HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-63B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3 OF 7Federal Ai d.
The major share of federal funds aro designated :for welfare
items and az'e , exc,luded froiri this analysis . ;Federal Revenue
Sharing and CLIA fuads, are major component's „followed by trans
-
rans--portation
Po tAtionsystems (road) monies and` 1;aental hygiene: b 'The county-
gide component is '$3,479, 358 or; $22.,' - per ca pita. Monies
allocated frar projects in unincorporated are .4�i including South
Orovil le street improvements, a dCl apnian ToWn CDBG are $1, 215, 577
or $14.02 per capita. The combined costs for hoilseholds in the
unincorporated area is $88.82.
Other GoVernment Aid
This categor y, includes road maznten'ance and County area
transit funds aruounting to `$l� 6580 861 or $46, 49' per- 'household„
Charges for Current Service
,Revenues in this area come from ;fees exacted for specific
services. While fees should cover processing and any inspection.
activities, and balance costs, the countywide versus unincorpor-
ated shares are difficult to separate. The fees paid by the
City of Biggs :..Cor Sheriff's Department enforcement have been �
totally excluded.. Excluded from the
countyw dQ assessment are
fees related to new subdivisions, planning, road and street, ALPO
®
planning and, traiisit administration and fire hydrant installa-�
tion.-; The conbi,.ad income is
�9
$37.23 per household.
Other Revenues
This category` includes sales of poison bait;
s, wa'�er; m�.s-
cellaneous items and librar fines $ ,202 is assumed ;to _.
� y The 185
r:
be from countywide sources for a per household cost of $2.92,
COSTS
Country services are provided on both count id.
yw e, and in-
corporated area only bases. In many instances, it is not
possible to establish the separation of services and the
population being served. In these cases, it was assumed that
all residents received, or arel eligible to receive, service..
Eco -Analysts and County staff disagree on allocation of costs
and this report int:ludes both unadjusted and adjusted cost,cal-
uculations. This io especially necessary'in, establishing costs
of sscvice' for ' non-residential uses. Non-,resi.denti,al use's -1
se's--
industry,
industry, commercial, agriculture—inc''r eosts related to
property value, rather than numbers°of people, In this analysis
we have followed the methodology used by George Goldman Arid his
colleagues at the Cooperative Extension Service, University
of
Commercial and industrial protection costs at; 25; percent
of the per household costs come to $42.'74 per d.evelop'ed area.
There is a strong probability of private security patrols for;
both the industrial and exclusive residential: areas of tha,s
project. This should reduce Sheriff's Department costs by
deterring -property -related crimes such as burglary.
Detentions and Corrections include costs of J'uveni.1e
Hall and Probation Department functions with a budget of
$2, 01.9, 660 or ,$31.`95 per household.
Fire Protection is designated for protection of property
and rives in unincorporated areas: .Fire suppression and para-
by the Calif himDepartment of
medical assistance are provided
Forestry -Butte County Fire, Department. The prim I V focus is
upon residential, commercial and industrial buildings, but
sjgnificaitt effort is, also expended in preventi,o;h or suppression
of wildfires . I f the entire budget,, $2,514,489:0is assigned to,
residential uses, the rtr household cost is 7 .15. The cost of
serving commercial ait(i industrial would be $1.8.04 per acre. Long-
term development plans call for a fire station, t'rucl� @.nd
volunteer fire department to be located near the comTnunitS
center. Project site residents would pay for their iiwn fire
protection including adequate water supply equipment and main-
tenance costs.
Other Protection !Services include a `variety of :unctions
incl-CE—ng-the Public Guardian,, Civil Disaster and others' that
are countywide. The remainder of this budget category for
planning Commission, LAFCO, and Animal Control applies only
to unincoxporat ;d areas. This latter category Lias a budget
of $50a,651 or X3.28 per, capita. The combined per household
amount is $23.06.
Public `t'at's and Facilities
Public Ways and Facilities is a countywide function Al-,
though most of the maintenance, and improvements" we designed
for residents of unincorporated areas. Many roads a:nd drain-
areas. .Butte
age channels serve agricultural, or forested
County still tries to maintain rural. roads serving agricultural
parcels at a relatively high level: Impacts from residents of w
incorporated areas may �e significant, , particularly in the
Chaco area where `residents use a combination of City and County N
roads and streets. The countywide per household budget is
6;541,5,95. This is an area
$102.96, based on.a budget of
which will be affected by traffic serving the industrial, area. k'µ
The estimated cost of'maintalning�off-site roach is $25:.74 per t
{k r
�-
acre of development. On -'site roadways wi11 0'' private and a
off-site improvements 'will be assessed
portion of any necessary
against this development.'
_Health Services
Tb,s budget area includes'a combination of couni,ywade and
limited area ,gervices. The countywide components are preventive'
S
11`
AY
V
L
.
u ,
education and lab.or at .
and mental health pxagrams of, services:
far
yes
And wellciporated
Other functi-;,; ns are assumed t,o be '" nspec_
septic tank leachline approvals a ,idents
areas, such as
artment aeih°nethe Cauays ,all
tions. The Health Dep Budge"ted
regardles's of place of resident ,
5 704,x$or $8.,'79 per, household,
$ 7
for this area i ,
Public Assistance
After removal of welfare and cEcostsmofn$106 g591or� $ia.68s
--
'could�,wide budget, item with
a minor
■i
p
Education
,.
he
The primary 'component an this areaisden*h,"soa a0total
al
County lbxary, system. which serves
or, $ .55 ger household,
cost of $1,368,002
Recreation
Y
The memorial halls are classifi,od as recreation. a n the
ide resource With costs of
a countywide
County -IS budget,and are
household.
$162, 621. or aa2. 55 per
COST-RnTENUE COMPARISON
Tables 8 and 9 list costs and revenues by source.; Average
for
theesiY
annual unadjusted costs are$?22,6nderoadwayhcostsforthe
ential area. Protection service a population
areg6.52 per acre., p
i-ndus`fir ral and comrne r tial areas erty
hauseYis ldo of ed�revP-
related revenues are $534. 1: Per
figurc..s (p p u�atie ie^ela
and saes taxes, The Combined gg ger house'-
and sales 'taxes) °c nge rc�m, xcl .
and exclusive housing=
hues property
held fox affordable housing to $X,:1.49.15 fox
1 we7°( $571, 82 vs $�P28
pr house40)
Adjusted costs.per hold are an ad -
because of the funds allodatedcfor,.or eas�t1Adj ustedCrevenuesoare
for industrial and comm sources
�ht ys iz7.atina related
higher C$582A5 vs $534.21) for pap sid�n'ts are paying higher amounts for
primarily 'because new reand devexapmea of
current services connected with construction
the site.
' hand tenth year cost -revenue compax-sons ar'e shown in
Fzft
Table 10. In both instances na nction of revenues are piety design ande
County. . This net reveh etss ay additional mpact; fees over
that 'ziew, residents p industrial park
requires
above,their regular, local ta�� assessments.,
and the, residential areas to
recede that of
development will p.related
base and to min ordab� e s
establish,;' an 0mplaxym%ea. Oder
establish,
The proportions of of
residential uses.
eXclusive hotsing are designed to ensure net revenues to the
County from residential
areas. Affordable housing wi11 be
limited to 20 percent, of the overall housing .mix, although
it will develop in greater numbers of units for the first 1.o`
y ears .
Potential Impacts
There should be no adv exse iisc�l imp p t
m ac s evelo men
follows the project design listed above.
Required
Mitig ati,ons
None. -
1
ag
h
-76�-
RIM
TAbS
RETIEiV'i'FES By SOURCE
SOURCE OF 'FUNDS
AMOUNTS
COUNTY
UNINC.
PER
ADJUSTED
"CHIDE AREAS
NID)
Anr.A' s
HOUSEHOLD
(CASE STUDY)
„.
PROPERTY TAXES'
Industrial
S50/s.f.
commercial
lrsident<anl
$65 s.f.
/
Exclusive (250,060)
563.75
Noderat� (120, 000)
270.60
Affordable( 65,000)
246,58
SALES_TAAES
Moderato & Exaltisibe 'Dntts
51.20
25.60
Affordable Units
31.50
15.60.
LICENSES AND PF.RMIITS
611,1'536 95,440
0,62
17.44
43.89
43.99
FINES, FORFEITURES,
__AA" PETA TIES
515,4163
5.93
14.43
14.43
USES OF 61OMEY AND
PROPERTY
86
MU
0
STATE AID
HighWay, M.V.,, Trailers
5,019,507
Health
59,90
145.56
150.00
Agriculture
2.,553,937
382,628
10. 06,
2.48
24,45.
w4.45
Sliscellaneous
3,904,174
25.59
6,03
61.45
0'
61.45,
FEDERAL AID
Countywide
Unincorporated Areas
3,479,358 1,215,577
22..53
14.02
88.'82
34.07
0
OTHER GO'VFRNMENT,Alb
1,658,861
19.13
46.49
116.49`
CURRENT SERVICES
1,72 6,990 359,908
31.19
4.15
37.28
250.00
OTHER
185,202
1.20
2,92
2.812
PopuUttion
Related
Total
534.21*
592:45*
i�.
Excludesproperty and sales
taxes
I
I,
_fig_
t
t
,
TABLE
10
REVENUE—COST
COMPARISON'
FIFTH YEARAl
REVENUES
COSTS
UNADJUSTED
ADJUSTED
UNANUSTED
ADJUSTED
Industrial pork
Property Teles .(20 acres)
22,550
22,550
-- "
1;730
Residential
Exclusive Units (3q)
Property Taxes
16,913
16913
Sales Taxes
1,536'
758
5!oderate Units (40)
Property Taxes
10.,824
i0,824'
Sales Taxes
2,048'
1,024
A'ffordab'le Units (90)
Property Taxes
13,192
13,192
Sales Taxes
2,808
1,404
Population Related
i
Households (160)
85,474
155,344
99 784
186,459
115 594:
115:3044
91,502
3, 232
TENTH YEAR
REVENUES,'
COSTS
ADJUSTED
UNADJUSM
ADJUSTED
UN-.OJUSTED
Industrial Park
Property Taxes (75 acres)
84,563
84,563'
6,489
Commercial
Property Taxes ( 3 acres)
1,466
1,x186
--
260-
Residential
Exclusive Units (So)
Property Takes
45,100 '
45,100
Sales Taxes
4,096
2,048'
Moderate Units (250)-
Property Taxes'
61"650
67,650
Sales Taxes
12w800-
6,400
Ai2ordable Units (185)
Property Taxes
27,117
27,117
Sales Taxes
5,772,
2,$86
population Related
Ncuseholds (515) °'
275 A18
321 180
372 061
294 523,
5
8,111
3722:0
372
t
t
r
ADVERSEMI PACTS En WHICH CANNOT DE AV01DIF THE PROJECT IS'
IMPLED
Measures for reducing the, significance of the following
impacts are addressed in the preceeding sections of this
report.
Str'uctures`on the site could be subjected to earth-
quake groundshaking
Stormwater runoff, could increase.
6 On-sit°e erosion would increase.'_.
e Area traffic and traffic -related hazards, noise, and
air pollution would increase.
rThe
visual nature of the site would change.
opulations would be affected.
� Wildlife habitat and populations
�!
e Demand8L for public services and utilities Would increase.'
o Residents would be exposed to potential public health
i
problems.
s Energy consumption w6uld increase.
SIGNIFICANT I"RREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL ',CHANGES WIIICH WOULD
BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSALS SHOULD IT BE -IMPLEMENTED
The project sites; which existsas open space and grazing
land, will make Etn irreversible transition to residential,
industrial, commercial and recreational land use. There will
be irreversible effects an wildlife populations Utilizing the
site.
'
Placing buildings and streets on vacant land is-esseni-
tiall.y permanent.' Nerdy developed residential and industrial
N-
areas tend to remain in such uses for very long periods of
time. In addition, large quantities of nonrenewable and,
limited resources (building materials and fuels) would be
consumed during the construction phases Although approval
not necessarily an
of a General Plan . am�andment and rezone .s,
irreversible adt.ion, it, does provide an entitlement =for con
struction of permanent structures.
services could �: esult in indirect increaU$� , in co'mmer'64,A ,
growth and increased demand, on public ser�i`tces, and u' Mites.
A Specific growth nduI ng impa t is an ncreased,; need for a
new fire Station and possibly anew school in the ea.
Development of the industrial park could provide as many,
as 5,400 primary job opportunities and increase the demand for
support, or secondary, oppo;rtunities;,.:
Development of the . Neal--Esnuon prop's qty couId result in a
more rapid buildout of the Villages area
Cumulative impacts of the 'maximum,development scenario
wou d be related to increases in traffic, air pollutant emi.s-
sions,, erosa on, loss of, Wildlife habitatenergy ` consumption
and increased; demands on public services; (schools, sheriff
andfire departr4ents). These impacts would contribute to
existing problems or to situations, which may become problems
in the future. Zmpactk, upon existing natural. 'systems have
already increased due ;to the e, Tansion of the Skyway and en-
croachment of other developments.
Public service impacts can be partially mitigated by.
design criteria including onsite security, measures, and estab-
/11.hm-ent of a community service district or deve.01oper fees.
Traffic and air quality impacts can only be re(ru"ced by reducing
vehicle miles traveled' through design criteria, carpooling, or
alternative t.ransportataon;
i
1
1
i
M
„1
.,
..� .. -.
�� � t 'A. � �1T+, + i .�I� jf..' S Y �
�i �
�.• �
�.
i .�
� �
w
.«rJ+^S'
.hr"
.:+.�. ' t
.,
• �.. -+rte,.__.,
fi
ALTERNATIVES
The fallowing discussion addresses relative advan°tageS
and disadvantages oi? alternatives
to the
In the proporopo
sed project, 930' clustered drool... sedndeselopment,,
jetted,
togethex with 30.0± acres of industr:i.•al developmentp
A1'ternatives to, ,this include
of a 300± acre ndustxial no pro j ect; -2) development
Of the park and subdivision of the
remainder
property into 12 or fewer parcels; 3) conventional sub-
division at higher density; 4) development
of an industrial
Park only; and 5) development of a rereaion ranch resort.
Relative impacts Of these
alternatjvFs are delineated in Tables
11 and 12. These -impacts must :be cansLdered
as pravisianal since
exact uses under the alternatives are.not yet known:
Alternative 1 = No Pro 'ect
Under the No project alternative the site would remain
under the existing General Plan
and zoning designat .ore This
would allot for the development o1 1.60 forty -acre parcels.
more lik4ly
A'
scenario would be subdivision of the property, into
12 or fewer parcels, with
or without deVelopment. Development
Of more than l detached single --family dwellin
3: -
cel probable; g per .pax cel is
Ad -d 5: Density dependent adverse impacts on traffic,
e, and air quali
Disadvantages: Significant in in automobile and
heavy truck traffic Would
fieri
occur on,perimeter roads. Improve-
is would be needed on both the Sk yway
,and Ne a1 Rodd.;: The
potential :dor noise, ai'r Pollution, the gneratio:n of waste
materials and odors
could increase. significantly; as would
water and compar consurhp tion'., Projected impacts of this
ternative compared
with he. proposed a.l-
levels for specified that
impacts could be7,o5tps°W _impact
for this alternative, imes greater
The nature of the siteV o u chane f
to urban rom r industrial uses;: g ural--agricultural
Theses
o information 'availabl
n e that indicate'
for this magnitude of i��dustrial need
`develo mert.
quite amounts of undeveloped mixed, orpheavy industrialland,land
in the vicinit`
industr al at portion of the site: not identified for
-development would
retain current General: Plan and
zoning des,3-gn4'lons. Much o,.f the
site is currently zoned A-2.
This zone does not conform to adopted policies-off Butoned A
and its retention would County,,
allow the
forty-acre possible developn?'ent of 125
parcels on the remainder
of the; site.
Alter, ative 5 W Recreatia;ri Ranch
The project site would be developed as a recreation ranch
with a lodge and cabins, corrals,
and recreational
such as tennis courts,1' morin facilities
18-hole
golf course, and a lake in�Nancecale Ca 6,n.i,sA membership
scenario would include �a• 35 xoom
lodge with 10 adcli;tponalbunits
for employee housing, 10 cabinsand 1.5
, a sp ace recreational
vehicle camp with full hook-ups. The building complex
be located in
could
t e area proposed for a community center undo
the Project maximum development r
scenario, while t
could be located southwest of this
he'goli course
area.'
Advaa21a�es:
Primary advantages are related
level of development and reduction in
needs for public seduced
Areas of impervious surface would be rvices.
treatment could be more reduced. Sewage
easilygreatly
of this alternative a provided. The aesthetic impact
p t
to con tr
and long-term maintenancenactivitiesmWoul.d ereducecl8 uction
beption
related to traffic, air pollution, sewage treatment,
anon of ;solid erie,s
and
waste Would; be substantially less than those of
the proposed pxoject. Relat, few
Y persons would be exposed
to wldland fire seismic, or public health"hazards.`
Dis�advanta'es': No housing and dew employment opportunities
would
y
relativelyfiowed There1w alternative. County revenues
would be
WildliXe, would be greater impacts 'upon
habitat and
The project site is near, an urban,area and reeeation-
area
sts may not experience the
necessary se
from urban activities. p and isolation
TABLE 12'
IMPACTS OF
ALTERNATIVES AS A PERCENTAGE OF
IMPACTS OF MAXIMUM PROJECT
- -
_
Altern:ati;es
Project
1
2
12
3
2560 d u.
s --
—00; 0 ac
1 4
5
recxeatio'n.
930 d u.,
12 cl.u.
indust',
ranch
300 ac.
300 mac.
ndLtst.
indust .
Magnitude of
Percent
of Project
imp -act
Impact
P
On-site poP.uTation/
7,632-
0.3
71;1
78..6
235.81
1..8
�, _ employment
to
78.0
193.i5
3`. 7
Traffic (tripsf day)
32, 046
0.5
58 ,'S
Mobile Source Aix
Pollution -CO
58.3
77 .7
192.7
3.7 -
(lbs_/day)
4,472
0. 5
( gals day )
537,840
0.6
50.8
133.8
167.3
87.3
W ager ../
0.7
42.3
1.70.1
138.6
2.3 =
Sewage Cg als. day)
324, 720
Solid Waste
119.1
0.0±
94.5
15.1
314.7
G 2
- (tons/day);
Portion of Site
1, 515
4. ,0
23.7
429.0
66.0
19.8
Modified (aces)
i
tit
t
;
4.
APPExDjX
1
PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTIJD
County of Butte
Planning Department;
Bettye. Kixclex Director
'���"Charles
$LteVe Streeter, Senior Planner
Wood's, Ass1ari..1'lanrier
� .' i chard `Molnar, 4A sA 4&nt Planner
LArCO'
Public
Bill Turpin
Works
'John Men'aonea
Elwin Piero
tSheriff's
Department
Mick Grey, Captain
Fire Department
William Teie, Fire Warden
Richard Tiller,
Battal' Chief
Environmental Health
Air
Lynn., Vanhart, Director
Pollution Control District
Craig Gilmore
Jeff Mott
Administration
Gerald Lively
State of Cal if .
Department of Conservation
Esther Maser•, Program Coordinator
Department of Fish
and Game, District 02 and
Jensen Manager
Gayland S'. Taylor, Warden
Office of Historic
Preservation
Knox Mellon
California Waste Management'
Board
Herb Iwahiro, Chief
Department of Transpaxtafioh,
Dave Nelson
District 03
Brian Smith, Chief'
Alan Wren
Robert Skidmore
John Allison
California Regional Water
Quality Control Board
Joseph Henav,;Engineex
Department of Caljfo rnia
Highway Patrol
R.A. Gray, Lieutenant
r
_90_
Board
Anne Gexaghty Manager'
Air Resources
Dep artMePt ofHealth Services
Control
Jerome Lukas
Office of -'Noise
City o� Ghico
O.2fice of the Mayor
Karl Ory, Mayor
Thomas Lando, pii•ector
planning Department -
Suzanne Ma�ewsi �
California Water Service
John Simpson
company
School District
Robin Thompson, Business Manager
Chico Unified
^o�
]'parry Broolts(,formerly)
ty of Paradise
planning Director)
Company
Timothy J: parrott
parrott Ranch
Rolls, Anderson & Rolls
Ellis R017.8
r 1
APPENDIY 2
REFERENCES
Jon M.1978. The Neal Road Sa itarY i,andi i11. i;
Anderson,
scal pacT
OeBurchell R.W. and D..Lis token
a'ch8. 1rhe FiRutgerrn Univers ty
alicg7Res
Handbool�, Cin ter' f or. Urban Y
Press
Butte County . 1983. 1983-1984 Final BXdet,
Butte County .`, 1982. lMprove_ment Standards for Subdivisions,
parcel Maps and Site Improvements.
Butte County »' 1979. General Plan. Land Use'; Element..
County. 1979» ETR 'for Skansen Subdivision Units and 3.
Butte Co_ y
®
Butte County; 1977: Noise Element of -Butte County eral Plan•
1�
1976• Com rehensive Lonin Ordinance Na. 1750.
But te County;
Coi�:lty. 1975. `Butte Caunty Salid Waste Una ement Plan.
Butte County Air Pollution Control District, 1979. Air
Pollution Scurce Inventory.
County Association of Governments. 1978. Butteu?tnY
Butte
Nonattainment .plan (Draft) .
A;;sociat3on of Governments. 7975• Butte Courit
Butte County„
Regional Trans station Study.
■
®
Calif Orme Air Resources' Board . 7.982» Aix Quality Data,
Volume 'SIV .
Board. 1 977 Data, B ' en-
California Air Resources ase arid' Do cum
from Motor V'ehic.les -.n
tatxon for Estimatn ,_Emissions
rCalifornia,
ARB/EP-76001.
California Air Resources Board• i,Deve10eline fAir
G eneral Montsand Trans-
QuaImxiact Assessments :
Report No• RP -83-002.
Sortation Projects,
California Air Resources Board. s19matespto120uu- Data on
e
Butte Count Emissions w1,tti
Califania Department of Food and Agrichets��oflRestr�Baea��,
t
Information Section of Di aft EIR on
Pesticides, Eco -Analysts, Chico.
California Department of Health Services. 1982. 'Guidelines'
Environmental Impact
for NoS.ce Stud Re orts as P:ar..t of
Reports .
1982. Chica°IIrban Area Transportation 'Study,
Chico, City of ,
JHK I& Associates.
City of, 1983. Final El R, for S rin field Drive
Chico,
Subdivision, .
82. Uxban Plannin and Desi n Cr iter ia.
DeChiara, �toseph.
89Research'Program
19. "EPA's
xal,, E. and I). G. DeAngelis.
ood Combus tion Emissions"'.
Controlling Residential, f3Q:8:862-867..
Associations
for
journal .of, the Air Fallution Control
Traffic and Transportation Engineers 198:2• Trip
Institute of
®eles
Generation.
EIR Manual Private Projects,
Los Ang , City of. . 1975.
Environmental Imt�a ct
Rau John G. and David C. WonteWooten1�J80:
McGraw Hill
An Eandbook
Transportation Consultants. 1983. Skyway Properties.
TJ'KM
Traff is Stuff.
`Ener,gy, 1982. Electrical and Biological
U.S. Dep artmetrt of
'Effects Transmission Lines A Review.
of
Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1980.
U.S,
Interim.Noise Assessment Guidelines,
1976 .
U.S. En.vixonmeil,tal Protection AgenAq . Compilation of
AP -42 Sup"lements
Air Pollutant Emission Factors
AI
-93=
:,G
I ,
/
I
-
-r
«,Allir%
Lvo
ew
ill , - , ++ .,., i ,•' !'...� .!r'' _ :, a �-.; r< y�',+ � ; r r J _ , ' f ,..v
+ , > . .+, y� �.ra 1 ., i' ; 1,�i, !! {,:;.fir _. fq f , :' : ^Y� " .� � •,
NEAL,l
,
Y: , ` ,r , ,rte r ,. ' / F •y ..Y .. l
)_•'. .•.r f::. r: ... ,.-- -f .., ,- :'. r. J i ',�". ;.,::'i'•
F .
F
- C. .o r, , r ,r''" y ♦ - , ..:
..ar ., "�.. ., � as �1 � . 5....:n. "."s .: � _..r•.-. ,rK r .Y :;,lrv,%, � � � . T ., . /':' , ' S ,� J.. •R1. ,,-..
''.: '� !" thio.°"S _: - 1 ,, ..r ..'Y,,, .. r;,., < '4: `. .., ,Y',,.• 7 a w.�:y .r, .: t .. e i_
i "•w•��,_. •. ... t r r.. : '\ .t .> % i , y I 'h W r r u 1 : r
.J
r t
`
r
5
lti � - .,. .: 1..i.,Y: _r .i . µ ., -, �, ' ,!'; r ' .l ' :.. , •'�.nr>;<...• r-,,, y r
� :i ,�. r •t. ww.'Ar,s.le:.:u�.:i�+•'� +r .+, .. _ . - 1-rt N..>p ' w'.. •„ - -,� - J :..
: � 4.. 1: -. '�..,. Y. J ,.; t. .:, :. .. ,,.. u:... t ,.. n x . A 'r ♦ 4a tii .a: "r k:,.,. .,
M s,, !
red
r•.r' .. � :.9a.ti,. . r ,... r• Y.z'. :'. s s r,J.! .. .,..,• .. ,.... .. l:. .j �:.
Y : .. :i , ,y} ; ';` .r :.„ a ... :. ..„.,. • . r-,l •'l .. ...:, ... ., .::
'Ir
`r
'.' :k ,^ n1 ,1 x •`r..,+ , .. r , :.,, , . , , i„ r n, • kyc . rr,,.��yf. ,K N.. • /p W%t��,•q.�
.. : 1. .. �( .••333. .. ..: ,., -• z .w't :�,.:. .. :-. 1 ., J- i. .. "*N < �. ,Y'•. . � •. a ���
t
,{y y
,. , , r f >. ,.. ..,E , � •-,. '
. t , � `, 1 .,' ':, , r»e.'`' H : , .: ,. Y f 1 � • „r..•! , {,% ,off
II' .. .- q+�•i+r,r(.•w r.R .. .. ,. ,. ..1 n.r R':er+r. ::.. 11rt 1 /•\ :.:. rr• .,_ .:.-,. .,._ , ,V.
� r J LIC' U IL
'f' I"i EASEMENT
1e v-+ -
, NT
J:, . , . -iF .. N. Tr r r +: d. _ ::,...:o' .. �p,.yr .K :: • r,: . a,... : ,:P ,: � :;
PME
1 1 .: 4 w-. .,. .K• _aY . „, <y" .-,:. 14P1`SpiN ,
: r.. j 1r„� ,. T �.�-: ., ♦` r '. .: ,,rf: � V. 7r�: t 'tl ..,1.., ,:_. ,, . • ♦• K''• •d .. J � •:KY
a Y n, .• '•A T r, ;,'. •::':• •. •'•: d
.. <.,:..
' rPrSv',r«r4: , .. -. J, Y,., :..- , ,�r�.. ,:;,w,, :..., _I�, •-- - k .
r
•
!)7 MNI�1f}! a L` ,:.\, x }, ..' �.; � ,..�,:,. r,r•�0. '.:. `-S„ •. •,.� ,.0 _.. : "
'F OPPSETS1
1
-4.. .r ... ✓ ..: ,.
, S {a +:..,r 4, a 7,a., k3'.• . Mu,.«,.«.; .v ,w.. 7 I
r
r'
�j
t, , it �r�' J a.• Y
, E 1
Yy
Xx
Y
j r
r
• . s*k, r: 4 , r ,, .. • - \ ; i•: �•. ' e•i+r,/,., : � i , ;. �'S"'�,T� l:, , i : r , ,1' , � ,+r. I"1 ,4
. ., .. '� . ;. y __" !, ..:-• ::,. :; � '-:•, •• ,: is � ,.,. it
7 y : , � ". 11 •- - .ry�f Edi , f
,. .. w. l", • °:.• .,,, , , 1,: ` �. -:. r h.•v4.+� : ",*''[.^','. � �q 'k [%., rsw
i(�., der.+., ,F w: V .••♦ I, , u. N _ ,. ���.^rS �{�, , . :
`�.
: i n' , , :, • 1'' :.: „31 r L':•., «, a,.l�w• „«. ' ',,,> wi ".,.x . r Vr. «•.w ' u:' ...r i� . ..:.,,, . ,,, .Y -Tl' ,Faa., :..„i" . `
` a
I r
1 Q pwntM ♦ b 1 x -. ab; f. k .a 1' l R •r
r
, _ +.t.4" �' 4 iii 5 ;, �'"' �` y �f t.»•.d . , 6 .. t .. , . + ! ,
gg 'qf ," `:4 , J , •"rr-tt n .'a" .4... . " "'M n:.i� r 4^ „' :,: ':�. J . ,, :.
r.
r, a,
a F
,
i i 1 :.. ku: ,. ,i ... .. ,r . !: �. .. W,v;•w ry,♦ ,n .. W.VF - .: -., :;i 1:'r _ :.::' •1 •:,.', +run ':::. '1Y �[/,: 'S
'' ..:,.. l ,:" :,: 1 .., :.: \ �.; ,. ,.R Ar•-«.,.rM .y �.. _. r!,^' .r-a �,_i„�s. .,.. ,lr H+wr
SOMA N�M'
CON'
Y, q : i� .. •,., '•_ a i, :,; , .. ,w. r ,,«. ,
., - . �-., B.-f.S7-. ;I .:_':" ,.:o•.�.n, ,.,.-" r. \y :. • ,y:.:: ,.. �, ; Y. ,' w ,,. .;.y" ,.. w ,: :..*,. 71 I,.T.� ,.w •� .r, ,
.xrsxv.'e.-�:e.'•,:�F .:,c . r , :: . 4 �r+r, t .il Y' , ,.. s d:'.: ,., " . r . J '` r
:. � :. - � w 1,: r : ♦ e :.. } nr ryr"""t� ,. , r f j. ✓:_ : :. "' , _ .��•.. ,,.,,: '
'I �-�- .tr>ptr,. .F � r "-.. ,,,, '.. : r•J4 ,..: y , ,. '.,+ \.,r.x x :'�'J ,Y„ 'G ,..:. , ,. + ✓'
� 1tQ
f6
'
{
I1t31't�
Lydon ,page three ' s
j
March 15, '1982
on the site. The soil is a, dark --brown or 'xedd,sh�brwn
`
1 o am ,
clay loam, or clap. Permeability. is moderate
and runoff
tial is moderate to low. Fie'1cZ examination
shoals ghathPot`en'
rink -
swell potential is
generally ;lower than on Toomes soil:
The unnamed soi'1 on lower alluvial plains, has rap tdp er-
meability and moderately -high runiff
potential, A slowly per-
meable layer is t ypicall Y PI!eserat at de p of 20 to
,;ths 40 ..inches.
Individual soil t -
are variable; but include
Y e flow, 'brown,
g Y �YPe�
and ra ish-Ura sandy loam,. loam;and, cla' loam-
Permeability
should be variable but generally Y greater than in other .,oils
an
the site:
GEOLOGY OF TIM REGION
Folded and faulted masses Of metamorphic rock, now ex ose
:mainly P d
in canyons ;east anc� southeast of Paradise
resulted from
development of the
ancestral Sierra Nevada some 125 millionyears
ago. The Foothills Fault System was formed, at that
time. After
a long interval of erosian, sediments of the
Chaco-'ormaton were
deposited in
sn ocean that covered the region; these rocks are
exposed in
canyons in the Chico -Paradise -Pent z area,
and have
been encountered by dee drill
p holes farther
west in the Sacra ---
mento Valley.
Uplift and more erosion followed, interrupted by brief
episodes of volcanism. About 3.3 million years ago, a thick
Squenee of volcanic sands,, conglomerate' s,
and mudfloWs (Tuscan
Formation) covered
the region bkween 0 and Red B1 uhf .
Younger basaltic 11 flows (notably along .Deer Creek
and
Cohasset Ridge) covereda small part of the Tuscan. Deep
Lydon age faux
P
March,15, X982
canyons`were then., cut into the Tuscan Products Of this ero-ion
were_deposited along the east side of the Sacramento Valle as
coarse poorly -sorted
sediments,(Red Bluff For
and as,
stream -channel deposits within foothill canyons '(Mod esto._Farma--
tion).
The I'aathills Fault System, which. Originate during for-
mation of the, Sierra, probably was inactive until the; last dew
million
year's (Dept. of Water Resources 1979). It is onside, red.
'to be the source of earthquakes, in the foothills between broville
andAuburn, ubur.n, including that of 1975 near Oravil1e. A"shear
zone
in the Foothills Fault` System is on -trend with the Chico
mono -
ono-cline
el liewhich is a Young: fold in Tuscan rocks that, is ;responsible
for the
straight eastern edge of the Sacramento Valley north
(Nand, to a lesser extent, south) of Chico. This, together with
modern, low-level seismic activity in the ;foothills between
rOroville
and Chico Suggests that the Foothills Fault System
continues along the eastern foothills of the Valley toward Red
Bluff.
A zone 1 to 6' milds wide of small faults and fractures ex-
tends throxgh the Tuscan Formation from near Peng to east of
Red Bluff. It lien west of Paradise and east` of Chico, and in -
eludes the ;eastern half of the Neal-Esq,uon site, A recent -study
of this
zone by Harwood et al (1981) .led to these con elusions:.
(1) Faulting in the zone is post -Tuscan younger than 3.3
tmi=llionY aye �rs old, because
i no faults were found that cut only
the lower part of the Tuscan'.
®
I�
(Z) Faulting didnot occur as a'single episade, but developed
Progressively, in post-T-Uscan time evidence is seen in the; .f act
-100-
Lydon page seven
March 15, 1082
The accompanying geological map depicts numerous faults
and fractures present in the eastern 'half of the site, They are
visible on aerial photographs as thin lines (lineaments) of
vegetation or trees, or as tonal changes caused by shadows in
sharp clefts or differences in ground moisture. The ease with
whish such lineaments can be seen depends on a number_of factors,
t
including the year, time of year, and time of, day during which"
'the
the photographs were taken. Thus different photographs of
same area Will not show exactlrj the same lineaments. Lineaments
on the geological map were compiled from Harwood et <„l. (1981)
and from 1967 and 1975 black- and=white aerial photographs.
Nine of the several lineaments were found to have fault
'ranging
offset when examined in the field inc
g g from 2 hes to 3
ft. Many of the other lineaments were also examined, but it
p y Evidence
was not assible to determine whether the axe faults.,.
of faulting usually must be found in canyon walls, where the
stub-horizontal layers of the Tuscan will show an offset where
crossed by a fault. One can conclude that offset is not present
only when layers on both sides of the likely position of the
possible fault are fully exposed. 'Lineaments almost always cross
canyon walls at the bottoms of small or large gulches that
typically are filled with fallenrock debris (talus), `soil, or
thick vegetation. Tht»s, while it cannot be, proven at the present
time that other faults exist among the lineaments, prudence
dictates that all the lineaments should be considered faults
until 'firm evidence to the contraty can be developed.
i � �d
Lydon c .
page .nine
March 15, 1982
Subsidence. Rock types present on the property are of a t' pe in
Which extraction of subsurface fluids should not result in 5ub-
sidence (widespread loWering of the
. ground surface),This
con=-
elusion agrees with that of the County General Plan (�iap 111"1
Butte County 1.977),
Loss 'resources;
of mineral 'there is no evidence Of mineral de-
posits on the site. MUdflow and sedimentary layers of the
Tuscan Formation can be quarried as a source of road -base
material or general fill. Removal of any part or all. of the
site from potential quarrying will not, advexxsely affect the
regional supply Of such. material because of extensive outcrops
beyond the site boundaries:
Eros, -,Ion. Soils mapping (Mallory and Powell 1980a and 1980b)'
indicates that erosion hazard i.8 slight over most of the site,
for slopes less than 30 percent, when vegetative cover is re-
moved: Although field examination in general supports this
I
contention, erosion of disturbed ground could be moderate
locally, so that d welo ment
A practice should avoid leaving
large tracts in.a disturbed condition for fang periods of
time. Compaction and r.e5hap1119of disturbed areas, adequate
water -:carrying, and disposal features on r oads , and revegFrta-
tion are appropriate possible mitigations.
Special measures might have to be taken if disturbance
of slopes greater than 3Ci percent is contemplated,
The only exception to this generally low -hazard evaluation
concerns stream -bank erosion in the Modesto Formation, Along ,
loVver Nance Canyon, the stream in several places impacts against
-105-
Lydon page tee
March 15 1982
inear
-vertical banks. Erosion occurs by 'undercutting and r.,ol]aP se,.
of small segments of the bankThus, at any site where a bend in
t'he.Stream is confined by a, steqp bank structures ;hoUld;be
,placed away from the bank a distance equal to several titles the
bank height.
The 'Modesto Formation in the northwest corner of the
property is a relatively --soft material that probably would erode
fairly severely during severe rains if theheavy growth of trees,
brush and grass now present were to be removed.
Volcanism. A generalized analysis of volcanic hazards in the
-
United States (Mull neaux 1976) shows that the property might
be covered by 5 to 20 cm (2 to 12 inches) of ash from a "large"
eruption in the Lassen Peak area, A "large" er'uptian would be
one erupting g
p about: -four tunes as much material
n al as wase -erupted
in the May 198.0 eruption of Mt. St . Helens. The probability
that such
an eruption might affect the site is very low, because
�.t wou d require that a large er
q upton, itself an unlikely event
coincide with unusual due north high-level winds.
Hazards that might, os.e_ a significant icant problem
Degradation of water caua,lity. Failure of septic -tank leachfield
systems commonly results in degrading the quality of surface of
subsurfacewater. Proper Xuh et ibn'ngL of leach fields requires_
adequate soil depth, 'low slopes,' and appropriate_Percolation
_
properties of the soil.'
Soils mapping (Mallory and; Pow '11 and 1980b), con-
by
firmed' field- examination shows that most soil on,the site lacks
-106-
.
Lydon pag e twelve
March 15a 1982
Flooding and Prior drainage. Dur.3'ng periods of heady xain, tem-
porary local flooding ,can be expected along the stxeand q Nance
Canyon and its principal tributaries;, on the. upper Modesto
Formation in the northwestern corner of the property;_ and along
the bottoms of most shallow ravines and-gulches. On many
relatively-flat areas, including ridgetops; temporarily-boggy
conditions exist during the rainy season;, resulting at least
in part from small_, ephemeral seeps,;
� g • include location of
Po." �sa.ble mitigation tmeasures shoutd,
structures,away from perennial and temporary stream courses, and
careful attention to site drainage around any structure:
_Landslides I and rockfalls. The Tuscan Formation in general is not
1
subject to landslides. None was found on the property, and map-
ping ;of the Tuscan in the footkills around Chico (Harwood et al.
1981) shows very 'few landslides elsewhere. IIowever, rockfalls,
p
appear to be common. A xockfall is the ra fid fall, at least
partly throtigh air, of one or more blocks of rock. Erosion•-
resistant, Cliff-forming mudflnw layers in the Tuscan Formation
typically, are underlain. by softer, mo re easily erodible layers
of sedimentary rock. As erosion of the :softer material proceeds,
mudflow layers are undercut until. material in small cliffs breaks
away. along near-vertical fractures and tumbles downh ill.
it is common to see small., boulder-sized pieces of mudflow
material- scattered over, the surface of the 'lower, gently-sloping
sedimentary layers;. Ijudh debxis must have been loosened, one or
Aho hi her cliffs and then rolled to
tWoblocks at a time,, from g
its present positioxa.
--1,Q8-
�
it
7 7 7
Lydon page fJ fteen � l
March 15
1982`
by vibration. Lurching and slumping which are mostevere in
loose', granular soil or along steep unsupported streEtm banks;
results in the formation of mounds, depressions, and arge
cracks
by vibration. Small masses of 'rock that are on the vi�-rge of
falling sometimes can be s. aken hard enough duriizg an,' earthquake
to result in a rockal`!.
Because the loose, sandy, clay-free types of sail most sub-
ject t0 liquefaction', lurching; and slumping are not present on
the Property, except perhaps immediately along in or
perennial stream courses, secondary earthquake effects are
generally not a significant hazard on the property . Sty,°uctures
shouldbe set back from steep stream banks (as along the stream
Of lower Nance Canyon) a distance equal to at least 2;, or 3 times
the bank height. Mitigations for potential earthquake-induced
rockfalls are the same as described in the section on landslides
and rockfalls. "
Ground-shaking severity depends mainly on the strength of
the earthquake,, its distance from the affected site, and the
nature of the rock and soil at the affected site. Strength is
expressed as magnitude (Richter scale), and severity of damage
in inhabited
areas is expressed as intensity (Modified Mersa'1 l '
1,
scale).
Significant earthquakes q es in the- region around the Property
include one`of M (magnitude) 5.7 6 mi, northwest of Stirling City
in 1940, M 4.6 east of Chico (about 6 mi north; of The. Skyway) in
1966, 5.?
and at Palermo in 1975. Earthquakes for whicha
m gnitude
A
NJ�
op
i.
A
-Al 6--
14IOBILE 'SOTJRCE 8MYSS IONS ANA.L,'YSIS
This analysis follows the vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
approach to determine total mobile source emissions which,
could result from develop ;ment,of the Neal—Esquon
property.
Factors involved in this approach include total project-
gene,ated vehicle miles traveled (.ADVMT-Average Daily titehicle
Miles Traveled) and a composite emission .factor `(CEP) which is
representative of the vehicular mix of the :area. Results' are
in the form of average daily emissions for total Yzydrocarbr�ns
(THC), carbon monoxide (CO oxides of nitrogen (NON), sulfur
dioxide (SO2),; total suspendedparticulates ;(TSP') and lead
(Pb)' _
Total vehicle ;miles traveled (ADVMT) is based upon the
estimated number of trips generated, by theL project and the.
average length of these trips. At 50 percent buildout, this,
p=ro;ject would generate 16,,048 trips per day Vvith an average
trip length of. 5 Milos: Accordingly, project generaticd traf-,
fie would result in approximately 80J 249 ADVIvIT.
Composite
emission factors for the project area; are
upon provided by t;he Butte
aControl
CountybAir��Pallutiontri ct for the year 2000 and
are based on an average countywide vehicle MIX.
Composite Emission Factors ('gm/mi)
2000`
THC CO NON S02 TSP Pb
x,41' 12.51 2:6i 0.04 0.39 0.02
Table 4`i shows the estimated mobile source emissions
for 2000 with 50 percent buildout of the project site.. Total
estimatedcountywide emissions are also shown. Project goner-
ated emissions represent an increase of 1.6 percent in Butte
County mobile source emissions,for the year 2000
'.FABLE 4--1
YEAR 2000 ESTIMATED MOBILE SOURCE'EMISSIONS (lbs/day)
(5Q% Project Buildout)
Source THC CO NON S02 TSP Pb
ProjectTraffic 250 2;236 463 60 69 3.5
Countyride
Traffic 15:771 ].41, 096 20, 2043,804 4, 364 224
Project as
�
of Comity ` L6 1.6 1.6
-Al 6--
r
Although. full
' buildout of t'he site ,18 not expectedbefore
2000, Table 4-2 is
included to show, the, ,poten,ti,al maximum im-
in 32, 096
pact of the Maximum buildout would result
'project.
trips per day. Ari
average trip length of 5 miles would
result
in 160, 480 ADV1iT.
TABLE 4-; 2
YEAR 2000 ESTIMATED MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS (lbs/day)
(100%
Proj cct Bu.ildaut
Source THC
CO.NOx SO2 TSP
Pb
Project
Traff is 500
4,472 926 120 238
7
Countywide
Traffic 15,777
141,096 29,04 3, 304 4,364
224
Project as
01a of County 3.2
3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
3'.1
-117-
SECT !�N NU&1�6ERa OIP
8TATIQNARY. SOURCE CONTROL REGIMATIONS;
Y
ni EFFECT IiY BUTTE ~COUNTY AS
`, ER l; 19'i8
OF S1,PTEMB
EMISSIONSOURCES
SECTIO:i
EMISSION SOURCES
SECTION
NUMBER b
NUMBERb
'
Permit S�pstein
Emission of', Sulfur
Authority of Construct
�+-1 , 4-:2,
or Nitrogen Comi�ounds
Sulfur Oxide Emissions
2-1,4
4-4.
Permit to Operate
4-1., 4-2,
Fuel® Burning Equipment.-
4-4
Sulfur Compounds
!�
New Source Review"'
4�$ to 4-7
Scavenger Plants
Sulfur.C.ontent`,6f 'Fuels
Particulate Matter.
Visible Emissions
2-2
Sulfuric Acid Plant's
Grain Loading
2-5
Sulfur Recovery Plants,.
2-].3
Process Weight
2-4
Sulfide Emissions
Geothermal Opetations
Combustion Contaminants,
Solid
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions
Disposal of
Fuel Burning Equipment-=-
& Liquid Wastes
Fugitive T;ust
Fuel Burning 'Equipment
3-1
NOx
ltitrir Acid Plai�tu
Abrasive Blazing
Ot'he Rule__
'Nuisance
2-1
Coke Ovens
-
Circumv,2nti.on
2--15
,!
Burning
2'..8
Separation-Combination
I Open Fires
3-1
of Emissions
2-16,
Orchard Heaters
Agricultural Burning
3-2 to 3-1.7
Monitoring
2-17
,'n erators-
Incinerators
Pathological Inciner-
Source
Source Sampling
anon
Source kec��rding
Reduction of Animal
Equipment Upset &
Breakdown
Matter
Burning of flood Wastesah�il
2A-1 to
Public Avail �ity
2A-18
of Data
Mechanized BurnettEmergency
Episodes
Organic Compounds
Storage of Organic
NSPS
NESl�APS
2-12:'
Liquid &Gaseous Air
Liquids
Gasoline Transfer
2-L2
Contaminants
Organic Liquid Loading
Flotirine Compound
Organic SolventsEmissions
Lead Compound Emissions
Effluent Oil-Water
Monoxide
SeparatorsCarbon
Gasoline Composition
Permit Fees
4-3
Asphalt Air Blowing
Organic. Gas Emissions
a ;S'ecton numRer r fei`s to
that found in Rules e._ s and Regu7.��tions. Refer
to
Appendix E y
b Emi"scion source categories followed by no section number are presently un-
regulated or do not exist in Butte County at prEisen"t:
Source! t tte County APCp,
1,515 and 1978.
__
UAL
AMBIENT AIR Q ITY STANDARDS' IN CALIFORNIA*
AVERAGING
POLLUTANT TIME
CONCENTRATION
AGENCY..
■
Oxidant 1 hour 0.12
ppm
Federal
Carbon monoxide (CO) 8 hours 9 pp (1.0 mg/m3)
Federal-
1 hour 20 pp C23 mgfm )
State _
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)' 1 hour 0.25
ppm
State
Sulfur dioxide (802)** 24 hours 0.05
ppm
Total suspended
State
annual
particulates, (TSP) geometric 60 ug/M3
mean -
state
24 hours 100 ug/m3
State
-Late
.Lead(Pb) 30 days 1.5 u 3
g/m
State
Sulfates 24 hours 25 ug/m3
State
Nan-methane 3 hours
_
hydrocarbons (NMT?C) 6-9 a.m.) 0.24 ppm
State
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 1 hour 0.03
ppm
State
Visibility reducing 1 obser-
Particles
vaion
State
*The table, shows only the most stringent of the Federal or
California air quality standards. Federal
standards are
be exceeded more than once per year;not to
'Cal:Porn;ia standards;are
never to be equalled
ox' exceeded.
*'*In September 1 1977, the State Air Resource
adapted anew 502 air quality standard,�'The
stand.axd�is(ORQ5 ppm
during 24 hours in combination With oxidant l;eve,ls
over the State
onehoux standard of 0,10 ppm or particulate matter, in excess o
the State 24-hour standard o1
100 ugm3
***In sufficient amount to reduce the PP
to less than 10' miles. �ailing-visibility
r, _
.® -:
. .
x � ��
� � ��
,,
I I �1 .'' '
r '
SURVEY FOR RARE.ANP ENDANGERED SPECIES OF VASCULAR PLAN,
BETWEEN DECEMBER 30,'1981 AND JANUARY 30, 19821 ON AppRO C-
r
MATELY .b00 ACRES OF p(tCJPERTY OWNED BY THE' -:PARROT CORPORATION,
BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Habitat.
A.
r
The property, which is bounded by the Skyway and Neal Road, the east border
of Section 31 (Hamlin Canyon Quadrangle), and partsof Highway 99 and Qurham
®;
�!(Foothill
Road southeast of Chico, contains three basic habitat' types,; All the habitat types
Woodland, Valley Grassland, Riparian) have been m+�dified by extensive
grazing of caltle and sheep: Elevations range from 180 feet at the west end, to
1015 feet at the.east end, with relatively steep canyons and bluffs occupying the
east central area; The canyons are traversed by what appear to be permanent
streams, but many ephemeral streams also =occur hrou,ghout other areas of the site.
Several sets of power lines cross the property, primarily from north to south. Some
rock fenc es occur on the property; particularly toward the west end. Rocks have
r,
also been used to form corrals, although one toward the southwest portion of the
site also contains lumber, and a small trailer is parked by it: A few jeep trails
have been blazed 'throughout
the area; access to them` is via locked gates on both
the Skyway and Neal Road. Evidence of p0ormanent dwellings was hol-r observed,
Introduced
vegetation characteristic of heaVi?y grazed areas. occurs throughout'
GI l parts of the property, and flocks of both cattle and sheep are currently present:
Foothill Wood land
This habitat type, which is noted for its predominance of dirgcr pines and blue
oaks, is well represented. Other woody species; present include interior _live oak,
California bay, California black oak, Valley Doak, California buckeye, snawberry,
coffeeberry ' pipevine, bush penstemon, manzoni'ta., 166' kbrush, wild lilac, clematis,
poison oak, elderberry, buckthorn, wild rose, ants others. Native herbaceous species
that were identifiable in clovers, bicoloredlypine, silver bush lupine, woolly,
sunfI'Wer, wild iris, rattlesnake weed, NuPtd!1%bedstraw , goldback fern, several
lircdiaeas, purplegodt,tia, horkelia miner's lettuce, and others:
-1.21
4'
CHECKLIST OF 'VASCULAR PLANTS THAT WERE IDENTIFIABLE DURING THE
DECEMBER 30, 1981
-.JANUARY 30,
1982 SURVEY OF THE PARROT PROPERTY
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Trees, Shrubs and Vines
Elderberry
Sambucus mexicana
glue. Oak
Quercus douglasii
California black ;oak
Quercus kel.laggj i
Scrub oak
Interior I ive oak,
Quercusdumosa -
..'
Quercus.wislizenii
Oiggerrpine
pinus sabinidna ,
.,..._....-, ...,.,�.
B u ckbrush
,
Ceanothuscuneatus
Wild lilac.
Ceanothus integerrjrmus
He� teromeles arbuiifr 1 i,C
'Buckthorn
Caffeeberry
Rhamnus crocea
Rhamnpjp,aUfornicd
Wi l d rose.
-------_...
Rosasp.
_.
Poison oak
Toxicodendron diversi`Labum
Verba Santa
Manzan
Eriod�n californicum
i to
Arcfosta�hylos spp.
Pitcher "sage'
�"•
Lepechig cal c no
®
Clematis
Cle� meati$ lasiantha
Bush monkey flower
M+'4 talus blf� dus
Gaping penstemon
Penstemon breviflorus
Pipevl
Anstolochacal ifornica
Hazelnut
Cur ius sp
;Snowberry
S mphoricar os Nvuu oris
Mountain,mahogany
Cercoc� amus beta oides'
Rodbud
------,...,_
Cercis ocdjdentalis
CQ I fprrtta bay
Umbellularid calforo pica
Wild honeysuckle
Lon icera spy
Gooseberry
Ribes ,p.
_ —1 4—
t
1 5*
(:OMMQN NAME
SCIENTIFIC' NAME"
Herbaceous Pldnts
Big heronb i l l
Erod Fuin botrys
Red -stemmed I i1aree
Erodium cicutarium
White -stemmed filar ee"
Erod_ium moschatum
._
Vo. ley sky lupine
Lupines valI rcola
Bicolored lupine,
Lupines bicolor,
Silver bush lupine
Lupines albifrans
Wild buckwheat
Erlogonum'nudum
Goldback fern
Piurooramma mon ullaris,
Bl'edis'foot fern
Pell.aea mucronata
Paris bedsfirow
Ga�I um Egrisie�ns
Of mman bedstraw _
Gal um a 'arine
Nuttol I's bedstraw
Galium nuttal 1 i i'
Wild geranium
Geranium;,mohe
Cutleaf geranium
Geranivm dissectum
Clover
Trifol ilim spp.
Common chickweed
Stell aija media
Purply godetia
Clark,lo purpurea
Hansen's clubmoss
Selaginella hanseni
Harvest brodiaea
Brod aea "elegans
Blue dicks
---,-rns
Dichelostemmat�l�kella
Many -flowered brndiaea
Dichelostemma multiflora
Grass nuts
Triteleia taxa
Twining beodiaea
Dich'eI0stemmo volubile
Mouse -eared chickweed
Cerastium vulgatum
Cocklebur
Xanthium strumarium.
Star thistleCel�taurea
solstitial is
^moi n
Leisingia
Lessingia nemaclada
Common hedge parsley
Toril s heterophylla
iBlue
Buttercup
Ranunculus sp.
curls
Trichostema lanc(-,Olatum
r
t7
6.
,
NAME
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC
Herbaceous Plants (continued)'
Fitch's spikeweed
Hemiz�onia fits chi
Umbrella sedge
Crperus escu�lentus�
Klamath we
Hypericurn erf�oratum
Cudweed
Gnaphalium sp.
Old man of spring
Senecio vulgaris
Milk thistle
Silyhum mari_ia. um,
Shepherd's purse -
Capsel(a burrlarpast�,oris l.
California sooproot
Chlor'ogalum pomeridianum
Mistletoe
Phoradendeon sp.
Bird's foot trefoil
Lotus ;humistratus
Small-flowered lotus
Lotus micranthus
Vetch
Vicia sp.
Wild sweet pea
Laurus SP
Horseweed
Con za sp.
Mullein
Ve rb�ascam, th� apsus
Snakeroot
Santis la bi inrata
Larkspur
Del phinium sp,
Coothi;ll colt Inka
Collins;a parsiflora vat. b�ruuccae•
Woolly sunflower
Erioph II_m Iancztum
Miner's lettuce
Montia perffoliata
Spring monta
Montia verna '
Tansy ';navartetia
Navarretia ta�etina
Navarretia
Nav� arretip sp'.,
Peppeegrass
L um n tidy um
Windmill pink
5ilene gallica
Horkel is
Horkel a tridentatum
Lowland shooting star
vlu
Dodecatheon' clevelandii ssp. pcm
Hendee"son's shooting star
Dodecatheon hand ersonii