Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
82-42 EIR, MAPS, MISC 3 OF 4
r 'TABLE S COST/BENEFIT COMPARISON ' YEAR 1 YEAR 5 BUILDOUT 2 Units ,,o Units 21 Units 150,000 Cost 664 3,319 6,97t Home Income 826 5,454 12,147 Net 162 2,13.5 5,176 2000000 Cost 664 3,31.9 6,971 Home Income 936 6,444 14,457 Not 272 3,125 7,446 250,000 Cost 664 3,310 6,971 HOMO Income 1,046 7,434 16, 767 Net 382 4,115 9,796 All values rounded to nearest dcs1lar, . S- F REFERENCES County of Butte. James Johansen, Auditor., 1982-1983 Final County Butte, v, Planning Department Cost Rev_ Analysts Canyonn Park Estates - 1982 Eco -Analysts, 1`982, Final EIR For Bunton Ranch �,eddin California, _�. E.D. Nelson and Associates x.983, Fiscal Imac., fox Rezone S ecifc Plan, and Subdivis3,on, yt. Analysis GENERAL ASSUM.PTInNS 21 units, built @2/year. Residents 2,1/unit, Prinaijl retired or older couples, y � Z 0) PLANNING COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95065 PHQNE: $11.4601 February 24, 1983 AI til c c Eco - Analysts 11 1 Ics't SeNrelItIl Avenue chico, Dear M'r, Beck - I have "OViewed the fisct.11 in pact a""Ysis Cor FOurteon j!41'te 1'10usol Hezzone, Witlit seems to Inc that- vour 11l1['-1udL'zi �ISSI.lnlfltionS WJJdLII,, in the absell""Of O. specific dvmoq5.t ratiol or analysiso arr, a.1 impncit 'v0V(_1Mu0 method, Viat j P1'0[)C'rt.y tax and outsLdc S61cs tax ft -o-, Co;__Icrc "It d i 'L Crag. 11dustrial faciliti c lines j)ay L I ounty Sociatod w 6acilities, or H "IS t1los ",it I'UMILIC 1S lwlilablc )LI--nocc.,isary 'to vn" FOr t1l0t;c actititi,e,,� from scrces In yottr incom vaa'lysj�;. Cry Llss 111,41)t ions NaY ho correct, jlowovory at tilt-, prosen-t time, the- remaill tt !�l trot to -11 , amd t.1cre 1.8 , I 9 in y0m. ilroposal Slab tile i It ic assu"llptions. Cr! addition to specific il.,Ialysis, t*acsc do not Seer� to bu, the sort of , jssjjj�,pti3OIjs ""It" WOUICI b0 roasonable to )-4,1k0 and corlponly Ice I t -ciltie denolstratioll, dt, mo n s� 0 ( I of require s1p;'Cif c a t i o ji. q accur,*jcy 0-f tile pc re tl,,- rccn tagos (1,50j for t 0 various county' S"'vic0s aPPlicable to rasjdeat� a tivitios and those dj)j)1LC-lbj0 ial let 1 vi tic;, to tOMmercLal rInd indust),jal You W�ftnt to use those perr,,Il as, a specific 0'r t You 51 1101�.t tile, l0LI1d to Butte County. se percentages apply aa* "A"C"co' OP county' -Wide bas,011.110 1-180 Of more or meaning- ful m0'_110ds Of 08timatioti, �Ljld 1. L tile county mthod irl filo' only fise'.11 impact anab per capita multiplier r h:8S used I 'qls ��Ilich it PI'cpat-ad :In-I)OL1,90 staff, supp'(1st that you carr y over L 'Lin ro rjqj to t�o I'l 4'111S P'Or cqp1ta im. 'I tj m Ic 05 t IS , as , 1 -Plic i a tho d 'is to ravenuct-,, 1 q you 11tenj to it r I I fo r t, is ITPort a t a I us WOLIld reql.dl-L� �dMY, f r,. �.� Al.. M C is Fcbruavi - 24 1983 I'a.,O"c ' NIOLI to 'use the pe t ;mcs total costs , �it�l,CJttt alll4' t t'CiI,ICti�1Tt FC7I` "COfii?i l Gt,all and ii1ClLIS I'7 tl ( ctCtl.ti''1.- tics # as has been done in the report as slli7ttl.itoCl You are co rtatinly not restricted to the Per Capita a I'Iultiplier tn.ethod, and i[' you can, devise a more dctaiLcd aIttl lwalnitigtill n114't lC2li tv`�1 LLI1 Ls stippo ted byr 1~#lethal tri torri It J oll t`'.C`On 11 it 'tC Countvf then I am certaintiat 1t t','oLIld accoptod, fIoweve.r, the currbnt Iaixture or' mothods and gues:sos is not accopta'blo SF you ha-vo clues tions or t,ish tO ell:etlss this rtttttcr, 111cctse ;let tic know. Since2c1y, .h t>ila Turptt �Ct't'Lt7I l�la.Inllc` 1' :'Rr:sl r 82-42' 14 Mile House PA -C APPENDIX II List of those commenting on draft E.T.R. and project March 17, 1983 - Planning Commission Ray Johnson, Jr. Al Beck, Eco -Analysts Kelly Meagher Bill Burch Mike Byrdo Rolls, Anderson Rolls Roger Colo April 26,, 1983 -_ Board of Supervisors Ray Johnson, Jr. Kelly Meagher James. Hansen «T. 1 1 . T' 't r It, 1 4 1{ f +y] ,fl} ` r F. V n m• L yy J II t,4< � ANALI, r ,� ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR FOURTEEN MILE HOUSE REZONE FROM TM -5 TO PA -C Pkr;3'?REb FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE BY;+ ECO—ANALYSTS 1.14 WEST SEVENTH AVENUE CHICOo CA 95926 (915) 242=.5991. 25 AUGUST 1981 nor TABLE OF CONTENTS i PAGE PROJECT DESCRIPTION' ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ALTERNATIVES 14 TO THE PROPOSED PROD ECT APPENDICES 18 1. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED 2• REFERENCES 3• GEOLOGIST'S REPORT 19 20 ■ 4+ PLANT SURVEY REPORT 5• WILDLIFE 21 BIOLOGIST'S REPORT 6. ARCHAEOLOGIST'S 80 REPORT 37 LIST OF FIGURES 43 rPROJECT VICINITY 2'• SITE PLAN 2 i 1 1 1 1' 1 1 t PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a tentative subdivision map and rezone request for a, planned development of 23 single family lots. The 186± acre project site is located of the eastern side of Highway 32 about 2 miles south of forest Ranch and is a portion of the W J of Section 18,T.32N.,R.2B., M.D.B,.& M. The site is identified as a portion of Assessor's Parcel #63-01-02. The project site is bounded on the west by High- way 32. Little Chico Creek, approximately 20000 feet to the east, runs along the eastern boundary; (See Figure 1.,) The Butte County General. Plan designation for this site is Agricultural Residential (1-40 acres per dwelling unit). The developer, Kay Johnson, Jr., has proposed that the pat - eel be r3zoned from Timber Mountain 5 acre minimum parcel size (TM -5) to Planned Area Cluster (PA -C). An exclusive development of custom-built homes is planned. The proponent will develop 21 noncontiguous lots in an area ;of 10.4 acres. These 0:.35± acre lots ,;ill be sold to individual. buyers. (See Figure 2.) Lot 22 (11 acres) will remain as un- developed pasture land. The remaining 165.2 acres will be left as common area and will include a swimming pool, bath house, pedestrian path, and mini -storage facility. Also in- cluded in this acreage are the steep canyon walls of Little Chico Creek which will be lent as open space. The 49.4 acres shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2) are not a part of this pro- joet although 9 lots may be developed under the current TM -5 zoning. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Development Will take place on the top of the ridge be- tween Big and Little Chico Creeks. Elevations range from 1,950 feet at the southern part of the site to 2,100 feet in the northern portion. Slopes range from hearty level in the open, grassy area southeast of the highway to nearly vertical canyon walls The project site is underlain by volcanic mudflows of the Tuscan formation. Soils belong to the Toomes-Penta as- sociation. Surface soil averages 1-1i feet deep, With a sub soil of 1-5 feet. 13elow this is 1-6 feet of weathered mudflowwtook of low permeability, Clay onntent varies from sparse to abundant Little Chaco Creek flows through the southeastern portion of the site, but is not within the area. proposed for develop- ment. A spring and several ephemeral streams traverse the site; �z 1 W 1 0 . . i The Tuscan Formation typically yields law flows of Water; favorable locations for wells a erraticnand difficultheo predict: An on well to aated nd Of meadow east of Highway 32 y7-e'lds about 30 gallons per minute. he pro - No long-term temperature simaval larta �to thoselinf the or tSacramento ject area, but conditions ate for July is 97°F, with Valley. In Chico, the mean monthly high summertime temperatures above 100°F being common. The mean but monthly low for ;7apuaryis 3Preci itationeattthcsprojin telct site twenties are not uncommon.year. Light snowfalls averages about 50 inches of rain per y occur rarely, and melt rapidly. { Air quality in Butte County is relatively good, but national airi�uspendedstandards particulatesOxidants are(occsmogas,ionallycarbon ex - monoxide (co) and p e California Air ceeded at sottte'locationhprotect�onAgencyB(EPA)chaveoax�d es (ARB) and U.S. Environmental designated: Butte County as a nonattainment area for these pollutants. The project site lies within a transition zone between Yellow Pine ForeSomenmajorChaparral speci-eshabitats yel.lowand Pinet�ins l or�estsuch ments, of both: as sugar pine, incense cedar and white fir are absent.. ©thea ine species such as yellow Pi4lacaareoalso bdeound throughoulack Oak ate t spread. Manzanita 'and Wil species in several grasses, the site. Herbaceous ehnegtle parsley, Woolly sunflower, mintergradesawith the Yellow h�bitatyote a,nd others . The chap the Pini: Forest habitat and occupies a cdep����sa�ricl�derbuclt- Typical edge Of the steep ca walls. Oak - manz an3t a, buckthortaand brush, toyon, scrub oak) Haoker�splan Herbaceous species include rattlesnake weed, molory: westert3 x.ning g twin, smooth cat's ear; wild iris and A small area of riparian habitat occurs in the vicinity ewhat the tnathesend mareas portionV�f of the spring in the northern the larger ephemeral 'streams. g etatlon hor seveed, cat- . along including beardgrass is primer_J"y ,herbaceous, , A. tails and monke.- glowers. near rbuse Fourteen Suvnpal introduced species arelocated Mile House site. These :illmake Jap b�.�.a,cl� walnuts. Star thistle covers trees, black locusts and -des. of the hig on bot».+ �i highway. the two large open areas A rare plant sixi«vey Qf the site �"ra:s conducted in October yg Bidvpr,Jl`; Knotweed (Polonum 19$0. Two small populations of Y,ot 22, just east of An existing fence bidwelliae) occur on about 600 feet north of hrecogi a ",'-11 �Qf"raee but> and ttrrentlythe property. This species is c fritillaria (Fri t e,;zstwoodiae > not endangered Butte another species in the same category, has been 'previous:jy reported at a site about four miles east-southeast of t1lis propii:�rty, No remnants of the previous season's growth of this plant were ob- served during the survey, and it is presumed not to be present. Brewer's rocket (Ara.bis breweri vat. austinae) a third species in the same category, has been reported from rock faces several miles to the south of this property. It was not observed on; this site but even if any may have gone undetected, no construe - tion is planned on the rock faces. Robust checker mallow (Sidalcea robusta) is officially recognized as "rare and eni- dangered" and has been reported within a few mites of this site. Although a related species of Sidalcea occurs near 'the spring, no remnants of robust checker mallow itself were observed during the survey. The vegetation on the site provides excellent habitat for many large and small species of wildlife, including deer, bob- cat, skunk, rabbit, squirrel Many and mice. species of birds inhabit the site including quail, meadowlarks, thrushcs, spar- rows, ,;jays, woodpeckers and mourning doves. No rare cmc en- dangered animal species are known to inhabit or depend on the project site. The site is currently vacant. Surrounding lands are also vacant, ;except for a single house located- ject site. just north of ..:he pro-- A 20 foot encroachment upon Highway 32 currently Provides access to the site. This access is to be abandoned, and re- placed by a 60 foot encroachment located about 100 feet to the north. An encroachment permit from Caltrans Will be re- quired for this action. Internal access will be provided by oiled, gravel -based private roadways, The California Department of Forestry, in cooperation_. with the Butte County Fire Department is resporigible for fire protection, Response time for the volunteer station in Forest ' F .nch is estimated to be 5-10 minutes. Back-up units would. respond from Chico.. The Butte County Sheri;t V s Department is responsible for law enforcement In the area. Response time would be about lo minutes, depending upon the location of the patrol vehicle. Students living in the development would attend Chico Senior High School., Chico Junior .high. School and Parkvieru Elementary School, School bus service is provided for juniorand senior high-school Students only. Sewage disposal will be provided by a septic tank-corwnu- pity leachfield system, Wastewater from the septic tanks will be collected by a small -diameter gravity sewer lint= and pumped to the leachfield. Domestic water will be provided by a private community water system utilizing the existing well and an $ 000 gallon storage tank, A 200000 gallon swinming pool will ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM T BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent. Ray E. Johnson, Jr. 2. Address and Phone Number of proponent ' Deveor Inc. P.O. Bo 17OQ Chico, CA 95927 916-891-1971 ' 3• Name of Proposal Tentative Subdivision Ma yrII. ENVIRONMENTAL 'IMPACTS (Ruectons aremarked lainedstl at theyend,ofrt�'nof+ followed by t p he checklist) YES MAYBE NU ' 1, Earth. Will the proposal re p Supt in significant. ao Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptiotls, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil.? c. Change in topography or ground sur -- face relief features or removal of topsoil? d, Destruction,, covering or modifica- tion, of any unique geologic or physical features? e: Increase in wind or water erosion Of soils, either on or off the site?G f Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in Siltation, deposition or erosion Which may modify ,the channel of river or stream or the bed of any bay, inlet or lake? g. Loss of prime agriculturally productive soils outside designated urban areas? e ' h. Exposure of people c geologic hazards suc landslides, mudslide or similar hazards? 2: Air. Will the proposal a. Substantial deterol ambient or local air b. The creation of objj odors, smoke or fume c Significant alterat movement, moisture c or any change in cli locally or regional! 3. Water. Will the propos a. Changes in currents, Or direction of wate b. Changes in absoarptc Patterns) or the rat surface water runoff c. Need for off-site su improvements, includ removal, channel zat installation? d. Alterations to the c of flood waters? e. Change in the amount water in any water t f. Discharge into Soria in any alteration of water quality, ii,a, u 1 Limited to temperate i4�v9en or tUrbi:di',; y' ' g eration of the cli; rate of flow of groij h. Change in the qu¢, i %i of ground waters, i direct additions o,-7 or through interet-pt aquifer by cute, we YES MAYBE NO E�ople or property to rds such as earthquakes, idyl des, ground failure, .ards? G ., roposal result in Aer oration c f ;al air quality? )f objectionable )r fumes? Aeration of air 31ture or temperature., in climate, either ,ionally7 proposal result in substantial: ,rents, or the courste )f water movements? sorption rates, drainage .he rate and amount of runoff? C-1 site surface drainage including vegetation kelzation or culvert ) the courseorflow . ,s? amount of surface eater body? ) surface Waters, or J01% of surface i. ,tAuding but not ipetature, dissolved )i:di:,;y? C-, the (,.4lrection or )f gw,ound waters? qu¢. ,ity or quality )rs, ither through )ns o, withdrawals, ;erct-ption of an ,0, o.1� excavations? i. Reduction in YDS .MAYBE NO the amount of water otherwise available for public Water supplies? j. Exposure of people or property to wager related hazards such as flooding? 4. Plant Life., Will the�4 Proposal result 'n substantial: a. Loss of vegetation or change in the diversity of species or number Of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any Unique, rare or endangered species of plabts? e b. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? ' d • }deduction in acreage of any t,.gricultural crop? 5. Anima.' Li -o, Will the — .;,_._..: proposal resin, in substantial: a. Chaiyge in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals? ' b, Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered of animals? species e. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result' in a barrier to the migration 4r movement of animals? d, Reduction of, encroachment upon, or deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? MAYBE NO YES G. Noise. Will the proposal result in substantial: WC. a. Increases in noise :Levels? b. Exposure of people to severe A noise levels? 7 Li g ht and Glare. will the pre)posal , produce significant light or glare.? a: Land Use. will the proposal result in a significant . Alteration of the planned land use of an area, or establish a trend which will demonstrably lead to such alteration? b. Conflict with uses on adjoining properties, or conflict with established recreational, educa- tional, religious ,Or scientific uses of` an areal 9 Natural,Resoukees. Will the proposal result in substantial. a. Demand for, or increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? tb. Depletion of any nonrenewable COO �. natural resource? --=- 10. Risk of. Upset. Does the proposal or involVe a risk of an explosion the release of hatar3ous substances (including ,ail; pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the invent of an accident or upset conditions? _--_ 11: po'tilation. will the proposal alter 'the l0cationj significantly distribution, density► or growth 1 rate of the human population of an area or physically divide an established communitly? 12 ' ' , ,, lthe r �significantlyaf ,. fectexisti'ig housing, or create a demand for additional housing? --- r YES. MAYBE N0 3• Transportation/Circula'tion. Will the ploPosal result in a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular .movement? b. Significant effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to wati,,rborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14+ Public Services. AC Will the proposal. have an effect upon, or result in a substantial need for new or altered governmenta' services in any of the following ar a. Fire protection? b. Police Protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e, Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? enc. — f. other governmental services? 15, L. Will the proposal, result in �' a= Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? tb. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy; or require the development of new sources of ener 7 gy e 16,M i t ides . Will 11 t h YDS M--AYBE Nb a need for now systemsoposal result ill alterat. e ons to the fc loor substantial, g utilities: a. mower or natural gas!' b. Communications systems? C. Water? d • Sewer. (will trunk lino be extended, providing capacity to serve new development)? e. Storm water drainage? 17. human IIealth Will the proposal result in:' rr� a. Creation of any health hazard or 1 potential health hazard mental health)? (excluding tb• Exposure of people to health hazards?p potential 18. Solid Waste, Will the proposal result SMI in any significant impacts associated With solid waste disposal or litter control? 19_ aesthetics: Will the Proposal result in the obstruction of any public Aw designated or recognized scenic _ open to the public, or will the vista proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to Public View? 20. recreation Will the in act a on the proposal result quantity of ex istin quality or tion facilities? g public recrea-- 2l Ar�oh eo ogical/ iistorica . Will tyle proposal ' g result in an alteration o a si nif'cant archaeological or historical site; structure) object or building? G _ 22. hien_ d� atory o Sinifii� cya_• a. Does the project have the potential of the to degrade the quality environment, substantially reduce wildlife the habit-at of a fish or fish or wildlife species, cause a population to drop below Self- sustaining levels, plant or animal com- eliminate a the number or restrict e munity, reduce the range of a rare or endangered. ortant mimportant plant or animal ox eliinate the majorperiods Of _ CJ examples of California history prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential benefits to to achieve short term detriment of publicly adopted Ak the environmental. goals?' long-term c. Does the project have impacts which limited, but aria individually cumulatively considerable? (a project may impact on two or where the more separate resources each resource is relatively impact on small, but where the effect of the on the total of those impacts f significant. environment is d. Does the pra j ect have environmental cause substantial effects which will human beings, adverse effects on either directly or indirectly? W--- f u 1b,c: Construction of access roads and preparation of housing sites will result in some soil displacement and dis- ruption. Minor alterations in 'topography and ground surface features would also occur. le Erosion hazard is rated by the Soil Conservation Ser- vice as "high" on the Toomes-Pentz soils, howev.)r, develop- ment will take place only on the lo-rer slopes thereby reducing erosion potential. Construction activities could cause Accel- erated erosion, but can be mitigated by avoiding 'steep cuts, replanting scalped areas, providing perimeter berms during construction, and limiting construction to the dry season. 1h: Evidence of expansive soils was seen in several of the percolation test pits located in the southern portion of the site, however, no development is planned for this area. The largest earthquake recorded in the Forest Ranch r:rea resulted in a bedrock acceleration of 0.17 g the maximum acceleration expected on the site is about 0;3 g. Secondary effects of earthquakes such as liquefaction and lurching of soil are not likely to occur due to the characteristic of on- site soils. Potential earthquake hazards will be mitigated by following the guidelines of the Uniform Building Code. 2a Development of the project would result in a minor but incremental increase_ in both stationary and mobile source air pollution emissions. Stationaky sources include dust from construction and emissions from trash burners and fireplaces. The availability Of COmmor cial services in Forest Ranch re- duces the need to travel long distances for basic services,. thereby reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled. 3b: Development of the project would lead to an increase in the rate and volume of on-site stormwater runoff. This in- crease is not considered significant due to parcel size and the relatively small amount of impervious surfacing. 3f: As sto•mwater runoff drains from driveways and roads, Ht carries sediments and other pollutants into receiving waters: After development, runoff from the project site could contribute to the pollution burden of Little Chico Creek, however, this impact Would hot be significant due to the small number of lot's and the filtering action of surrounding vegeta- tio : r iRemoval Of C construct onandhomest itepreparationi This impactsion -would occur as a result of road Should not be significant due to the small number of lots and extensive amount of open space 4b: Two populations of the "rare but not endangered" Bidwell's knotweed (Polygonum bidwelliae) occur on Lot 22. Since Lot 22 is to remain as pasture land, this project should have no impact on the plants. 4c New species of plants would be introduced into the area a., landscaping. Landscaping should utilize native species as much as possible. 5a.,c,d; Residential development would encroach upon existing habitat and may reduce the wildlife carrying capacity of the site. Species tolerant of man's presence, such as raccoons; skunks, rats, sparrows, and scrubja.ys, may increase in num- bet. The most sensitive wildlife area is an intermittent stream which appears to be an important source of water for wildlife. This stream, in the grassy portion of Lot 22, will remain as undeveloped pasture land Domestic dogs, if all.otaJQ+ to ream unattended, could ���e•�- chase deer and other wildlife. pays = •v. be confined to home ' "' � site areas when unattended. Successful buildout of this pro,;r=Ct may encourage other landowners in the area to consider ,.residential ,develop ment of, their property. 9a bt Some natural resources would be used :dor construction o roads and residences. Upon completion) the use of rionrenew- able resources for heating, air conditioning and appliance operation. would occur at a'Sustained level 6a, b : This project will result in minor nc�2�x �a� �-��� ir.� noise movement. ConstrIICtj(:,n ���^ levels due to additional vehicle activities (machinery operation, woodcuttinso :. residential mestic pets, etc.) will also contribute additional. noise. People living within this development may be subjected This impact will not be sig- to vehicle noise from Highway 32. as traffic volumes on the highway are low and the n'ificant houses will be set back from.the highway.. is an ouer]ay zone___an ,as such, 8a; The proposed PA -C zone is compatible with the current General Plan designation of dwelling Unit. Agricultural. Residential 1 to 40 acres per allow lots of less than 1. acre, but only The PA -C zone will 22 lots are being proposed rather than the 33, five acre lots TM zone. While which would be allowed under the current -5 the planned land use of single family the project would alter on large lots, clustering of the 21., 0.35± acre lots is a homes more environmentally sound land use, allowing for more open space and a community septic system. Successful buildout of this pro,;r=Ct may encourage other landowners in the area to consider ,.residential ,develop ment of, their property. 9a bt Some natural resources would be used :dor construction o roads and residences. Upon completion) the use of rionrenew- able resources for heating, air conditioning and appliance operation. would occur at a'Sustained level 11: At full buildout, this development could increase the population of the area by 42-63 persons. This population in- crease is not considered to be significant. 13a, f : As a re8tzlt of this project, :about 210 vehicle trips per day could bie added to Highway 32, which has a current traffic 'volume of about 2,000 trips per day (19£0 count). This increase in area traffic is well below the design level and capacity of the highway. Turning movements on and off the highway would increase the possibility of accident's; the ' access roadshould be designed to permit rapid ingress and egress. 14a Continued development along Highway 32 will soon reach a level requiring a year-round managed fixe station. Details on exact location, equipment, personnel, and funding will need to be worked out between the Fire Department, current residents in the area and developers: A pressurized fire hydrant system will be provided. Fire suppression water will be obtained from the 20,000 gal - ' Ion swimming pool. Specifications for the hydrant system must meet the approval of the Butte County Fire Department/ California Department of Forestry► Sufficient turn --around area will be provided at the end of the cul-de-sacs. Turn- out areas will be established, approximately one-half way down each internal road to allow for passage of fire -fighting vehicles. Mitigations to reduce demand on .Fire protection services include the implementation of a fuel reduction pro- gram along roads and around houses and the use of fire resis- tant building materials and Landscaping.. 14bc As the population of the Forest Ranch area continues t increase, additional demands will be placed on the Sher'iff's Department. Mitigation measures include the installation of security devices such as alarm systems and deadbolt locks, i'm- pleinentatiub: of a neighborhood watch program, and controlling vehicle entry �O.th,an automatic security gate. 141cAdequate capacity is available at all schools to be attended b sgtud�ntsylivi�.1- in this de As the pop- elementary school bus elation algin Hi hwa 32 increases anelementary route may be required, 15a,b Refer to section 9a,b: 17a The area proposed for the community leachfield is characterized by fairly .rapid percolation rates; (4.0--0.5 minutes/inch, unless leachlifto are properly designed and located in the deeper soils effluent may not be adequately filtered and could move laterally on the underlying rock for- mation, surfacing on the adjoining hillside. -16- ' 17b The presence of rattlesnakes and the possibility of rabies in the small mammal e population Vaccinatingpresent an area -wide risk of unknown significance. and confining them tnthis a to residential areas wouldreduce tential hazard. poes Large Populations of tree hole mosquitos may seasonal nuisance to the residents. They also serve asecarriers of canine heartworm. The project is located within the Butte County Mosquito Abatement District, however, the homeowner's association may wish to supplement: this control with a seasonal program of their own. 19: Construction of roads and houses would than e visual appearance and character g the of the site. The oposed 8e backs, proper architectural design,, and landscaping rshould duce this re-` impact. Althoughthe: mini -storage... facility will be adjacent to Highway 32, it will not be visible due to terrain. 21; One archaeological site consisting of two small bedrock mortars was noted during inspection. a site This site Mapped t pp d and recorded, and no further mitigation measures hare bre- quired. ' An historic site Consisting satiated ;Features of Fourteen Mile Househwafoundation oalso notednonathe Property, but has since been destroyed, The archaeologist recommends an attempt be made to designate the site as a, "California Point of Historical Interest's and have a marker placed along Highway 32 explaining the signi; canoe of the site. 22a; Refer to sections 1, 3, 4 5, 21, 22c: Potential cumulative impacts of this projectre- la.ted to increased traffic; increased demand onpublicre ss of vegetation and wi],dli. e habitat; Ione ofrthese reqquire mitigation. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Alternative I - No�ect Under the "No Project" Alternative, the site would remain in its present state. Advantages - Imparts related to human Occupation site would not occur. These include disruptionOgof 'tsur- tWildlife, e, face and increased erosion, loss of vegetation and Wildlife habitat, increased traffic and traffic-related hazards, increased demand for public services, and possible ex osure of vildfie hazard an, animal-bonne diseases. people to Disa9vanta,es - No environmental disadvantages can be identified for this alternative, except that a future project havingles, desirable characteristics could be the site at some later date. Denial; of the proposed for preclude development of the site under the currenttzoning and General Plan designation. Alternative Z -Higher Density Under this alternatives the site would be developed at higher density. The proposed a for a higher ciensit project was originally designed Y--82 clustered units on 240+ acres. Advantages per capita cost for and other improvements would be reducedublic clusterngservicesmorgads' units on 'this site might reduce development pressur other similar areas, es from Disadvantages Environmental impacts associated with human inhabitance of the site would increasero Providing water for more residences may not be feasible. The leadIafield area will not: accommodate a higher density. -18- APPENDIX 1 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTY,'TD Butte County Sheriff's Richard r;rush, Lieutenant Department California Department Jeanne A.-05 Coordinator Ca'.Vln, Assistant of Transportation Don. Supea.,hitendent, Caltrans District- 05' Robert Skidmore, Chief, Eng>�.�aYmei�t l Sec tion, California Division Hector 'Eeed District I,1anger of Forebtry Batz��. kion Chiu Chico Unified Ben tf'stthews, Director of Eltymentary Educucation school District Rolls, Anderson & Rolls Mike Byrd; Project Engineer Civil Engineers r t t i APPENDIX 2 REFERENCES California Department of Food and Agriculture. 1978; Draft Pesticide Regtilator� Report on Environmental Assessment of Pro rams. Butte Count Com anent. California Department of Transportation. 1980. 1980 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways. Eco-Analysts. 1980. Draft Environmental Impact Report for r Canyon Park Estates, Butte County California. f -20- APPENDIX 3 PHILIP A. LYDOPd Consulting Geologist r : 2948 'San Verbena Way, Chico, California 95926 (916) 343-9277 November 1, 1980 SITE ASSESSMENT: GEOLOGICAL FACTORS 14 -MILE -HOUSE SITE, BUTTE COUNTY r INTRODUCTION' The site is crossed by Highway 32, about 2 mi south of Forest Ranch. A tentative development, proposal calls for a few houses situated near the rim of Little Chico Creek canyon. tJater will be from an on-site well, and sewage dis- posal will be by individual septic system• The site was examined on October 20,, 1980. TOPOGRAPHY t East of Highway 320 the parcel consisLs of :;lightly rolling and gullied terrain on the rim of a sleep canyon wall.. in the south part of the parcel, an irre( u;lar-shaped area, about 1400 ft long and 200 to 600 ft wide, has slopes that range from nearly 0 to 15%; probably about Lwo-thirds of- fthis thisarea has slopes of less than 10%. It is bounded on the west by the 2000 -ft contour (Rolls Anderson & Rolls topograph- ' ic map), on the north by Highway hway 32 and on the east by the ' canyon rite, xn the northern part, a prominent gully and minor ridges result in only scattered areas with slopes of less than '5%, Cast of the canyon rim, slopes quickly reach 60%, arta "exceed 100% in places. hest of Highway 32 a single subdued hill, uaiLhout prominent gullies or ridges, dominates tete parcel.. Slopes are as high as 40% in places) but near the hillcrest, fairly large areas of legis than 10% are present. GEOLOGY OF T148 REGION Ancient roc)ts, folded and faulted at Lhe Line Lhe Sierra --21- Lydon pa g e two November 1, 1980' Nevada was formed,, are exposed in Butte Creek canyon 2 1/2 mi east. of 14 -Mile House. They are overlain by salt -water -bearing strata deposited from an arm of the sea some 70 million years: ago; these stra.t.a- -- sandstones and shales of the Chico Formation--- are exposed along Little Chico Creek south of the site and Dig Chico Creek west of the site.Above these sedimentary rocks Is a sequence ' several hundred feet thick of volcanic mudflows and related minor sediments (Tuscan. Formation), deposited about 35 million years ago; in Paradise, along Doe Mill Ridge, and at 14 -Mile House the Tuscan Formation has been covered by younger flaws of basaltic volcanic rock. Uplift and fYFicturing of the region followed the basaltic flows., forming swarms of wostly north-- and northwest -trending fractures that can be seen in the foothills east of the Sacramento Valley; some fractures are present both east and west of 1441ile- House,. Erosion, which .formed the major stream canyons and modified the ridges between them, persists into the present time. Earthquakes, related to the uplift and fractures, also occur ,in modern times. GEOLOGYOF 11111E SITE The site is underlain partly by volcanic muaflows of the Tuscan Formation and partly by younger flows of basalt. Tuscaty rocks are the only rock type present- east of Highway 32, whereas , tascan rocks overlain by weathered olivine basalt are present on the site vest of the highway= SOIL East of highway 32, soils belong to the Toomes-Pontz associa- tion ( Soil Vegetation Survey 1565) Several test pits 2 to 8 ft. doep in the ;flatter portion of tho site have exposed the surface soil,, subsoil, and underlying rock,: The surface soil is less than 1 to about 2 1/2 ft thick (average 1 to 1 1/2 ft), and consists of brown loam or, more typically,, reddish- or orangish-brown clay loam. Subsoil is less than 1 to 5 ft thief (average 2 ft), and cohsists of reddish= to orange -brown clay or clay loam containing abundant weathered rock fragments. Below this is exposed less than 1 to 6 ,ft of lightly to strongly weathered mudflow rock., typically with "tight" ig17t" (.low permeability) irregular Joints (fractures that are not: earthquake -related faults) that are stained Lydon i LI)ree Nbvemb6r 1, 1980 to an orange Color, C1 Y Content varies from mo subbrizont al Seams manor to abundant.; Many of the backhoe-trenchof massive Clay 2 to 3 inches thic),c are common, walls dispaly -1 Clay content -- cracks-- both, indicative of high smearing and dessication weathered -rock. in the subsoil and Mudflow roCjZ 012� the Tuscan Formatio the surface west: and South Of the 14 -mi n is exposed at Or very near a few areas west oft Canyon r, le -Mile found-,*' ion, and in clearing. 'm along the north ParL Of the West Of Highway 32i the Soil belongs association to the Aiken '' Survey 1061). Test Pitts have not (Soil Vegetation Sur -CohaSset been dug on this Part Of the site, but a trencl) just Property line displays I ft of rocky north Of the Q loam resting on 6 ft Of massive., j Or"),ge-brown 1.0all, Or clay Soils' which form On basal� ,jointed weathered basalt. Aiken typicall- brown, soft loam Surface layer on an orang, Y consist of areddi8ll- ur subsoil; depth to ' eathered Ish, hard, massive clay vat'Ons On this rocl-, is typically 4 to 6 ft. Obser- er ed r Part Of the site suggest that the' depth to 1Jeatb_ Ock might be less than 4 ft, based on the distribution and- . Of cobble- to boulder -sized subangUlar fragments 'basalt on the surface, Of HYDROLOGY No Per"'ahent streams are present on th 32, small, steep -sided dry gullies e Site, Cast Of Highway southern parts of the site sugge in the northern and very SU 8t significant suggest significant but 'cant parts of the site temporary and localized Prominent gullies are runoff. No present west of Highwalow 82� the tree canopy, forest litter, Suggesting that runoff. SlOpesp y and Soil act to retard TheTuscan pormat-On t,,,,,,,,y Yiewedslds low flows of water to favorable locations for such difficult Yields beinq 1" 'Cult; to Predict. However, a erratic and at the horLj, end of the mead well already d:rillod On the Site Yields about: 30 gpM (Ton 70 Ow east of lilighway 32 L rdahp Lydon Z,,age ,Four November 1, 108 GLOLOGiC. J4AZ;%RDS -_se 5� gni ficant P lum Hazards Not LiILe—LITo ° 'here is no evidence of mineral Loss of tz►ine_ rel r__esou�. rte:` on the Pero resouces, rlcluding sand and gravel, erial` dis lacement. Na evidence of an active or potentially - to p the field or on a active fault on the site was seen in photographs, mall gullies on Floodin Seasonal streams flow int'shev e4 h i� e T otxse foundation, one of these, south of :laced, the site. Only ion of Lott slopes on which. hotnesites would be p is near the reg t - ime water is not more than a fool- deep and. 3n this gully, winter roble1t+ for houses 2 or 3 ft wide, s not pose a flooding p' and doe placed several feet away. the Soil Consorvation Erosion hazard is rated by soils and "high' on as .slic�ht" on liken-Cohasset es on the. Service (1.967) the relatively low Slop. Toomes-Pentz soils • tIowever, site proposed far development east ofaxj ��1W�erosiot ' ay 32) portion of thetz soils, result in which is underlain by Toomes-Yon any steep cuts or potential. undercor�aitions of development, t soils WCst of gighway large Scalped areas in the �.ilten-Caha small -Seale but significant erosion. I7evegeta-' 32 could result in cuts in this soil taon of bare areas and avoidance of steep should be adequate tn'tigation sis of potent=ial volCartl.0 hazards in 'Volcanism, Regional anall' could the western `tJ . � ► (;`1uljij1eaux 1976 ) sYtows that the property 30 cm (2 to 12 in) of volcanic a.sl� from a larr�e be subject to 5 to the _ at Lassen peak, 45 tni to the north- 1lowever, north eruptioni.th a strong ' of a large eruption to w probability from the effects low; The site is not at greater risl� fY wand is very of volcanic ash than are other. settlements it, norF:ltGrri Butte County: area on whidh hotnesites tly_slopin�J Landslis: T"le flat to gen steep slopes that de w� 1.l be distributed is border ed on the east by Lydon page five November 1, '1980 form the upper part of the canyon of Li the Chico Creek. mock exposed in scattered places at: and near the rim consists of hard., compact volcanic-mudflow deposits. Although some minor fractures are evident in this material., it appears on the whole to be a strong, durable rock. Parts of the canyon below t11e rim are covered by dense brush and were not accessible to examination on foot. No evidence of either old or potential landslides was found on the ground or in air photos. Further, the Tuscan Formation as a whole is not characterized by landslides in the region cast and north of Chico., Although landslides do .poi- appear to be a hazard, the steep- ness of the eastern slopes is groat enough that structures should be set back 10 or more .feet from where the slope of the canyon rim ' steepens. Any zones of deep weathering, unusual inoisture, or heavily -fractured rock uncovered during site preparation and excavation of foundations should be examined for landslide or slipout potential:. Drainage should be maintained near house foundations and adjacent areas, so that water does not accumulate in 4_11erocks near the rim. H azarda That Mi ht Pose A Significant proms t+xjoansive soil • According to the Soil Conservation :service (1961), the shrink -swell capacity of Aiken-Cohasset Solis is moderate, and of Toomes-pentz soils is 10w. Little evidence of expansive soil was seen on the site e.�tcept in Some of the test pits around.. the grassyMeadow,emared clay in the side walls displayed prominent shrinkage�cracks, foil is relatively thin near the rim, where house foundations are most likely to be laced, so ' y to be a p that shrink -swell actl.v�.ty would be unlikely problem in this area. If any structures are to be placed in the , activity should be expected at meadow. , moderate shra.nk-swell- depths below l O} 2 ft, an appropriate measures shouldshouldbe taken in house design, site drainage, etc. Seita e d�.s osal. Leach -field lines for septic systems are tentatively proposed for the grassy meadow east of rIighway 32. Lydon page- six November ,1, 1980 The Soil Conservation Service (1967) ,rates both the Aiken-Cohasset and Toomee-Pentz soils as having "severe limitations" for septic Leach fields, based on moderate or moderately -slow permeability and slopes greater than. 9%. A severe limitation implies percola- tion rates slower than 75 min/inch, depth to impervious bedrock of less than.4 ft, and an overflow of more than 48 fours durations occurring on the average once in 5 years. This rating assumes. that leach lines at least 4 inches thick are covered by at least 12 inches of soil and at least 2 inches of filter material, and rest on at least 12 inches of filter material, Examination of several test pits on the site shows that surface soil averages only 1 to 1 1/2 ft thick. Subsoil averages 2 ft thick, and is either a clay or clay loam containing deeply weathered rock fragments. Underlaying rock is typically deeply weathered, containing variable but significant amounts of clay. A' The,typical soil profile appears to support the conclusion of. the Soil Conservation Service that permeability will be poor. Coupled with the slopes of u to 15% in the meadow periodic p p t failure of :septic systems could result. Percolation tests at: ' appropriate depths 'below the surface should be made at 'several points in the meadow to determine what percolation rates actually are. All but One of the test pits are located at the margin of the meadow (some shallow percolation tests appear to have :been. made adjacent to some of the pits), and it is possible that average soil depth and permeability might improve away from the p meadow margini if permeabilities remain poor, then some procedure such as scarifying and mixing with permeable imported fill might have to be considered Earthquake activity. Secondary effects of earthquakes, such as liquefaction and lurching of soil, are not likely to occur because of the shallow soil depth and moderate to high clay content. Ground shaking is the Ohief potential hazard froth an earthquake., The strength of ground shaking depends mainly on the magnitude of the earthquake and its distance from the site. An earthquake epicenter map (Real et al. 1978) shows the following earthqualtes situated inside a circle of the indidated radius, Lydon page seven November 1, 19BO with the circle center located at 14 -Mile House - circle mi 10 35 65 radius km 15 50 100 magnitude 4.0-449 1 5 25 5.0-5.9 1 3 7 intenS Ity V 0 0 6 VI 1 3 4 VII 0 0 3 (maximum intensity is listed for earthquakes for which magnitude is not available) IntensitieS, measured on the Modified Mercalli scaleo are indicators of damage done by an earthquake. An intensity V earthquake is widely felt; at intensity VI, 'Slight damage, such as crackedmasonry or windows, occurs in poorly -built structures; and at intensity VII, damage such as fallen plaster or broken chimneys occurs in well-built but unreinforced structures. Both intensity and the degree of ground shaking decrease with distance from an earthquake.. For example, the 1975 Oroville earthquake had inten- 8ity VII at Oroville and V at Forest Ranch (Stover and Simon 1975). The largest and closest earthquakes are as follows: magnitude location distance estimated g from site at site 4 6 NE of Chico 6 mi (10 km) approx 0,1 g near epicenter, possibly i07 g at site 5.1 N of Forest Rch 12 mi (18 km) .17 g 5,7 Palermo 30 mi (48 kin) i06 g Values of horizontal ground acceleration at the site L% 9: percent of acceleration of graVityj are estimated from correlation curves presented by Greensfelder (1914). Because Greer 8felder4s curves do not 'include earthquakes Vith magnitudes less than 5,5, the estimate for the 1966 earthquake northeast of Chico is less Certain than are the other estimates. An hypothetical earthquke with magnitude 6.5, locatud 10 mi 'Lydon L age eight �' , p November 1, 1980 from the site: would reqult in bedrock acceleration of about 0.3 gr according to Greensfelder's curves. Numerous public and private organizations, studying seismicity in the Sierran foothills, have concluded that such an earthquake is possible anywhere in the Foothills Fault System; the iodation of this system nor of Oro t vine is uncertain, but it might extend as far as the latitude of Paradise.' Air photographs of the region around 14 Mile saouse show two clusters of linear fractures in the Tuscan Formation. One cluster is about 3 mi West to 3 mi northwest of the site, and the other is 1/2 to 1 mi east and northeast of the site. No evidence was visible in the photos to show that these fractures are earthquake However, farther to the west and south, a few out of many similar fractures in the Tuscan Rormation have offset rock strata through which theypass, showing that they are faults. In addi- ake epicenters have been plotted at positions tion, a fear earthqu suggesting that both the epicenters and frac close toyfractures tures might have the same origini some geologists believe that tion might represent a clusters of fractures in the Tuscan Forty,,. northward ,extension of the Foothills Fau't System. Accelerations of 02 w 0.3 g can be mitigated by following the guidelines of the latest edition of the [Uniform Buil.diny code, especially with respect to bracing of structures against lateral fot ces, r , 1l REFERENCES Greensfelder, R•W. , 1074, Maximum credible rock acceleration from earthquakes in Californiat Calif. Div. Mines and Geology Map Sheet 23, 12 p. plus map• 1u11ineau, B.L; 1016 Preliminary overview map of volcanic hazards in the 48 conterminous united Stcltes: U,S, Geological Survey Map MF -786 scale 1%7,500,000. Rear, 0 jR, , et al. , 1.978, Earthqualrte epicenter map of California: Calif. lliv. Mines and Geology Map Sheet 30, scale 1-100000000. 80,1 Conservation Service, 1967, Report rind general sol) 33 mapplus Butte Countyt California: U.S.Dept. appendices and map, scale li125,000. ,t on the stover, C 4W • , and Simon, ROB. , 1075► Preliminary repo felt area and intensity: Calif. Div. r4ines and 6eol09y special Rept, 124, p. 97-99 `28" 4 Lydon page nine November 1, 1980 Philip A. Lydon Cal. Registered Geologist 144 r t r e 0 a 29' 1 1 APPENDIX 4 SURVEY FOR RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OF VASCULAR PLANTS CON- DUCTED OCTOBER 10, 1980, ON PROPERTY OF RAY JOHNSON AT FOURTEEN MILE HOUSE, BUTTE COUNTY CALIFQRNIA. A. 'Habitat. ' in a transition zona between Yellow Pine Forest and Chaparral' The property lies art of the area, ultimately habitats, Some ephemeral streams traverse rile eastern ffs occur on the eastern boundary of the draining into Little Chico Creek. Steepbluffs d and Sfate. Highway 32 crosses.. floe site from south to rtortii, roughly uhly area surveyed, parallel With the slopes and creek. A small power line also crosses the property Pa A small loo of the old highway P from north to South near the western boundary. cite site. The. remains of an old building int of the property ad- occurs toward the southwest corner ohtl the -south of the midpoint P Y present just to the east of a gate slightly each ' cents to the present highway, Some Japanese quince bushes, senescent p lo cent, black locusts and :black walnuts are associated with the ofd buldi� pllthe area immediately adjacent to this ruin on the east :has recently been par y About 500 aids to the north of .this partially cleared area therm is a cleared. Y spring that has been dammed in a small concrete trough from which a metal tl'+; ee ads back toward the old structure y Several. narrow bands of vegetation e le arty. _Inch -PIP- - _ tern portion of the prep have been cleared at intervals througIlou n1es noted, the area appeard to have been Except for the various structures and c 9 little disturbed in recent years. ' 'Forest:. Some of thetypical elements of this major habitat type(e ed, f Yellow Pins sugar pine, incense cedar, white fir) are virtually non-existent in the arca wry y but dominants of this forest such ae allow pines sand California black oaks are con- Other wood species present include wild lilac and manzanitasi spicuously p h y inc a aisle s smallflowered dwarf flax, rat dude several grasses, hedg p Y d,a hedge Herbaceous specieswestern rue anemone i skullcap, ma ► , wgoily sunflower, coyote mint, ciatkia, nettle, ogoseris, bedstraws and Others* yellow pine forest on e intergrades with the y Chi Although this habitat tXi� es a considerable arca on tit occuhe west and somewhat to the north in this area, P resent include buckbrush the east :above the steep slopes. The characteristic species p -30- .. 2." toyon, scrub oak, silk tassel bush, manzon'to pitcher sage, buckthorn, honey, poi soh and isoh dell, .tis well as numerous herbaceous species including several grasses, rattlesnake weed, ;several brodiaeas, Pursh's lotus, Hooker's plantain, smooth cat's ear, wild iris, thin -stemmed navarretia, clovers, Fitch's spikeweed, lessingia, calycadenia, beggar gilia, Indianink p , grass Pinks, western morning glory, purple godetia, filago, and others. Riparian. A small area of Riparian habitat,, which is characteristic of areas adjacent to .bodies of>water, occurs in the vicinity of the `spring, ane. to a minor nt along the margins of the larger ephemeral streams. In this particular in stance the riparian vegetation is primarily herbaceous, with species such as a bedrdgrass, navarretia, horseweed cattails rush and: umb"rel la sedge being conspicuous. Both common and shield-bracted monkey flowers occur by the spring and in spots along the runoff channels. r B. 'Rare and Endangered Spey: . The categories of the species here discussedare as indicated in the 2nd edition (1980) of the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California published ' by the California Native Plant Society, The status of some of the species is contro- vetsial and y indicated as being more sensitive on certain federal and state lists Cbut the be NPS list has been used by most county environmental review boards (including that of Butte County) to date. Two small populations of Bidwell's I<notweed (Poi gonum bidweliiae occur just inside (east of) the existing fence about 100 feet south of Highway 32 and about 600 feet north of the southwest corner of the property as superimposed on the aerial. p furnished by the engineer" This species is currently recognized as "rare but not endangered. ifi ' g Butte fritillaria (ritillari%j eastwoodiae), another species in the Sarnp category,reviousl has bl)en 're orted fr mile om a site approximately four airline mileseast southeast of this property, but no remnants of the previous season`s growtli Of this plant were observed during the survey; and it is presumed not to be present. Brewer's rocket (Arabls breweri rear, austinae� a third species in this cote or 1 s been repo' ed from _ �� � "_� � ' _ , p repotfed rock faces several miles g Y, a. to the south of the site, it Was hot o6 - served on the rock faces during the survey, but even if ahy may haveone undetected tected it Is assumed they would not be endangered since canstruction in such a zone is not planned. k0bust checker mallow (Sidalcea ratrusta) ix:officially recognized as 3. "rare and endangered," and has been reported from within a few, miles of the site. A related species of Sidalceo occurs in the vicinity of the spring, but no remnants of the robust checker mallow itself were observed during the survey. Kingsley R. Siam Protossor of Botany and ' Field 'Botany Coiistil lan;t Qepartrnea��t .�f BiSlgival sci'ances Cal ifarnia Staha Univars F/ Chico, CA 95929 (9iS) V5-53Ji R r —32. 4 CHECKUST OF VASCUUR PiANTS THAT WERE II)F TIFIABLE OCTOBER 10, ;1980, DURING THE SURVEY 2OR RARE AND MDkNGERED SPECIES ON THE RAY JOHNSON tPROPERTY, FOURTEEN MILE H01JSEI BUTTE COUNS'Y, CALIFORNIA commoF NAME SC:IMIPIC NAUE 1 Trees, Shrubs and Vines Yellow piffle piaaus ponderosa Digger ins B$ P Pilaus Bab MQnzanita Aretoetaphyloa manzanita Pale manzanita Arctdaiow-1osyibeida Buckbrueb CGIV othus cuneatue Coffeeberry Rki,aelifornicus California bay Usiblellularia californica ' Yerba Banta gx,-iodemon californiaua Redbud ocoidentalie ® Wild lilac oj�a, ►nothus .integerrimus California black oaker�roue kelloggii Blue oak quercus qg Llaa i. ' scrub oak Quercus dna goieonw oak Tomicodendron diversilobum Hodeysuckl:e tori+A cera up. Pitcher aage I�epsahlae, oa7Ynina Silk tasedl. bush _ GnMa .fry SnowberrY 6pphoricarposi rivelarie Blackberry Rubus,utsinus Buekthoru _ �lh�nua croaeus Toyon Heteromeles arbutifnlia Cottonwood P`opulus Yremontii Squawbueh �t . kto 1 BUeh monkey "fl,aaer kimUlus bifidu Clematis Clematis lesr,.,ia tha Mountain mahogany c6rcocarpuE betuloidea (ira�ses ' Wild oats. Averse► Bpi �. Fescue vulpine Bp. Bunch grata MAhlenbergia rigene �546- y"UU13 Foxtail chess Bromus mollis Bromus rubens Cheat grass Bromus tectorum --� Rescue grass Br� otaus catharticus Hit grass Gastdium ventrioosum Hairgrass A_ira earyophyllea Annual hairgrasp Desohamosia danonioides th S4ul.rreltail grass Small rattlesnake Sitanion Ixysttix grass Bri_za minor Dogtail grass. Mediterranean _yno____ C autos echi_nattta barley Hordeum hbtrix Beardgrass .o mons peliensis Other Herbaceous plants Turkey mullein Star thistle Eremooarpus setigerus Thistle Centaurea solatitialis Curly dock Cirsium op, Rumexaria ue Horehound Munn vol are Big heronbill lrodum woo. Purah'`s lotus o Lotus _otos purshianus .. Small-flowered lotus hotus m , icranthus Tumble mustard 83sy►nbrium -offi� c� e Grass 'pinks Kohlrauschia ve�� utina Willow herb Epilob^ ium bp. Common hed8e parsley Torilis heterophylla Knotted hedge parsley Torilis nodosa Hookerlb Plantain Plantago hookeriana California knotweed Poly.__._K_ ons calii'ornicuin Bidwell is knotwsed 'PO y1_ gonum tidwel.li&e CottOtllNeea California MiCrO`us .Cali.forniCl.ls soaproot CY�lorop�a5.um " omeridianum Agoseris Smooth cat i e ea A oaeris sr-�--_._—_ p Hltpochoeris ZLabra �546- 6. C01 ON NII" Other Herbaceous Plants (continued) SCIENTIFIC MME Small --flowered dwarf flax Hes eroli.non mics hum .-- -�-- Stach s, SP - Hedge nettle sunflower Fr_ ioP?�.yllum lanatum Woolly Mon^ ar_ della ep. Coyote mint Clarkin SP- plarkia Cl� arkia nuruurOa purpid godet a Irma hard. Wild iris Galium 6P - Bedstraw Galium paxi� de Paris' bedstraw nut Galium li - Nuttc�].l's bedstraw Said sp. Goldenrod weed -- Da._.._ pusillue B�ttleenake pteridium aau Bracken Dichelosteama Pulchella Blue dicks` Diohelostemma moltifora _ _l many-�lawered bxodiaea Brog e1e ans Harvest brodiaea Tritr l laxa Grass nuts Soutellaria Opt Skullcap navarretia Navarretia filicaul"""s ----------- " ' Thin -stemmed Nav�arret_ia sP. Navarretia meadow .rue Tso_ rum occidentals_ Western phoradendrori flav�denb- mistletoe Fid° sp. Filego madie sP liadi.a San bilp__ _ to Snakeroot illaea erecta Tillaea T'rif� oliwuM hirtum Bore clover clover Trif� oliumhvi.dentatum Tomoat Tr^ i�olivn depauperatum Cowbag clover Trfrol_ iaicrodephaluw Smallhead clover Tri_._-- lium sPI 0 ..)ver He_ mi� zonia fid i ' vitehld spikeweed GrGr%__.---- a REP—Or—am Tarwdea c�.,rcaae�ia :pca_ b,_ 7 CCiBdON1vpME SCII�NTIPTC NAME Other 8erbaceous Plante (cont;Lnued) Wild sweet pea LeSsIngie tat rus _lati----ifol Wild buckwheat i;ass____ Mia nem�adij Centaury REI -2 nu^ dum Beauti cul centaury Cent_--- m ,floribundum Prickly lettuce Cent� ami venustum Hansen's clurmoss I.actuca ser---rj.Qla .Valle t Y easels seidnella ta h� j C- .. J bhnny tuck x--_--thoc�ar ue attenuates --E---s PeBgar Bili$ Ort3�ocar'Aus eri� an�F Indianldicroateris pink racilis Goldbeck fern Siler oalifornica Hot rock penstamon Pit rogramma tri' - y --_, 8n,glllaris Purdyis penete�acu Pennstemon de�u13 Lupine. Pan---st-e heten,�'.1.1a var. urd 5alisfy ?upinus op, Dudleya Tr o,o on sp. Western moi ng gory fid-- l� o os Om©cher ival,low Cal stbt�ia occidentslis Cattail i -4a lea sp. Iiarseweed &P—ha,l_._.etidol i a Loosestrife CO Ea can 6 Fi umbrella. sedge '_ttlrum sp. Mush +Ypryare -- C --., s �, _ or �_ cosi Jubeuri Cinquefoil _sp, Dodder PAte�---ntilla sp. Aster Cu8_� cUta sp Wild 021ion :Dat ' op. bouglas' sand"wort Allium em lectens Pddleneck �r maria i.o las3 Am2i.ho�a intermedia Introduced Wand S ecies --+�.,. the Vie! 1,4 +w -4, : � , — . - . APP ENDIX 5 RAY JOHNSON PROPERTY -PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Habitat Description The area is upper foothill habitat with patches of grassy area, chapparral, oak forest, pine forest, and mixtures of those vegetation types. The western edge of the property Is dissected by Highway 32. East and west sides of the property drop precipitously into canyons. The proposed developmont site Is on the relatively flat area bordering Route 324 An intermittent stream traverses j part of the eastern development site. ■ Value as Wildlife Habitat ' The value of the area as wildlife habitat varies as does the habitat. The diverse structure of the land and vegetation provides for an assortment of niches. 1 [A First in importance are the areas with mature trees. The trees provide food (acorns, pine nuts) for numerous animals as well as shelter in the forms of tree cavities, oerches, and nest sites. They also provide protection from environmental factors since trees provide shade, diminish wind, and retard or prevent erosion. Trees help to'retain soil and atmospherlc moisture, making the habitat more suit- able for other plant as wolf as animal species. Pine forests provide different kinds of food and habitat benefits for wildlife than do oak forests; pines and oaks are each relatively more important to certain animals, e.g. squirrels prefer acorns to pine nuts, but their overall wildlife value is probably similar. Chapparral is composed of brush which is primarily evergreen and produces berry- like frulfsi It typically, as it does here, grows in dense stands which provide excellent cover and food for small and large mammals.Signs of deer were abund- and through the'chapparral; trails, deer beds, and heavily browxed buck brush (Ceanothus sp.) Were evident. Chapparral provides ample food and cover for birds as well and a large number of birds were seen In It, The open grassy areas are of ,least value to wildlife, but they are of some value as dense grass does harbor a number of species of animals andpprovides a good supply of limited kinds of food; Star thistle and wild oats yield abundant seeds which are eaten by some species of seed -eating birds and rodents: Dense grass provides hest sites for birds such as Meadowlarks and is inhabitoted by large numbers of pocket grophers and mice. The small Intermittent stream that traverses part of the grassy area east of the highway appears to be important to wildlife. The entire area Is very dry during the summer and fail, the only source of open water seems to be the small shallow pools in parts of the stream bad: Around these pools was abundant bird life using the water for drinking and bathing. Deer tracks were abundant and a deer was even nearby. General Vii I d l i fe ..Observations Deer beds, trails, and browte are very evident; the deer population in this area seems to be large, Ample evidence of other mammal activity was found such as burrows, tracks and/car scats of skunks, raccoons, squirrels, rabbli-s rats ob d grophersi Large numbers, of wintering or migrating birds were seen to -37- use the area; breeding populations of birds Would probably be smaller. There are probably no endangeredvertebrates in the area; this is not suitable habitat for Bald Eagles, for instance. No fish inhabit the area. A list of vertebrates most likely to inhabit the area follows. - 'chose marked by an asterisk Were actually observed during the field studies Amphibians California Newt (Taricha torosa) Ensatina (Ensatina sp.) California Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatuS) ' Western Toad (Bufo boreus) Pacific Treefrog(Hyia re_gilla) 1 Reptiles *Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) Gilbert'Skink (Eumeces L berti) Alligator Lizard (Gerrhonotus .) Garter Snake (Thamnophis sp.) Gopher Snake (Pituophis cateennifer) Common Kingsnake (LampropeltLs etulus) W. Rattlesnake (Crotalisyiridis) Birds *Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) 4Sharp"skinned Hawk (Acclpiter s+Natus) Cooperts Hawk (Actiptter cooperii) Red -shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatu5) 'a e Rd-t'i l ed * Hawk (3uteo ,jamaicens's) ' *Am. Kestrel (Falco ssarVerius) Peregrine ralcon (Falco pe"regrinus,) 4Califoral6 Quail (Lophortyk callfoe=nicus) Common Turkey (Meleagris 2LIO avo) "38u Birds (Continued); *band"tailed Pigeon (Columba fasciata) ' 4Mourn'ing Dove (Zenalda niacroura) Screech Owl (Otus asio) Great Horned Owl (Bubo vlr inianus) Common Nighthawk (Chordei.les minor) Rufous Hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte ansa) *Common Flicker (.Coiaptes auratus) Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (SLh ra icus var'lus) Hairy Woodpecker (Dendrocoposyiilosus) Downy Woodpecker (Deng P cocopos. pube� s`cens) Nuttall's Woodpecker (Picoldes nuttallii) Lewis' Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) Ash-throated Flaycatcher (Myiarchus .cinerascens) Olive-sided Flycatcher (NUtta(hornis borealis) Western Wood Pewee (Contopus sordidulus) Western Fiaycatcher (Em idonax diffic-ills) Tree Swallow (Irldoprocne bicolor) - *Common Crow (Corvus brachyehyhchas) *Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) *Steller►s Jay (Cyahocitta stellert) 4Plaln Titmouse (Parus lnornatUs) *Bush+lt (Psaltrtparus minimus) *Wrentit (Chamea fasciata) Whii•o-breasted Nuthatch (81f+a carollnensis) 1 Brown Creeper, (Certhta famlttarts) *BewlckIs Wren (Th_ryomanes bewididt) 1 House Wren (Trogl_odytes aedon) Birds (Continued): California Thrasher (Toxostoma redi`V1vum) Mockingbirds (TI us poiyc7lotto_s) *Am, Robin (Turdus mlgrasl varied Thrush tlxo� rte= naeS) *Hermit Tht-ush (Cat____ha_rus autal Ruby -crowned Kinglet (Regl us ca l e� l a ) Cedar.Waxwtng (Bombyci! a cedrorum) Yellow-rumpted Warbler (DendMca corronnata? *Brewer's Blackbird (Eu ha us cYacoce�) *Western Meadowlark ' Stu,r� ne i ecta ) I, Black-headed Grosbeak (PhoUcti cus �,alJanoS h hiss I �ufou:s,sided Towhee (Pipi o, Or y'throphthaimus *) (Chondestesrc�arrimacus) 41ark. Sparrow Chipping Sparrow (----- L; ella Passerina) P�--- -~ Song Sparrowtt�leio� sPi a melodial *White -Crowned Sparrow (zonotr•ichla leuco hrys) Golden -Crowned Sparrow (ZonotrichIa atrlcapilla) lBark-byed Junco (Junco alken) Grosbeak (Hes 'eri bonayesp, _ ey!na) uVen; l n9 _--P--- -- *Hous6 Finch (Carpoda_ cus me ica _ *American Goldfinch Ward ,i is tristts) i *Lesser Go df i rich (Ca ua ll a s ec i fr a) Mammals 6 Shrew (sorex �A;. Bats Flack-ta:lied Jackrabbit (Le_uS ca,ifforntcus) S I Cottontail Rabbit (VIa us a` b' la ' *Brush rabbit (j ba�ci-) *Mule deer ..(Odoc� otos hemionus) Suggested Mltlaatton Measures There are a number of measuresthat c►gn be taken to reduc© the tmt oac ` by the Propsed development. p n Wildlife I. Stands of trees and shrubs should be left the g g undisturbed wherever Possible since the fairl level forested area Wildlife habitat, Qn the west side of Bo y provide the reates•t degree of Wild ute ' untouched', tf possible, that could conceivably be developed should be left z� then dihwildlife development should occur With removal of the fewest number of trees. Besides of the climate, stabilize the soil '9 Ile habitat, trees buffer the effects ' r and retain moisture -ail beneficial to human inhabitants of the area. Trees and shrubs near the highway are particularly Important III stabil and atterivating the traffic noise -beneficial to both people end wildlife g e toll tzln th remain to help prevent erosion. oto +.oth oast and West sides shouIdeaIto an shrubs linin the es ride of the canyons 2. The tnterm ftent stream coursing though the grassland should be main some way as it seems to be an important source of wader for urlldltfe: tamed In r Mammals (Continued): CA Ground Squirrel (Cit_ e11us beeche i) *'CA Gray Squirrel (Sciurus riseus) ' White-footed Nice (Perom seas se,) Wood Rat (jeotoma f_usci es) Meadow Mice. (P,ltcrotus sp. Coyote (Caris latrans) Cray Fok (Uroc on cinereoargenteuy) Black Bear (Ursus'an. r____tca_nus) ----- Ring -tall (BassarIscus astutus) Spotted Skunk (S ito aIe 2utorius) otr i ped Skunk (Me—PI Mephitis) *Pocket Gopher (Tho P mom s Si,) Mountain Lion (Fe, leis condolor) Bobcat (LYa rufus) *Mule deer ..(Odoc� otos hemionus) Suggested Mltlaatton Measures There are a number of measuresthat c►gn be taken to reduc© the tmt oac ` by the Propsed development. p n Wildlife I. Stands of trees and shrubs should be left the g g undisturbed wherever Possible since the fairl level forested area Wildlife habitat, Qn the west side of Bo y provide the reates•t degree of Wild ute ' untouched', tf possible, that could conceivably be developed should be left z� then dihwildlife development should occur With removal of the fewest number of trees. Besides of the climate, stabilize the soil '9 Ile habitat, trees buffer the effects ' r and retain moisture -ail beneficial to human inhabitants of the area. Trees and shrubs near the highway are particularly Important III stabil and atterivating the traffic noise -beneficial to both people end wildlife g e toll tzln th remain to help prevent erosion. oto +.oth oast and West sides shouIdeaIto an shrubs linin the es ride of the canyons 2. The tnterm ftent stream coursing though the grassland should be main some way as it seems to be an important source of wader for urlldltfe: tamed In r REFERENCES Blain, WF. et. al. 1957. Vertebrates of the United States. McGraw Hill Book Co. N.Y. Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider'. 1964. A Field Guide to the Mammals. Houghton tMifflin Co. Boston. Holt, V 1962. Keys for the Identification of Wild Flowers, Ferns, Trees, Shrubs, and Woody Vines of Northern California. National Press Books, Palo Alto, CA. Ingles, L. 1954. Mammals of ;illfornia Stanford University Press. ' Manolln, T and B. Webb. 1979. A'Checklist of Butte Co. Blyds. Altacai Audubon Society, Chico, CA. Martin, A.C., H.S. Zim, and A.L. Nelson. 1951. American Wildlife and Plants: A Guide to Wildlife Food Habits. Dover Publications, N.Y. Palmer, E.L. and H.S. Fowler. 1975 Fieldbook of Natural History. McGraw -Hili Book Co., N.Y. Robbins, et. al. 1968. Birds of North America. Golden Press, New York. Small, A. 1974. Birds cf California. Winchester Press, New York,. Stebbins, L. 1958. A Field Guide to the Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton - Mifflin Publishers, Boston. Storer, T.I. and R.L. Us'inger. 1963. Sierra Nevada Natural History. Unly. of California Press, Berkeley. r -42- .+v u.y ui . .1.1G Vl1. ► At your request on October 17 & 20, 1980 I conducted an archaeological reconnaissance of approximately 225 acnes of land owned by Ray E. Johnson, et ali The property is located along both sides of Highway 32, approximately 2 miles south of Forest RanchEand Pas a po Quadrangle, i5� Section 18, portion of the UV-- of T 23 N R series. The pdroposed project for the property is for housing cluster evelopment. The property lies alon the east side of the ridge between Big Chico Creek and Zigtle Chico Creek. The western portion of the property is along the top of the ridge and the terrain is relatively level with a low hall in the northwest corner. The eastern portion of the property covers the steep canyon wall Aside long the wespraperty�consLittle stsChico Creeks The +, tion of the oak, pine, manzanita, vegetation annursses. oea e� �; a sou w s ern portionr enproperrtyiand a small spring is located on alae 0(390 of the canyon. Property along the upper Prior to my reconnaissance of the ro ert archaeologioal site record files mainta nedTatrCa.l.ifornia0 State University, Chico to determine if any archaeological: � sites had been .previously .recorded for the pro erty arear� i °°orrc is ol�agicaol1ore9i ori - Ensl iyes I;i�.cipte�ho� Hrdrerdowftgi h Or adjacent to the property boundaries, My reconnai:3sance of the property was complete in that all areas of the property khat appeared likely* to contain materials of archaeological or historical significance were carefully Property on the upper ortion the examined- The main focus of portion reconnaissance was a ' of the � the aro ridge since the property area along the canyon wall was steep and covered by dense vegetation and unsuitable for human habitation. Two sites 'were recorded during my Inspection of the one is a property, prehlotorio site consisting of two small. bedrock mortars, and the other is an historic site Consisting Of the foundation and associated features of Fourteen Mile House P �Vral�ot�oD� � C�,owa�Ot�i�� P.�o 0 ods �dOfl Cbd�oofl�4��J P�Q47�Ca59 �34a����0 -43- Page 2 Octobe r 270 1980 The prehistoric site is significant in that it is the first and only known prehistoric site recorded, along this ridge. Prehistoric sites have been �ecordedeinobo�h Bi Chico Big evidence h' and Little Chico Creek Canyons, but this also occupied thenr identified so f'ar that the aboriginal people opl meters to the south ofeatUprnThe site is located twenty le the major attraction for the and this was undoubtedly themselves are very people. The mortars holes amount of activity took at the he i Y limited mapped and recorded Burin The site was mitigation measures are req required for�thisosite, and no further The U.S.G.S, topographic map for the area shows the location of Fourteen Mile House as bean west side of Humboldt Road Prepared in 19.53. just off of the property the Since this map has been prepared Highway p Y area. which does not follow the ali g Y 32` has been constructed, according to the ma gement of Humboldt Road, but 32 also. p the site would be to the w ,Y inspection of the st of Highway site of f'our'teen Mile House as indica determinedtedthat the topographic map is in error„ the east of both Humboldt ko ddand Highwayatit s located to Supporting p i Highway 32. Pvidence pportfn this conclusion comes from two sources, the actual field inspe which resulted in fin-"� stone foundation on the � ng a large Such Structure had ever ;Xisted at the lo_.atien shown Y area and showed that no topographic map, and from informatan obtained ' 'rmaht. on the who remembered when- the structure d from a local Dura. was still int 0 During my i, of the act. interview 1 n Claud L W property :[ Was able to briefly the pro �er�t; . • illis, who was drillin a � Y� Mr Wallis has been a long timegresidelon the area arad owns the project botindar property adjaoent to the northern of Past of Hi hwa info nor�;het^n Y - He informed me that the stone foundation House: g y 32 was indeed the site of Fourteen T1ale A00s ing to Mr. Willis the _bu' din in the 18()Cs as a wagon Stopg was The first as gate along by the Humboldt Road com ayconstructed the road at this g the road was original 1. Point but Y across up the road because of a bypass later maned a short distance toll ga'�e; He Ypass road constructed around the high sur-ooundedrbmembers the structure as bait t that the building by as 'base g two stories Porch around the lower level,, and the lower level was a meet, The ceiling off" also remembers two builpdingsaassociwe Y twelve feet high. He barn and, a slaughterhouse that was aced with the house, a house, where Mr. Williss attended school.. Both ao fathese school were destroyed i�►hen Highway 3z was constructed, -44, i IM 0 0 11 Page 3 October 27, "198! A man and Mr.LucasSpires lsold tsite to Ernie Lucas in the 1890s, ate until the 1940s when the structure was destroyed by a fire. Water :for the house was obtained from the spring, approximately x! 0 meters north of the house foundation. The spring was improved with a cement basin and water was carried to the house through a pipeline, most of whish is still visible at the site. The dump for the site is located almost due east of the foundation along the side of tho canyon, which is extremely steep at this point. Cans, glass fragments, ceramic fragments and various pieces of metal were f'ournd to be scattered down the side of the canyon in this area. Mr. Willis remembers that the meadow surmanding the foundation was planted in* -various grain crops and a number of fruit trees are still located around the meadow, Three cement tubs were found adjacent to the foundation and Mr. Willis thinks they were originally from the slaughter- house), he does remember, that they were later used as septic ,tanks for a toilet added to the house on the porch. Most, of the material identified at the site appears to date to 'the later occupation of the site, although a few square nails and glass fraL7ments pre -date 1900i Since the structure was totally consumed by fire and all ofthe trash was doposited over the edge of the cliff ;it is unlikely that the site contains much potential for ,yielding additional data about the site or its occupation even if it was scientifically examined by a qualified archaeologist. x' was only able to interview Mr, Willis for a brief period quite obvious that he has but it was �` t a wealth of knowledge about this site and the local area and he should be more thoroughly interviewed in the near future. One other feature associated with the site was found along the west side of Highway 32, this was a short section of wagon ruts worn into the hard m;.trix.of the volcanic Mud - flows These ruts represent th6 original course of the Humboldt Road, which was mostly destroyed when Humboldt Riad was paved. Similar ruts can be seen along Humboldt Road south of the point 'where it intersects with Highway '2 8inod there is ver little ' oten.tial for gaining adr"yitonal and historical Y peri ais at this site + preservation and protect i on ofrtheom tsite area is not required quired for the �:ltigation of the site: It is recommended that If possible the disturbance of the house foundation be avoided during `q'5 October 2 page. �, 7;r 1980 development of the area. It is recommended that the site area be mapped and photographed so that all the details of the site are preserved by a qualified archaeologist.This data would then be kept on file at California State University, Chico for future reference.. The site does have potential for interest to visitors and residents of the local area and this would be a good location for a historical marker that would note the historical features of this location. An application for such a mRrker would have to be submitted to the County Board of Supervisors and vpon their approval submitted to the State Historical Resources Commis6ion. It is therefore recommended that prior to granting archaeological clearance for the project area the features associated with Fourteen Mile House be accurately mapped and-Piot'ographed by a qualified archaeologist and that an attemptlshould be made to designated the site as a "California Point of Historical Interest". In addition, although it is not a required mitigation measure the foundation of Fourteen Mile House should be preserved and protected if at all possible Sincerely ours, t games P. Manning 'Archaeology Consultant