HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-50 REZONES 19 OF 22- t Z1 -,0177r" :77 .
c j
k,
Y
t'ift4 Issuefz
Sewage" Disposal System
itonse
��
The Canyon dark Estates Sewage Disposal System' was
designed in accordance with the requirements of the"
California Water Quality "ContrOl Board (see First
issUed
Supplement to EZR). The Regional Board
waste discharge requirements and has standard
reporting requirements to ensure nm -polluting
Item 5, Supplementary
operation of the system (see
Information incorporated by refetence into the
F%ret SuPplement`to the EIR). The Superior,Cburt
in acting upon a lawsuit brought by tihs Friends of
the Foothills, found. the system designs the EIY2
covering it, and the Water Quality Standards
sufficient to protect t1.e existing' enva ronmentaZ
quality of the Area, Mr, Luvaas has brought forth
no facts to cause us to .doubt't1le vialbility o£ the
the tzahiulness of the assertions put'
system nor
forth by the Regional Wager Board. His quest,.bn,s
about who would be responsible to rectify any
future unforeseen failure are answered by the
formation of the CSA #84e the County Service Area
formed to accept that responsibility.
Sixth Issue:
Wildlife Reduction
Res;op nse.
As stated numerous times, this project has ,been
Fish and Gamei its
approved by the Department of
impact upon 'wildlife has been carefully and
thoughtfully mitigated through previous design
changes required, by this Board. Mr. Luvaas
presents no new evidence, eitherpersonal or from
experts in the tield, that the Department of Fish
and Game has erred in its determinations on this
project's effects.
These comments shall be supplementary to those prepared by the
staff in response to 'Mr. Luvaas' letter.
O
PAGE,,,
1, Proiect arca
4
2. ., Site Plan
5
3. Wastewater Treatment Falailities
4, to ca:txon of Test ,pits
30
5, Pond Cross Section$
10
r
r
v
N
�r
.
-2-
INTRODUCTION.'
The, oxaging:1 Project has been ffiodified, as a result of the,
enVitotmental,review ;procesiso which began in November, 1980,,
and, as a result, :of, rct.";,finemonts in available engineering data.
,
A revisedproject de�scr� iption included in this,supplement
w' 11 emphasize these changes.,
This -supplemont is being prepared in accordance with
Sections ?.5067 (subsequent ETR) : aii,d 150675 (supplement, to an
EIR) of the, State8IR Guidelines, to provide additional environ -
O
menial, analysis of the project's sewage disposal, system Water
system', and, along withthe r- inal Environmental Tm-pact Pep':tt
for Canyon Park Estates, 'Butte COunty,'California.4peciTic Plan
County:,.
and. PA.C Rezone certified by the. Butte County Board of Super
p
"Will
visors .,on July 21'2, 1682) provide environmental documentation
for the tentative subdivision, map,
Comments as to the scope of I: h i s suijplemen,� were sought
from all. lead and'responsible, agencies, as -,well, as from those
Who demonstrated an interest by appearing at previous. -public
, d' .
h ar 4 Jacent to LittleChico
hearings, e i and from persons residing
Creek immediately downstream from the project site , (,Stilson
Canyon), Copies of all comment' letters received.aTe on, file
r
With the County 0 Planning Depa-tment'and the developer's office.
-2-
e1 " ,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
GENERAL PROJECT
The approximately six mil
project site is located pp , y es east
of Chico (see Figure 1) 0 adjacent to and east of State Highway
32. The site encompasses portions o section_11, 12, 13,14
and 15 Township 22 North, Range 2 East, M.D.B. & M.,
and is
designated as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 4f;-35-23& 04, 46-71-
17 and 41.41-18 (part). Located; in L t,tie Chico C.reek'Canyon ,
the property includes the northwest canyonwall, canyon door
and several eastward -trending ridges and ravines:
The proposed project is a land development and required.
the specific Plan adopted by the Board of, Supervisors on Apa^il
13, 19.82. The project applicant also sought a rezone from A-2
(general) and S -H (;scenic highway ) to PA -C (•planned area clus-
ter), which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on July 22,
1982; The rezone provides, via the County's police powers, a
convenient method to implement project restrictions, but these
restrictions will be implemented as private deed restrictions
'
should the PA-C'zoning be rescinded.
The Canyon Park Estates project is a 109 lot residential
subdivision on a 1,050 acre site (see figure 2). The lots
will range in size from * to 3 acres, but the buildable area
will be restricted to about acre. The remainder will bere-
tained as open space, as will the major portion of the project
site, providing approximately 1,000 acres of permanent open
®
space... A non-profit public land trust will administer this
open space to ensure, among other things, that it is not
■
developed. Overall, project density is 1 unit per 10 acres..
Subdivision lots will be offered to the public as custom
home building sites. Each lot will have paved access, electri-
cal and telephone service, and connection to.'community water
and sewage collection systems. Lots will be landscaped and
maintained'tiy the inlividual:lot owner, subject to project
Covennts
a, Conditions .and Restrictions which prohibit grading
or removal of native vegetation on the lot other than that
necessary to accommodate the dwelling; incidental accessory;
structures, driveways and firebreaks asrequired by County Fire'
Standards. Parking _on each lot will be in a two car garage or
carport, Horse' stables may be allowed within the common arca
at the discretion of the HomeownOr, 's Association, subject to
all County requirements. Primary access will be via atwo-
Lane paved road traversing the northwest canyon wall and cross-
in;g Little Chita Creek. The access road will intersect Humboldt,
Road near Highway, 32. Eliteilgency access (through access prohibited)
Will be provided by two 'gravel road easements connectedwith
Santos'Way through neighboring Approximately
properties, seven,
miles of interigr private access roads will be constructed:
WAN
Power for the lift station which the
, prova.ded by apPGeffluent'to
stabilization ponds will be y &E lane plus a
standby generator. The lift station will" be ;a duplex iac,ility
with an extra, pump in ease" the first fails.
The ponds are to be locwted over 150 feet from Little.
Chico Creek and over 50 feet from the unnamed intermittent
stream channel. They will be constructed by excavation and
embankment, because of the slope of the site.; Pond bottoms
will be level. (See Figure 5) Interior pond dike slopes will_
be in a 24.1 ratio; exterior slopes will be 1j: 1 The tops
of
the dikes .sill be 12 feet wide. Dikes will be constructed of
on --site soils, mixed at the ratio, and in the manner, recommen-
ded by Anderson Geotechnical Consultants., Ponds 4 and 5 will
have a 1-2 foot apron of cobbles at the bottom of the 'dike
nearest the 100 year flood plain of Little Chico Creek to pre-
elude any -erosion during extreme high water years.:
Pond and irrigation disposal area designs include drainage
systems to intercept subsurface seepage and direct it ",around
the ponds and pasture area. The period between pond "construe
tion and eventual use (3-7 years) will allow fox observation of
unused ponds during the winter and spring months to detect any
seepage areas riot currentlyknown) or found during construction,.
Additional drains 'can be added, if necessary, before the ponds
begin filling with effluent.
Operation` Maintenance
and
Operation and maintenance of the system, including septic
tanks, will be administered as a County Service ,Area .formed as
a required mitigation for the project. The operation and
maintenance acta:vitiea will be supervised by a Grade IV Corti -
fled Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator;. The ro ect engineers
pr g eers
are producing a manual providing specific details required for
proper maintenance and;operation of this system.
In the
addition to funds collected annually for the County
Servide Area,; Homeowners will be assessed to provide for
capital replacement and emergency repair funds. The developer
will post a bond adequate for the"completion of the full waste'
water'treatme"nt facility and any modifications necessary (e".g.,.
increased subsurface drains) to ensure proper`, operation ane
efficiency.
Yater quality monitoring of Little Chico Ctee% currently
conducted by the developer above and below the project; must
be continued to detect any indication of surface water degrada-
upon. Should any degradation be detected, additional,trbat"
®
ment such as 0, chlorination" unitan be added
, c.
t
ENVIRONMEMPAL BASELINE, IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
The general project and environmental baselines are
described in detail in the certified Final HIR for Canyon
Park Estates Specific Plan and the supplement for the rezone
and are summarized in this supplement. Only, specific details
on geology, soils, hydrology and climatology have been added
for this aspect ofthe project. The original: environmental
baseline surveys were completed in March, 1980 and an`Envirun-
mental Assessment was. prepared in April, 1980. Since that
time, additional soils and hydrologic studies have been con-
ducted, primarily to determine the best method for wastewater
disposal.
MThe
TOPOGRAPHY
wastewater ponds and irrigation field are located on
the canyon floor in anareawhere existing surface slopes.are
approximately 14 percent. After construction, the pond bottoms
will be approximately level, 18-20 feet higher than the high-
water leve of Little Chico; Cree'ke
GEOLOGY
Of the four geologic units exposed on the project site,
Chico,, Lovej.0y, Tuscan and Recent Alluvium, only, the last
two are exposed in the area of the sewage treatment facility.
They,are underlain at some depth by the Lovejoy and Chico
Formations; which are exposed in other areas in the vicinity;
A detailed description of area and project geology is found
in Appendix 3 of the Final Environmental Impact Report for
Canyon Park Estates, Eutte County, California-Specif is Plan
& PA -C Rezone,
A thin band of; alluvium deposits are visible along the
banks of Little Chico Creek, adjacent to the wastewater treat-
ment facility, The facilit>es themselves are on Tuscan
For-mation
with a layer of volcanic tuff underlying a;mixture of
clay; silt, sand and, cobbles.
Potential 'Impacts
There are no potential adverse impacts upon the geology
of this area.
Mitigations
None required.'
t
i
i
l
SOILS
Soils, on the site are of the Toomey series, dark brown
clayey sands with a variable, gravel content. These soils are
feet .in depth overlying weathered volcanic mudflow and
tuff breccia.Twenty-two test pits were excavated and; examined
by Gary Anderson of Anderson Geotechnical Consultants, Inc:
The location of these test pits relative to tho pond sites are
indicated in Figure 4. The logs of these test pits are in-,
cluded as Appendix 3. These test pit's indicate a relatively
uniform soil profile in the pond area. The proposed pond
clusters are concentrated in the area originally designated
for Ponds 7.-3: The, alternatepond's�..tes have been eliminated.,,
The irrigation disposal -area has a 1-2 foot surf ace layer
of very wet, black sandyL',,,;, Beneath this layer is a layer
of gray- cZa'y varying in thickness from 2-4 feet . These layers
are underlain by weathered volcanic tuff, with,water seepage
in some areas. The. surface 1,ayers will be dewater.ed by an
intercept9.on ditch which will divert uphill drainage around
the pasture area.
®
soils excavated from the pond areas and diversion ditches
i�
will be mixed and compacted.to form the dikes around the ponds
and at the foot of the disposal area.
Potential-Impacta
The 10Q -year flood plain of Little Chico Creek may reach
the northwest corner of Pond 5 and could undercut or erode a
portion of the dike
iMitigation
A 1-2 foot high apron of cobbleswill be ilac;ed on, the
idike
at this location to prevent eroslve action:
i
.
i'
i
i
-12"
r
W15-
1
fit iga�t ion'
None required.
HABITAT
The proposed wastowator ponds and disposal areas are in
adjacent to the riparian
open grassland area's with a few areas
Little Chico Creek and an unnamed tributary of this
areas of
There are no rare, endangered or threatened species in
rthe
creek.
area designated for development
potential Iris
Na impacts are predicted.
r
Mitigation
None< required.
r
WILDLIFE
r
The area 'does: not contain 'shelter, critical feeding or
wildlife. The ponds and irri.gatibn area
water sources`' for
a minimum of 150 feet from Little Chico Creek.„
are
Potential Impacts
rcould
Leakage or overflow from the ponds and irrigation area
and aquatic life in Little Chita
affect water quality
Creek.
r�42itigations
The project design incorporates pond dike construction
by the geologist to eliminato
r,,eakage.
measures recommended engineerifig
of 40+ percent will prevent overflows.
Excess capacity
The irrigation disposal area has a,dike and tailWatex col.--
flows, of ixri gaff on v�atex,
r';
lection sump to collect any excess
them from"reaching the creek.:
and prevent
ARCHAEOLOGY=
The area was surveyed by James P. Manning in 19, The
facx1iti'es ds.rl not contain any
situ designated for wastewater
archaeologic remains. This; site is well separated
®
historic; or
from the 4 archaeological, ,sites found on the property,
r
W15-
-X6'
Sewage Disposal
As indicated in the project description, the proposed 'pro-
ject is a community wastewater treatment system. Septic tanks
will provide primary treatment and the secondary effluent will
be disposed of primarily by evaporation. Following
heavy rainyears, a 5± acre pasture site will be irrigated,
with secondary effluent as a supplemental disposal, method.
Potential impacts
Opponents of the project have stated their concerns about
the adequacy and efficiency of the selected method of waste--
water disposal; Included is a concern about the possibility
for corrections or alternatives if problems do develop,
Mitigations
The ponds and irrigation system have been designed with.
worst case, most conservative figures as capacity criteria;, at
the request of Regional. Water Quality Control Board Engineer,
A. Landis. They have been reviewed by State and County per-
sonnel. Sewage production has been calculated at 80 gallons
per capita per day (gpcd). The weighted average cited in E.P.A.
studies is 44 gpcd, with a range of 8 to 101.6 gpcd. The cut -
rent Uniform Building Code requires water conserving shower
and toilet fixtures, which further roduce wastewater production
to about 33 gpcd. The UBC requirement indicates a more probab.e
Volume of 280,500 gallons per month or 420 of design capacity.
Precip3. io. , is assumed to `be 34.5 inches compared to the
average of 26.72, a difference of over 800,000 gallons pet year
in the storage requirements. Evaporation losses have also been.
reduced from a calculated 85.5 inches per year (1.28 x Class A
Pan) to 71 inches per year.
Capacity provided by the two feet of freeboard, and the
reduced average flows due to the Uniform Building Code standards
produces a "reserve's capacity of 6.76 million gallons annually.,
twice the predicted storage needed. Irrigation will not be
necessary except following exceptionally high rainfall years,
used as
will be he completes buildout to provide
tproject
of over 5 million gallons per year.
Since the 'houses in Canyon park Estates will be individu--
all.y constructed, custom homes, there will be time to conf� rin
the adequacy of construction and design: The engineers have
estimated ghat it will take seven houses to completely utilize
Ponds 1 through S, using their worst case' calculation:
(Appendix 4) During this period, the integrity of all ponds
AESTHETICS
Potential Impacts
Septic effluents can create odors if improperly handled,
especially if Pond 1 does not maintain an adequate_ water level.
Mitigation
initially., until development produces sufficient effluent
to keep Pond I at a; depth of, one foot or greater, supplemental.
water will be added., to maintain volume and depth. A special
line protected by an air gap trap, will be used to supply
the necessary water.
®
AD,VERS.E IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT
LS ImPEEMENTED
Since the project covered by this.supplement is a waste-
.water treatment system designed to prevent impacts, particularly
the degradation of surface and groundwater supplies, no adverse
unMitigable impacts will be created. The community water supply
system is not interconnected or dependent upon any other water,
system and will not create any adverse impacts
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
The proposed wastewater facility i-s a recjuirement of .
state and local health authorities and is designed to `serve
only Canyon Park Estates. It isa therefore, not growth in-
ducin Similarly, the comm1.unity water system will Serve only
this project and will not induce or facilitate any other de-
velopment
Advantages
This would probably reduce the number of units that
could be developed on the valley. floor'-
Disadvantgges
would use a vao riety, of sources and
Residential, use
of
probably ' wouW.,Xace the same ;problem as residents
lower Stilson Canyon -connection to possibly, contamin-
aged alluvial and other shallow groundwater sources.
6 More homes Would be placed on the east side of the
canyon,floorto take advantage of''the more plentiful
water supplies under Doe Mild. Ridge. Development
costs would increase as 'would reduction in wildlife
habitat.
rOP letters ere mailed to
the f ollowing jpersons and organizations,.
Mary Henn.in g
.Janet &Sutherland Si Pion
ni�
iChico
Rt 5 Box 79B
Rt 5 Box 79A
CA 95,926
Chico CA '95926
Gar y& BVa" I caudo
Sara & Brevat of Creech.
Rt 5 Box 79FB
101 `W 2nd Ave
Chico CA 95926
Chico CA 95926
John & Geraldine Sullivan
Rt 5 Box 79DB
Michael & Susan Baird,
3501 Stilsop, Canyon
Chico CA 95926
Chico CA 9:6926
Donald & Mary Richey
Mary Turner
R -r 5 Box 79Y
P.0 Box 3651
Chico CA 95926
Chico CA 95927
Patricia &'' Darrell Smith
Rt 5 Box 79LM "'
Steve & Margaret Rivas
Rt 5 Box 79=3
Ch ico ;CA 95926
Chico CA , 95926
ViVian & Mirko ,Pozar
John & Joan Schodling
801 Bast Ave., Mall #35
Rt 5 Box 19JA
Chi-OOL CA 95926
Chico CA 95926
Bill Jeanne Whitney
Bob & Jean Reagan>
Rt 5 Box 16-3A
Rt 5 Box 79CA.
Chico ,CA 95926
Ch.iao CA '95926
Bill& Sally Chandler
Grane
Jiane r.
P 0 Box 3336
at 51 Box,79M.
Chico CA'95927
Chico CA 95926
Tommy `& on. Clinton
George & Barbara Hyde
Rt 5, Box 79"7
At 5 Box 790
Chico CA 95926
Chico CA - 95926
Geraid & Carol Telander
Marvin &'Beulah Crites
Rt 5 Box 79D
Rt 5 Box. 79-=2
Chico. CA 95926
Chico, CA 95926
iX26-
`A'
'=•„ 1tF
Donald 8i Sandra Planchard,
rip & tdWard Opatrny,
At 5'. Box. 79-'0
Humbug Road
Chico CA 95926
Ch.ica,CA 95926
Doris &'Henry Peterson
Rt 5 Boit 79L
Butte County Planning Department
7 County Center 15rive
Chico CA 95926...__
Or'oville, CA 95905
Attn: Bettie Kirci'�r
City
.lames & Yolanda,.Westcott
Chico Council
- Rt 5 Box 79S
5th and Main
Chico CA 95926
Chico CA 95926
i
Attn: Barbara Evans
Justin & Nova Smith
Rt 5 Box 79J
John Luvaas
520 Olive Street
Chico CA 95926
Chico CA 95926
Deanne & Barbara Conklin
Marlene & Jack Ledbetter
Rt •5 Box 79C
Rt 5 ,Box 85
Chico CA 95926
Chico CA 55926
Sceales & Brouil,lard;
Harry Cozad;
897 Filbert Ave
_....Ht,_5 Box 79H
Chico, CA 95926
Chico CA 95926
Bruce & Pat Bur, ke
266 Cohasset Lane
Chico CA 9592.6
Roger Cole
Butte Meadows, Stage
Chico CA 95926
Ellen Sanders
Butte Meadows> Stage
Chico CA 95926
Kelly Meagher
98 Honey Run Road
Chico CA 95,9.26
'
"Wallace
Dana
Lazy S Lane
®
lel
Chico CA 95926
1. ,.
OLPtH
rll
Fitt
I -PLC
MG.
lGG a
WCIIroH
6F&—tir 6F&—ti
iip.w
MtriiaW
OC7CPIPt10N -
Date Excavated: 5/7/82
.
b1Y M71S11lq[
OCNfl tr CGNiCM
Test Trench Z
0
G•
Dark brown, moist, stiff CLAY -SAND
with ravel -
`
Tan, very- dense, moist tuff
AVA
2;
3,
i a �+!
`
A:
onai
5•
Lh6�-J
rin,.
S'
4�P
Fiore weathereds looks like siltstone
,ane
with some carbonaceous layers
7•
dP1
►`` 06,4
d ,'j. t
.12.
,Qpq
Logs of Test Trenches 3 and 4 Logs o'f Test Trendies 5 and 6
. -
IN+PLIit
tipto
IN
sWWG
Ont s •...rm..,v
U4.1,1oN
,y,,,—
OtfcelrlloN
MY
fter
Na,
or
f.rPnc
wo-oji
Date Excavated; 5/7/8 ..
atNf17Y
P„
CONIC
Ntta
v,.,,.f
Test Trench 3
0+
�.,
park brown-, moist, stiff CLAY-SANDwith
'
minor scattered gravel
to 211 N
2,
F
Tan. moist, very dense, weathered tuff
SP85
•
;%
with many cobbles and gravel
g.
4x40°i
4-
%
' 4�
A
t
4 °
S.
6!if,
Trench terminated at 6,'5 feet
7
Tan, tneist, very dense tUff
Agra°o
Date Excavated: 5%7j92
9.
Test Trench 4
:.
4y
Dark brov"i very moist, dense ffLAY-5AM
•
'p+,'.
with gray.ei
Date tgcavAted: •:5/7/82
....
Grey -brown, cobb y/gravelly CLAY
Test Trench 6
2
with sand
bwn, moist, firm CLAY --:S AN, 0 with
Darkro
3'•
minor, gravel'
" a'
Tan-brown,'very �moistdense, cbbble:/
o. °
'
1.P06-
�.
ravel with Clay -sand matiix '(5Dz rock
5'
0 6 f
5px soil?
6'
o0
3•,
do 0
ry/ o
o'r
x 7-
u o-•
SAND (weathered tuff?)
4•I
CpOIO
8�
5•
6;
Tan Y dense, wet'tuff
a'd'a"a
Logs of Test Trenches 3 and 4 Logs o'f Test Trendies 5 and 6
. -
IN+PLIit
MPT"
iAMFLC
I°uf-ou
LOG ° •M•Ir�fi1P
RUnlww
OuCRIP1�ON
-
MY'
MalliuRC
IN
Pref
Na,
or
f.rPnc
d+ -+SII
Date Lxcavated: 5'/7/82
OCNflf1
Pei;
CGNtt111
Test Trench' 5
U�
�.,
Dark brown, numerous roots, moi`st,.
'
slightly firm CLAY=SAND with nrave. UP.
to 211 N
2,
a/,,;G,:
Drown -tan, moist,- firm, 'clayey•SAND
SP85
•
;%
with many cobbles and gravel
3:
-/
%
' 4�
A
t
4 °
S.
6!if,
7,
Tan, tneist, very dense tUff
Agra°o
9.
fr•
:.
Trench wffijnated at 9 feet
Date tgcavAted: •:5/7/82
....
Test Trench 6
bwn, moist, firm CLAY --:S AN, 0 with
Darkro
minor, gravel'
'
1.P06-
�.
3•,
Drown. few scattered cobbles, i5ilty `
o'r
•
I I
SAND (weathered tuff?)
4•I
5•
6;
Tan, weathered tuff
a'd'a"a
Trench terminated at e e t,-
7
Logs of Test Trenches 3 and 4 Logs o'f Test Trendies 5 and 6
Cogs of Test frenche5 7 8 and g`
logs of Test; 'Tranche 10 and 11
MPN
WOLC
k!b.•
CWCgl�jfoN
IN.P"4T..
.
INlG5aOF
M 41~
Fitt
SAMP4[
IM -011
Date Excavated: 5/7/82
Nf
GCITr
�CNItM
Oct
,�aa
. 0,;
Test Trench 10
-
1.
Dark brown;, very, moist st
•
• 14
p010-
��'s%�
Tan=broto moist, dense, slightly
ciaYey SAND with
,gravel
t
Trench terminated at 5 feet
•
pate Exca.vatedl 5/7/82
Test :Trench 11
:
logs of Test; 'Tranche 10 and 11
ILP�N
S•NPIC
E7n ♦
N.M
-
nUCgl►r�nN
,N. Pi. •cI
.
...
alti
OENSrry
UOiEtuNt
CONTENT
it?
rttr
N9
dxalinN
s.witit
PN.,Iwy,
N
bate Excavated; 5/7/'32
b,,;wi¢
Date ExcavatedL5/i/82
OEN$$ir
CONTENT
G,
Test Trench 12 w
drown, raoirst, stiff CLAY-Sg110
2.'
'o
Oark brown CLAY-SAf1U with gravel
• l�
Interlayers of dense tuff n welded
Tan, highly weathered, dense tuff
ti
3•
oQ,�p
tuff (look•s like siltstonoj
4•
Tae"via
• 5
.•
YlV4ev
Very�lense�and diFficult. to excavate
5'
L'V ;AP
n V/�a
7-
1;'
9.
b�4pP
9•
-:"o
pg4y6q'9
.11r
Y
'�wa,ter dote 'rih9 hole
12•'
' Very dense layer of well cemented
Date Excavated; $`/7JA2 `
bbA 4
0
tuff
•13•�'
Less weathered tan tuFf
14
Grey, moist, very dIan se,,belCdn C
.15,
b�,bAl
nit df1bw
a%gip g
Merhten formation,
po�ij
�.lj.
�AaeD
IT
Trench terminated at Ret'
Trench terminated at 18 feet
[E
w
:4PLS
At O
N�iwa
.
CCSCNt/Tlnq
_ fN•v4 CCC
bnv
NouruRE
IN
rctr
- Nb.
lUzouM
H.uibw
b,,;wi¢
Date ExcavatedL5/i/82
OEN$$ir
CONTENT
Testi Trench 13
•
'o
Oark brown CLAY-SAf1U with gravel
• l�
Interlayers of dense tuff n welded
ti
2;'
Pp,�•°r:
tuff (look•s like siltstonoj
3i
• `��
PSP v
Very�lense�and diFficult. to excavate
5'
L'V ;AP
•
�'..•. tit
7-
=�,p•.
9•
-:"o
Trench terminated at 1Q feet
Date Excavated; $`/7JA2 `
0
Test Trench 14
'r,:y•'
Drown'• ly-gravelly-clayey SAND
Grey, moist, very dIan se,,belCdn C
• 2•
p?dp
nit df1bw
a%gip g
Merhten formation,
po�ij
4•
IT
Trench terminated at Ret'
Jest lrencn iz
�o9 or yes Logs, of Ten TrenChet 13_and 14
1N>�i
OCiTN S.wP{,C LOd d
M Ntl YIXATION
IN•Oi,AKC - -
- OIPr N. _ IN"pI AKC
inn•YNn
Irl.ilrw„
-
OUKlvPTI¢n
Frel
Or
'�AyILK
d?../11
p
pate Exca va tedd 5/1/iZ
MY
OR'NTITY
AOfllor
Kulil[NT
III
r[ct'
SiNPI[
NO,
too d
YOCAFI
tlr
ir.Lq
11,111Nnq
Op5111P11ON
.:
DAY IOiItUA[
r/l
•l:br.I
oIhmpu
a."01
Date EXca;vated' 5/7/92
nKNslrr Comm"
04
Test Trench 15`
Pll Y. 6t d
d/i
Dr'oWn, cobblY-ryraveIIY'••clayey SAND
0•
Tes Trench 17
• l�Sh315-
a�
3lackr moist, very stiff CLAY - SAND
With Minor
.minor grave1.
3
agcf°
papa
Drown -grey, moist, voloanic mudflow
.
Q•O•
°d
3
C�
Weathered volcanic mudflow
4,
cdp
coq
Trench terminated T' 3 feet
o
• 6
a4o0
�pq
Date
Excavated; 5/7/32
7
ka�pd
b�o�
d.
od
O,'
Test Trench 18
•
ocp
DarK brown CLAY -SAND with muc
�,' •
t grave
and cobbles, stiff.
:.
Trench,tegmina e a ee
2
3,
tad4D
"C3
pndp
Orange-tan«white; Weathered volcanic
mudflow
f
4 .q'0
•
Trench terminated at,5 feet
-
Date Excavated
. 0.
Test Trench IG
Drown, cobbly-gravejly-tlayey17D
• 1'
f;af
Date Excavated: f,/7/92
2.
4j'��''
Duff -grey volcanic r.Iudf7ow dense
3'
dQ'4
r
. 0•
lestTtench' 19
bark brawls CLAY -SAND
Trench t6rffi10ted' at 3 feet
1'
wet, de99999999 nse Cuff
Trench terminated at 2 feet
16
Lag§ of'test Trenches 15 and
Legs of Test Trenches and 19'.
MOM
fSPTN
IN
yWPIC ltl0 0.
MdtU74TION
x•Im 0[lGIIIPTION IN•P4fCG ....._
, IN•PICC(
p•u lnm _. .:... ceprk s.WPt[.
`
Mr
Or
l.Yhi-
dMjll
tCxy //""'p
Date `Aca va ted: 5/t/Nz
MT +(11l111NC
tl(NSITT coNf(Nr •.
COo ra fw...
IN. N0. (GUfT10N- OGCIII►11tlN - `
alvWISTURC
tl/ AII�NM,rDa
f(CT
`e Excavated: 5/7`/$2 oGNlIrT
cONi(M
•
'
Test Trench_ 20
tltll
%MT'./ .
•
• �+
/ �j
/
Brown,
, <Iry, stiff, clayey SA1i0 w1' th
Test Trench 22
""
lz
I
roots
Y'
to16 w0th
' •
• 2•
'
pAoDd
oG�(7t
Tan-- ellow y _nse volcanic
moist, Ver de
mud flow
5 11 11
1, ai ola cobBrobles (rounde' d) to
:n
4( , �.:
. 3 ,
LPN20- qDG•
2
e
'
d
3•
,
Brown very moist, firms dObbly,
grave {ley, sandy SILT with clay
• q.
ZEE
u p
•
Trench terminated at A feet q•
5• �
i
I
6. At 6 feet some boulders up to 2A" b
bate Excavated, 5 7 II2
/ /
G7
7.
o Tan, moist, very ense, s o tly
t .0
Test Trench 21. 8; •..
p A• cemented tuff with carbon d pbsit_ (1a ers)
•
park brown, dry-, sligfitly clayey S1 LT Trench terminated at 8 feet -
• It
. 2•
�sa
D'rowq, moist, firm, slightly clayey
,o
SAND with cobbles/gravel/bou ders
o
o
�
5,
�o"
i
6
Drown, wet, firm to loose, Slightly
sixty SAND with mloor clay and
some
gravel
`
Very wet, grey -brown, rm NO -CLAY
9.
�w layers With some gravel
v-Wator seeping into bottom of trench
Trench terminated at 10L feet
Lags of TO$t Trenches 20 and 21
Log, of Test Trend 22
rti
,
7 ECS
r.�r
jY t'
t
-
APPENDIX 4
1
CLIMATE DATA
AND
ENGINEER'S WATER BALANTO CALCULATIONS
�I
A
91
Rfge, .1 04
CANYON
:SEWAGE DISP08AL PLANT'
DESIGN FLOW -`
10g Homes
2.5 persons/home
AO G,P.C.5
Dd%ly Flow','= (2.5)' (80.)
21,800 GPD
21,800 x 36,51 1
- 663;083
gal/month
12:
®'
Use,663,000 gal/month
IRRIGATION DISPOSAL
TOTAL
USEABLE
MAX. IRRIG
EVAPORATION
EVAPORATION
(5 ACRES)
MONTH »(INCH.ES) (0:75
X TOTAL INCHES)
(GALLONS)
JAN. 1.5
No Irrigation
FEg.0
leo Irrigation
MAR. 4.0
No Irrigation
APR. 5.(
3.5
4751200 ,
MAY, 10m
7.5
1,018,200
JUNE 1 0. 0
7.5'
JULY' l?.0
'8.0
1,086,100,
AUG» 11 «0
8.0
1,086,1..00
8.0
6.0
814,600
OCT' 4. 0
3. 0
407;300
NOV. 3.0
No Irrigation
DEC. 1.5
No Irigation
TOTAL
5,,905,700
l
:.
'14
pac 04
CANY
PARK
SEWAGE
DISPOSAL PLANT
PRECIPITATION AND
EVAPORATION
NORMAL
1,979
DESIGN
DESIGN
MONTH
PRECIP.
VRECIP,;
PRZ=P,.EVAP..,
(INCHES)-
(ITCHES);.
(INCHES)
(INCHES)
JA -14.
5,58
6.16
7.0,
1.5:
FEB..
4, 01
6x63
6.0`
2.0
MAR:
30'09
3.64
4.-o.
4.0
APT,
2, 43
5.0
MAY
.94
32
1.0
10,0
JUNE
.46
.00
1.0
10.0
JULY
0'i1
.
. 0 0
0.0
11, 0
AUG.
. 13
. 8 3
0.0 `,
11, 0
SEPT,
,27
.29
0.5-
8.0
OCT.
1, 67
2, 49
2. 0,
4.0
NOV.
3,32
4.67
4,0_
3.0
DEC.
4,8;1
5:- 34
6:0.
1.5'
2 6.72
8211.24
3,4 , 5
71.0
■
39,
,�,,,
CATvYOt'1
PAi�K
-'`
SVISAGE
DISPOSAL PLANT
POND DATA
DEPTH,
AREA POND f4
AREA POND #':5
TOTAL AREA
(FEET)
(SQUARE FEET)
(SQUARE FEET)
(SQUARE FEET)
0
47,200
41,300
88,5n0
A91000
42,900
91,900
2
50,700
4410`00
95,300
3
512. 6 0 01
46, 300
98, 9.00
3.5
53,500
'47,200
100,700*
4
54,400
48,100
102,500
5
5b, 30.0
49,800
10;6,100
i6
58,200
51, 600
1q',q, 8 0, 0
7
60,200
53,500
118 700.
* (100,700
(7) (7.48) _ ;
2', 2, 652 gallons (maxjmum
storag0�' capacity
" i.n pQT1dt 4 & 5 at
a; 7' depth)
BOTTOM.AREy
TOP AREA
AREA AT 3'" DEPTH
POND NO.
( SQUARE PEET)
( SQUARE FEE',)
( SQUARE FEET)
1
3,3,60
6.,400
4,900
2
6,880
11,204
9,000
3
21,000
28,500
24,600
4.
47,2,00
64,300
5
41,300
57, 300
Total 167,700 Total
38,500
A' M)LUI�I�fd�
�" �'
Owl'.
1.'ir5i. 7 Il' —on es: bond
r4vIaoraac�n
fonds
1., 2, 3
DOME TIC
STWAGE,
INri LOW
DESIGN
PRE CIP y
PRECIP'.,
VOLUME
DESIGN
EVAP,.
EVAP-
VOLUME
BALANCE
MONTH (GALLONS)
(INCEiES) (GALLONS)
(INCHES)
(GALLONS)
(GALLONS)
9
42,500
0.5
14;400
8.0
–173;500
0
.0
42,600
2.0
57,500
4.0
-• 86,80'0
13;300
11
42,600
.0
1.x'„4,900
3»0
-- 65;10,0
105,700'
12
42;600
6.0
172;400;506
32
288 ',200
42,600
7.0
201,.10032,500
49`9,900
2
42, 600
6,» 0
172, 4,0'b
2.0
-~ 43, 400
671, 000
3
42;`600
4.0
114,904
9.0
-- 86,800
74.1,700
i
F�► 4
42,600
3.0
86;2Q0
5.0
- 7.08,50.0
762,000 4�
5
92600
1.0
27,700
1Q»
--2.6,900
61.$,400
6
42,600
1»Q
27,70.0
10.0
--216,90Q
468;800
7
42, 00
Q
0
X1.0
-•23$,6QG
272, 800
8
42,600
0
0
1:7.0
--2'38,,60Q
76,800
511; 200
34:5"';8,200
71." '
x,,540,100
(7, "home )X2.5) (,8
0,)140;0 GPD '= 42,600 galloni
�/mQn,th
Eased on 4,'6 ,10 0
SF (Top area
ponds l , 2,1 tx 3)
Based an average
area ai 1.'S' de = 38,500 + '3,1' 24 = 34,'870
S' U 34';,800
ST'
_.
2
Maximum design water. volume
6laximiinr storat3e
vol> m� = (3j
(38,5"Qp I 31,240)
17.48) " 782,500
ga7.�.ons
-
4A'HYON
PARK
WIWAOE
DISPOSAL;::PLANT
`✓
DOMESTIC
PRECIp.
VOLUME
WAP.
POND
1;VAP.
SEWAGE.
INFLOW
IRRIG.
DISPOSAL
DESIGN
PRECTP.
(PONDS 1,2,
1,4' 5)
DESIGN
EVAP.
VOLUME
(PONDS 1,2,3)
DPk�T11
(PONDS A &
POND AREA
5) (PONDS 4 &
VOLUME
5) (PONDS 4_&
5) BALANCE
MON'.1'11
(GALLONS)
(GALLON8)
(INCHES)'
(GALLONS)
(It7C1198)
(GALLON9)(laEC4')
(SQUARE ET..) (GALLONS)
S
(GALLUP+;S)
6 63,000`
-019,600
0.5
+ 52,300
8..0192,000
0
"441,300.,0
]0
663,000
407,300
2:0
+209,106
440
W 96;000
0
88`,500
-220,700
148,100
7.1
69,
0
4.0
+418,100
3.0 ;_
- 72';"000
1
91,900
•-171,200
985,300
l2
6634000
0
6.0
+621 200
1.5
- 36,060
3
98,900
�
-
4
,
1'Rrn'rri�N7�
!v
PLANT 'OiTRATION rOR PIIASED DEVELOPMENT,
w_
Pond Evaporat on Only
3
Q
Uonos
33.1 2-Ilomes'a
109•, Pond Evaporation ,and Irrigation
l O
'
`
DOtll' TIC
$EIr�1GE aESIGN PRECIPa
msidP
DESIGN-
POND
wWril
5
POND,
Atim
PONDS '4 F 5
EVAUMC
VOL
PONDS 4 5 5
VVnP.
GLUME
PONDS 1,2,3`
9ALANZE
TNL•'LOW VOLUME
(GALLONS.}I (INCITES) (GALLONS)
EVAP.
(INCILES)
PONDS 4 F
(FEET}
(SQUARE )?'6. }'
(GALLONS)
(GALLONS)
(GALLONS),
9
188,600 0.5' 52,300
8.Q
0
00,50.0'
- 4.44,300
-192000
0
I0
188i600 2:0, 209,106
4.0
0
88 500
1
- 220,700
- 96,000
01,.000 t
i
11
108,600 4.0 418 100
3.Q
].
91,900
- 171b0
,9
-72,006
'443,000 „
12
188y600 6.0 627,20095,300
- 09,1.06
-36,000
1;134,500
1
100,600 7.0, 731,700
1,5
3
9(1,900
- 92,500
_ 36,000
1 026,300
4
180,600 610 627,200
2.0
t
3
90,900
r 123,300
-48,000
2„570,800 1.
I
2
88,600 4.0
1 410,100
4.a
4
102,500
-255,600
-960000
2,825,800
A
j:-8 0,600 3;0 313,,600:'
5.0
4
102,50.0
-319,506
-120,000
21808,600
5
180,600 1.0 104,5001
10.0
3
98 '�0
, 0
-616,500290,000
2;325,,200
6
188.,60Q 1.0 164,506
10.0
3
90,060
- 616400
--240,000
1i7610000 f
100,'600 0 0
11.0 "
2
05, 300
-:653,40D
-26A;000
1,033,000
h
188,600 0 01
11:0
l
91,900
- 630;100
--26A,000
327,5,00
21;263,200 3Ai.5't^ 3,6060300
71"
4233,-400
117041OOD
1
(31 hom�#s) (2.5) (80) _ 6200 GPD =' 7:,88,600 gallons/month
hAsgd on 167,700 SF (top area ponds 1
t cotllgh' S)
1
0as6d "on 3` con'§ tont deptK In polnds 1;
2, 6 3
MtixlMnuq� design Water volume
-
i
„
77
4 R
SXATe Op CAUFORt+ilfiE 4TM Aird w WELFARE . zNCY
_ _ EI�MUI ti tT.'BROWN J . rao�ernfit
1)9PAP, TMENT
OF HEALTH, SERVICES
• 2135 AORQ AWNUE; ROOM 14
REDDiNG. CA 46WT
t &,
tp�ay ¢46-6345,,
L•n`t, Health
October 25, 19'8.2 OCT 2 1$$2
OmY lla, CaNfom(b
Butte County ;.lealth Department
7 County Center Drive
Orovi.'lle, CA 95965
Atteu;:ion Lynn Van,hart
Director, of Envir,onm�ntal Health
.r
1
Revie}v of the EIR for the Canyon ParkEstates Project'
iudic'ates lagoons are a passible treatment. and, dis-
posal method for,s,ept.ic tank effluent, .The
`
wndacates the Possibility of us,ing she lagc►oned septic
tank of fluent for, irr,iga:ting..pas=tur.e land. The report
states that some of the homes in the proposed develop-
men vi11 r6gUi t,& 'lots pressu'z�e pumping systems tri pump
the septic tank effluent' into the collector lines ahs/oz
to the sewage lagoons.,.
E}perienoe with lagoons used to treat septic tank
effluent shows severe odors are likely at times,
Particularly at night Or early morning.As recommended.'
in the "Design Guide",.-1(mailed earlier), lagoons should
be located at leant 4 -•mile downiva nd from built up areas.
Proposed wastewater reclamation oper,a.tions must comply
with the "Wastowater Reclamation Criteria", (copy,
enclosed) to ensure that the use of reclaimed water
for, the s"p ecifi_ed� purposes aloes not impose undue risks
to health.
Individual, home sewagepumping stations pose a particular
concern for a potential; cross -contamination hazard, NO th
the domestic water supply. It is recommended that a'
Political entity, such as a'sewer maintenance district,
be formed t0 exercise control Over the operation and
maintenance of'the wiwage lift stations and collection
system.
unther L. Sturm, P.1;.
Associate Sanitary Engineer
Sanitary Engineering ranch,
GLS:vs
Outfd Co, r"ianning 4 6r6r j,
Encl ,
V � ea �4JRe
�}L_
11, b .