` ,for intensive farming; .J1 ' pJ VI ID , , ' r r4 ?, Pour fectOrs acre considexea in the ii�'d0:; ratin' g:{� (1'). 'soil pti) p ( "p ` . () he sur£aze layer refile �ncludin de th texture o' t Y eP3) .,ent ,e and 4 miscell4noous factors, puch asil�rainage;r o `salts and alkal?-,,.and erosion. 80x1" with ,grdde. ;1-100 aro_ Wiest suited for in"tensiVe agri cultural uses; grade 6� 'Q�10, 'tIO least suited for £arming,. i� � Ar t F W. Y Ri ti W tu lu it NpR� LOAAA W VF YINn FIN'E sktiDY i.6AM CORI` IN& &RAb►pUY 00Y E.b AA , r x r„���� .rs�r■tip Althougl,i rind `fine sandy loam has a SCS Class I .rating, the Sto�ie'Index rating is only 45 (grade 3), The shallow ` depth. (�1e'ss than 5 ;feet) n,f the soil renders it suitable only foi limited types of `clips or orchards. Nord l;-am is assigned to the SCS C1A">.s II, category, with a comp®site 'Storie ' rating of 73 (grade ;2}, on, the Index. The SCSJSrtoric Index ratings for cc" �V fig; gravelly `saftdy loam`;and redding- clay loam are IV/2 / ,and V/16 respectively. N�e!itlter o'f k these soi?,�'�types �are,;wery su��taLle for intensive agxi`cultu�al �u P a s,�.19} �� - '� y`�.::- •. f�9 P �1 �} ,, Pr '�r:L\cultUral Lana AltZio`u h .nearl)' 1,0185 acros of the project site's 1,60U acr s. are' cutit. ntly de,voteii to agricultural uses. availldble ,Oiddh e suggests ythe continued , a xicultitral viability, of all of ",this k land may 1S,eed to be re�issGissed. The Soil Conservatian Service has issued guidel�,.nes that dafine !?importdnt, fatml.ands" (see ^.{£ y"prime Appendix �,) : important farmlands �4 nciude tyle. subcategoa^ies '� agiicultural land, "untrue" Uvhland addit3o»al "'farmland of 00tatowide importpince",,and,addi,tionel fdrm' of kr J) cal importance!'. Any 'farmlands that, May ;fie converted from agric il*sxl to urban uses shciald be siitdieii by appropraate�' 1 A.Uthojritles: for determination of their)p`roductxve capability . under the Soil ConservationSQrvice's cxiter,;ia for important farmlands z � 3 4 NL�,dr�al o Surface Water: ,SdVer�al water 'courses either ,trave."rse ori _ i` exist r a ongiie'`boundaries of the project site. Comanche arnortherncportiongofathe site,rpaeam.l andobet►veeti�Morrowl Lane the. Southern Pacific Railroad rightpo,fpwa . Brut"te `' geek and the Little Chi co�Butte CreeCi vers do Channel flow along the site's eastern 'pe'rimeterp forming part of r the boundary for areas locate iIn the north and southeastern corners of this project site. Cdgar Slough and ';Wo letter t irrigation ;courses cross the site below and parallel to Hega ; Lana.. Gr-oundwatet;1. According to hydrology rep�dlrts,;:two major aq—in'f'ers underlia much of. the project sine. ,rhe 'shallowest.. between 50 and 450 feet, is commonly used fol irrig�ting , clops And or.'chards.The second aquifer cons'is'ts of the '460+ Tuscan Rormation, which lies at a depth offeet, This provides the major around water for high capacity p`redaiflnahtestratlimoofdthis aquiferdisuthemTuscah Alack Sands, which outcrop in Bidwell Park. TheTuscan `sands are recharged from luMdrou's streems, em p hemeral tributaries and diro�:t precipitation. The primary streams that rechar'e the Tuscd are Butte Creek, ck B'i'g Chico Greek; Little Chico Creeks, Mind Creek, and Rbc � z` Creek for�matian ill Bul_letih 118-6, published by the p `•.. .in Cal i forn,i'a 'Depairtmeitt of 'Water Resources and U.S, Geological, Survey -t -1 ' r, CT.. :n'..-,.,.,.. :-....._.y+,,�:;yr+,wg� .w .. .. .VT.:,•yµrr 1 _ r Fresh grbundwater car. be found zn the Tuscan sands o ;r depths of 450' Meters along the east side of, the r� �� , Sacmento'Ytile� This (Tuscan) Formation-- acts as=.,a ,� thn�r�e�cheor gounc�watet�,� movementinto the Valley from a, a rge arears in the Cascad,Q Range foothills,, to , the �e�st'...,lmost.i,geo� d wi.ter in, the, foemat�i6h)-, is. confined �unde';r pr`ess_ure� by 1aye`rs of �imper.meabl cley., and tuff b " reccia. ,>. (p�.ge 22').0li ,f ' f, Only in the-,are be'twcE�n Oro�yi 11e, and Red :Bl uff', alon k` ,".h>; the northeast gide, of the vaIlley is sud1su;rfa.ce' iiiil.ow'. possible from tho, Tuscan Fovgat.ion. Most 'of � {� %th'ls probably occurs ins the Chico,I)o a, W!'lpr'e,the forma is C­ camposed of the' most. ermeable a�'� p m r#a1s. (page gai Based on these hydi-ol ogy rP; brts, evidence suq`ges s that •much of the Tuscan `recharge attr;'butable' to 'the Butte r reek floor! p tains Cvhich absorb wa�ter� �thN�6u9h perodic floo�tiing and _` dire t ,ra'inf411 � .5 lie station: Most oi` the veget;dt'ion present onihe.JA, te Eons s s -_Uf o,khardtr`and field - ,��ropsR, particularly west of Highway 95�e These areas werw 0Ogin'a11y native grasslands and 'marsh1anus ' Prior to devel&06ent, Although some grassleiads Stihl exi`si on the periphery dfithe projerir sitE, north of t , ' Morrow Lane. }M. ; they have been des°.�irbed through grazing or,� prepai,ation-for development, VA:geta'tian 14' ` " on these 0, s uailly co"ifined t4' plants less than tbt ee feet hi, h annual gras;s'es inst'ead of bunch grass,#,'s�- and vernal poolsgi'n the `j rainy seaWon, Small elements pf' bunch grass persist in,,;; scattered 1ocat,i'ons thvoughout.,tbe site. . C aesides orahat�d crap's, aons7stinq mostly of � almond ani waa�,�t trees, oak, A ` ``, ' , w 4 sycamotc, willow at,d 4 few digger pines are found in the site area.' These i:rees are generally located e, a16tig roads, stream chahhels, or at the edge or orchard g�t'bves. Smaller stands Of trees are 1J often near, residences and farm strucwu es, There concentrated are; of cautis`e,e,S, ont Center TheScthtereIs primarilyt6Wh at tconcerned W$thhe Chico Tilde irerroduci c, i sltperior conifers; those include. Ponderosa, bou las fig` g j..SegdOi -, Cedar and Afghanistan pine. Most orchard trees still cultivated are either Kiwi, or Pastachin. A small nuliiber of eucalyptus; oak and sever l Wt (br tv,6ds of deoi duous trees 61s,o grow throughout the Zenter grounds, 1 �. . Plant survey maps indicate that ccndit`i�ons t?eded','tu su po t , Pol pp ygonitm bidwelliae, a rare and endangQred 1ant� may be p Present near the Junction ofHigi;ulay 9.9 anr,j the. Suut.h;eir'n E =18 a , Pacific tracks, southwest of ,the,Trea Improvement center. Recent .f Y 01d surveys in th3-:'vie li•ty, howovor ";have failed, t`o , identify' the existence (1df t�iie" �plant��._ Since thio =area ;. has "'r,' en heavily d s,turbed,,,p;vopi.tious, Gonditioa S favoring �+ the occinr'renc6 of the plant may no longer, exist: There a- e,t " C; to other rare andr endangered plants know. 'o;r thought to , exist soh the site„ Vbrnal pools, howeVe- �mayfo.rm..•dua�ing i� 'the �' rainy season ,ow land j u;4,t,,'northFaand sci.uth o Morrow s' Mane"%, and e'a'st ofj `St'ate Highway" 99. There ark# two .'also known locations of Valley. oak Groves along•)Mad"way between' t� 0gAh sane and, the"Crovilie�Chico Highws�}a. _ (' r .6 flabitat and Wildlife: Much of the• native hab4�tat that`' formerly supported a• varie'd,and��abundan't' ;, `wildlife in the southern Sacramento Villey ha � 6en disturbed r" or cbi pletely destroyei d as a result of agri,cultiiral (dtiv ties' { Valley orchards .ares 'r,r't ficial envlronmen s with: •a 1 ;mitcd `to dapacity support Wildlife y control pr'actice's` in •or'Lhsrd, such s y` g, snowing and Gxapping, generally. restf�ct to ? x if use til°d:t�.fe� ttse to temporary p ry testing and !feedln ac;tiv�ties. g g ltacant parts of the, site nre the only areas,•tha.tiiro`Vide ". long-term` wildlife Shelt!�'r and food sources: , Y NatiVe mammals that`)are, commori to _open fields include-, "the black-tailed hare; 'Californi_a meadow mouse, striped skunk 4; anc;•resident deer:ht to, be exdt� .c,' are also common. Familiar i'xotic birds th.:;t,'1, inhabit open fields include t!:ering-necked pheasant, statin°' and ;:;rock dove: Blackbi'rei3 ao.d waterfowl igay 91s6 be abundant in fields of row, crops whbx' c bddles 'of water k1Ye located- 71@ar?;4', t,'! hards.;�n.rovide a l!'%iced habitat for only a few mammals h ? Chei�BeeGlaej.�f ,ground' squirrel artd�Bo*ta pocket gopher ire typ1, found r ' kUly in orchards. gids are fairly nu"i•o_rous, 'nclude : and the mourning dove, red-shafted flic'ke� ;American robing Drdwer's blackbird, as well as Various bards Of prriyi Rare and endangered specie's of birds,; stich ag the yellow-billed Cuckoo And Peregrine Flacon are,•)hought to exist wllthin the site areai though their-presence is un- •3.7; Ai�stiBn, C13fiate.s `Che climate in DUttti Cod r;omfoitable Meditwi.; rahean type, with a Yerage rain,call batWden 4 to 28 inchos. , Two main seasons dominate the year, with a short }' trangltion period betwQen. The hot, dvky summer 0,48ot is 1. -..r-._,..._..-..—..,.—....,-..,.-....�..,....*,-+.,..,nM..,-T.._..,-_.,,..:w..1rw',xrn.-.,,.a,= ,-;..„:—.,... ...::.._ .: _... ....a ....... ....:.:,._.,;._.. _ ,., ;:; .,,. ' 11.::..,..,.S..,i.writ".:r+d:C�'"�'k1+Yik?.sh+++♦,� '- irtf Uenrod by high pressure ridge3e'- while the mild we,t, If winters -are influenced by a: loW-pre isure area (v��r the No'tth Pacific. Z'he average summer temperature in j,u1/ reaches 97 degrees F with highs above 100 de reel F.� The=meari,��' ' -winter temperature an .Jaiivare is 36 degroes �1F,; wltl 'Lows. reachingto Uelow freezing. The shift from hi h ro�`s'ures . '0.low ressure that �inf iuences the westept clomate so dra5iically, s partially she result df allernate cooling; and warming of arctic land masses. Winds are gendral'I'y from the South-So,.rthwest of North -Northwest. The South winds are usually related to storm fronts. North winds, are 4' t, ty�' . Ally associated with high pressure ridging,and r bring warm weatheWind speed is generally less th.A 9 mph { Air Quw ate: Air quality in butte Count is re.)ai� p' r�} I y -' v but federal standards for carbon monoxide (J��►r; � hotochetnical o�`xictants., (smog), and sus ended articulates- p p 11 , i are occasional:.v exa . aIed, and the county has' been designate as, an Air QdOl; ty Ndiv;Attainment Area by the UtS. EPA. Potential becaust,_of the surrnunas a very high ail pollution y The northorn Sacriihento 'Valle has a very high - ranges,, restricted surfai.e wand flow s and frequent persistent, ,temperature ' ir:ve,rsions. "Vehicular trat..ic has been the' major source of CO zLnd the prim&ty constituents of photochemical Uldwats., 'Agricultural activity, including open burning and plowing is a significant souxce of suspended particulates. The :County Air M, quality. p p thous ' for reachi,,ng atta_bn� ualit Nctn�Attainment Plan ro oses me p p �) nt status. .g ACOu5t1CS.t r ' the resul'- o£ vaurces o£ noise ott or near the site:, are r Th rind al s e�hicular traffic on Midway, State A�Southernp9 Morrow' Lane; an, trains r j g y , , pa sang over the Pacific and Sacra*ietto Northern Railxoad* ti ffitli of�ways. Secondary so+trces Of noise are generated byg, agri'culturel , and inandfdctnting operations. The N0a,:e Element in the'Wdtte County General Plan Identi'fie's two as:ceptablenoise Level;- for tho county ** The _ first noise benchmark indiclat°es that a mdXimum acceptable noise the Sacramentois NNorthern Railroad a low -speed train. ) eSe ci is measuxed in decibels (a) using either average,, day and night levels (:CdA), or 6ommun'ity noise oqu1ralent levels �CNDL) �4 ,f -20 w Noise levers near passing trains are. slightly higher (It bA) within 100 feet of the tracksrecorded ghan,Iho•se at tha same distance From high speedhihways.. (.,70 dBA) . Activities must be located 800 feet or mc►re from Lucks;, : fore horse levels' decline; .. ,. howavor;, be ne, to 60 ,dBA.- • : t County' Noiye:.Elem0t� concludes: Ih °summary, he Co ' y _ , "There haysbe few noise complaints in the Co t, an ~ f "most of these involve. in=cite no 1p,rob_ ems. The Win-, f", d corporate _ areas of the county gene"raiiy�r'riave law ;noise ; levels arid' most of the nesse producing jictiviti1e cycle tracks, gravel -crushing operations,, etc,. are iJ 4. sufficiently remote from populated areas" to. ,causq `few complaints .;K. There Are ver few y <,parsons e xposeq� to nose, levels above tj An Lon of 60 dB in the t�+x ncorporated of `t};s Couht . fareaas Railroads, high-_s�aw '�� q ^�r �S .t � t ? � �,,?tihd a k� .` k r �a ;;,,aY� sas oar ve other •i2IIa •t ' receptors .�� (page IV -22) r !� An exception to_thi`��gnlnp.'ral.-cha.actatixation of, 6rftditio s occurs in. the _northea's C ,►rr�rti ri of the pro j Qct area "whe'.,4' Southern Pacific iirtes .,F0, 6near the UjS. Plant Introduction wardens • ; f: 3.9 ';� `�3„l"I: the visual ual_it of the project situ va=ie�.-, V�111 y , "brad bout the site .area. Much of the land under,•. w - .. (g - .. N.t .. . + . , r «-...., i i cons, vera* -.on .,.planted"'in orchards or crops , anti is-iWra' „ in charitoter. tow density residential -hous,ing, Us -W611 as commercial and light ind strias facilit,�ies'. exi' �,rt axe thenor s In teas of the sit,,, The Chico Tree Ihip rcv�e;"neri Center, operated b the a U'.S,. Forest Servicer provi ds the most scenic iandsca a in the project site. Large portions ` of a perk+ anis are open to the public. the gro = In ancessmble existing oin space dies within commercial or industry � !..1 zones adjacent to developed pit�operty. VisuaX," ,,�gtiali�ty Alen, is moderately high to high ih agricultural areas ,and in .he viaihity of the Tree improvement Center. 3.10 Lam,d J,;e: �' 'aa Vdkiety of land tises present on the 'te ; 1n e north, along Morrow Lane and east of State highway 99, Current uses include reta.'il and whole- sale estaL,+ ishments, warehousing and a, tree 6Xperiman-t center o0et4ted by the 0,8. Forest Service. ICPA radio station broadcastsfrom buildings just west of the forestry center, A large scale sand and gravel oxtraction facility operates I along Butte Creek just'wist of the Chico Tree Improvement Center. �✓' A�proximatply 1,185; Acros (74 percont, of the site „aro ±� devoted to orchard. and £i .1c1 crops. Ut.o this acreage exists west of- klxghway 99, ;south- of he'jary Avenuo•; and<,north 0£ the oroville-Ciaico Highway, tow dons ity ;housing eki6t's • �r a],ong Skyway 1ven e, Cessna Avenues Lnt1$,r,Ave nue and Spe���l " o£Speedway., between residRn�cdi • _are also located°,nor"thcast y . � t , e Uouthern',� pacific tr4 is and1 R � T ay Small commercial a;xt�F#sh. ; y��sY w Q�) .Qcated near the ��inter- x° ; �,c . _..s �,� r a ' > NIUdway, ane =-a largo hot;tV.;'A plant f sect, on Sn f is,1166ai° .P n�' "` thio S:iuthorn Pacific grade crossi ig over ,C A ceme�,ery occunies t}e 5n.uthi�est .l;orr�r o H0gunh AV4'n� !.till Mk +j14+x�„C2Q r�� "�o�� !a�� � '�f�i` "P,.S.;tgtag iAnkS tl . -' '>�� •iOd, on fh north u.�=an and grt��iijig land' ✓` _ ; +..''aund'`imm3,.d' ttix l.,:h anii no-th o£ thoi`oroviifd"- Sur; roan lil'► land uses ifidILUdd orchard viand tLE.rl cro 's wast offP(MiduiAy i southeast of Bruce i;.*e, , fir St o £ Cessna Avenue s 1.0+ males south of the Orov."116-Chico HigMwayi :-,Refinery/ ; t6ra a :fwAiits o exist east of. Midway ln'i slight cy.,horth �, i fa'•,, of:'Sps dway. 'Aiva;riety of comi a ciai eniorprisese Pacific ` Ti,le�hono Company warelxouses, vacant .and, and th C Mai° t$nanc Sr,ation are located north, of Motrbw Lane. �! a Several tVpes�� f commercial and �nanufacturii'1g firms operate 1 in `,an arae ngrth of the Southern Pacific Railroad''tracks tie s t of Highway J3 and South of Last park Avenue (see n,igure '2) • P,6nulation: Iii 19'78 tho population estimate fog the>, entire A cau ;”"to a;.e�1 ';k 960 The Paradise U041n .Area, hi Cco s ' yUnc�iw .Are'a and oroVille 'Urban Area haw shown the greateat� rates` df gtdwth. populat3,o»'."increases in the ChxCo area 3 he ti been concentrated ih tl�e northern portions �bf the city ` and ,environs �surroundihjg O,Qt area of the city': An_estimitia'.. 45,0 to 500 pe`rso,'s rosido ilk tho project airea.+? ��oLt of ti 'these hdUi0hoi.ds ars locate '1 in the northern sbctions of tho project ;site, westiof State liig}iway 9.9. ;t 'Based ori. 19ys celisus figures acid average annual increases for the county. - u